St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-07-28
THE RIVER CONVENTION.

The New Orleans Times-DemocTat |
doesn't take kindly to the St. Paul river
convention. 1t sees in it the beginning of
a movement which will ''break up the Mis-
sissippi valley into small and opposing fac
tons" 1t was not expected that the con-
vention called to meet here would meet with
the approval of the lower river region. Nor
was it intended TO. 1t was just because
the lower river region has been ''hog-
ging the persimmons" in the way of appro-
priations that the Northwestern states find
it necessary to combine for the protection
of their own interests. The expenditure of
a hundred millions of dollars on the lower
river doesn't help the Northwest any until
the upper river is opened. 1t is not pro
posed to rob the lower river of its dues, but
it is proposed to secure TO the upper river
what's the just share of the appropriations
for the improvement of the Mississippi. When
the proposition was first mOOted that the
Northwestern states should hold a cOnven-
ton at st. Paul, the lower river section
came forward with the apparently gener-
Gus suggestion that il be made a cOnven-
ton of all the states interested in the i'm
provement of the Mississippi. The effect
of such movement as that would have
been to have left matters just where they
are, only little more SO. For the states
interested in the lower river improvement
would have outnumbered the Northwest
ern states, and would have adopted resO-
buttons asking congress to continue the ap-
preparations just as they are now made,
and we would be worse off than we are at
present from the fact that the convention of
our own calling would have left us out in
the cold. AS it is. we have our own inter
ests exclusively to look after and there can
! be no diSsension.
When twas found that our people were not
| disposed TO extend an invitation only 20 those
who had interests identical with our own
the lower river people set to work to head
us off by calling convention In advance of
MS. How near they came TO success is told
by the Times-DemOcrat. 1t says: when
the st. Paul convention was first discussed,
there were not few papers in the North
west-and among them were to be found
the most bitter enemies of river improve
ment of any kind-whch wanted it re-
stricted to the Northwestern states; which
insisted that the lower river had got more
than the upper from congress and that the
only way to obviate this was for the North
west to break free from all entangling alli-
ances and fight 'on its own hook
These people, however, did not appear TO
be in the majority. for the ST. Paul cham
Der of commerce appealed to the executive
committee on Western waterways for in
dorsement and approval of the proposed
convention, asking that the committee issue
a call for it. In order to take the sentiment
of the valley on this subject, the various
commercial bodies of the river towns
were written to. All of these, with
the exception of st. Louis and Kansas
City, mo st cordially approved the project.
In order to obtain the views of the two
Missouri cities on the subject, Mr.. b. ID.
WooD, chairman of the executive commit
tee, went to St. Louis. While there con-
suIting with the commercial bodies the call
of Gov. HUBBARD for a convention of the
Northwestern states was issued. This ap-
parently shut out the Southern states. many
of whose cities had agreed TO send delegate:
to the convention. In order to fully under
stand the situation Mr.. WOoD telegrapheC
2 to st. Panl to know whether the call coulC
not be made broader: that is, extended 81
as to include all the Valley states To thi
a reply of No was sent"