Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-05-20
TWO TEXAs HARBoRs.
galveston aud the Mouth Of the Rrazos
Contrasted-Compnrntivc Cost
and Other Features.
Forr WORTH, MAY IL. iSsI.


and Other Features.
Forr WORTH. May IL, 1851.
To tue Editor OF the Gazette.
! have heard very considerable talk
and read innumerable letters and ed
itorials ON the necessity OF harboro on
the coast Of Texas. All who have dis
cussed the subject publicly seem to
labor under the impression that Gal
weston is the only available roint,
when in fact II is almost the least
available. This congress made an APP
Precipitation of S350,000 to carry ON IA
work ut Galveston, which after ten
years experiments and an expendi.
ture of 81 800, 900 has proved an entire
failure.
Why not try some other point-the
Bra2os river for instance. Now, let us
compare advantages. The only tan
gible reason that ] have heard adj
vanced in favor of Galveston ia
that there is city of
about 10000 inhabitants on that
island, who have not yet discovered
the fact that il is not the state of
Texas.
will enumerate a few of the disad-
advantages of Galveston as harbor
for the state:
!. Galveston harbor is too small to
accommodate the present commerce OF
the city with fourteen feet GU entrance
at high tide.
.. The wharf monopoly has been
so well exposed by the Galveston News
that ii Is unnecessary TO enlarge ON
the subject here.
g. Galveston is situated on an island
about six feet above mean low tide,
and at its nearest point Is two miles
from the main land, with no connec-
ton with the state of Texas except by
two railroad bridges owned by phi
waite corporations, and as experience
| has shown liable To be washed away
at any time.
4. The total length of wharf front IL
about one and one.fourth miles, and
the width Of the harbor insufficient to
turn one of the large ocean steamships
now plying between Liverpool and
New York.
). The distance across the bar TO be
deepened is about four miles, and the
work of deepening declared by the
United States engineer corps TO be en-
tirely experimental, and successful,
what is gained? Nothing; as no more
shipping can then be accommodated
in the port than at present. the har-
Dor being now run during the cotton
season to its fullest capacity.
g. The length of time necessary to
try this experiment, which Capt.
Eads tells us will cost $780,
900, not including the cost OF
making harbor of sufficient capacity
for the prospective trade of this great
and growing state.
Z. Ten years of the commercial life
of this state has been lost, and we do
not appear to be any nearer the desired
end.
/ could mention many more, but
will rest Oh these, and now give few
facts showing the advantages of the
mouth of the Brazos river;
/. 1t is situated about forty five
miles southwest OF Galveston, conse-
quently that much nearer the center OF
the coast of Texas.
p The distance from the shore line to
the crest of the bar Is only l,S0O feet,
from which point it deepens very
rapidly. See Col. Mansfield's report.
3. Inside is natural harbor OF
about fifty miles in length, its width
varying from $50 feet to 800 feet with
depth of from twenty to thirty-iiye
feet, susceptible of being dredged to
any width and depth without danger
of filling, giving 100 miles of wharf
front, perfectly land locked, and
surrounded by the finest agricultural
country in Texas.
4. No wharf monopoly is possible
nor city company, as the space Is toe
-. L., a,,..raI hu aithnr
5. The city would be ON the main
land, consequently no monopoly In
transportation.
q. The surrounding country is above
overflow and capable of producing al
The necessaries of life at u cost within
| the reach of the poor. How much
; cheaper would living be here than n
Galveston,
Now for the most important points
viz. the cost, and length OF time re
: auired to do the work:
A responsible contractor OF three
times as much experience In this kint
of work as Capt. Eads ofleIs to guaran
Tee twenty-five feet of water
, Inn water no pay iol
! s3O0. 600, less than per cent. of ~,
/, .5O. doc, aud only $4,000 more thar
!, the same appropriation by congress
! and Indignantly refused by the "Gal
weston deep water committee" as en-
! tirely insufficient tocarry on the Tex
: neriinentp for another fiscal year.
As to.the length Of time required Z
dn lie work, IL might be said that
!, 5000 600 is the actual cost OF the worl
NJ the mouth OF the Brazos, ant
i 81 40 600 the cost at Galveston, IL ]
. reasonable to suppose that, one bein;
I lees than one.twentieth of the other
Q the lesser could he completed In one
! twentieth OF the time, or nearly 80.
Why not appropriate the $50. 0M
y and SD. 900 more, for work which 4
. one wear will solve the question at u
y cost. il unsuccessful, ana II successful
d will give Tex as the best harbor In III
> Sont6, New Orleans not excepted?