Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-03-23
REAGAN ON DEEPWATER
he Is Champicnine No BIZ in Fsyor Of
Galveston or Any Other Locality
On the Texas Coast.
Hs Is Working For the State and Wants
Marrow MiDdedness and sslfishness
Put Aside in This Matter.
Special Correspondents Of the Gazette.

L
tlons before the people Of Texas it is SAT
TO cay that the matter Of deep water Ia C
pre-eminent interest, and hence the ut
tersnce of aay expressions in regard I,
II from go distinguished o citizen o
Texas as Hon. John Il. Resgsn canno
'eil to be worth the serious consideration
Of the people. Some dsys ago the Corpu
Christi Caller, not understanding Judg,
Bees an's true position, printed the fol
| lowing:
| Senator Res gan's proposition to Introduce
separate bill, asking CONGRESS to appIopriat
8, Geo, ooniinPent upon no state of Texa
making total Of s7,6oO, 900. for deep water q
Galveston is arevivAl of GalVesfon's old graf
| IN ew To- n. The people of Texas will no
submit tc II, when deep wa:er can be'ecured q
come other port for tenth nf he amount anC
In much less tim ) than at Ga weston. TDis IL
| concentration with q vengeance. Il wonlc
| unfair, unreasonable and profiigaIe waste
OF government " ON No Congressman with
Ihimbleful Of brains would advocate It,
REAGAN's REPLY
The following is duplicate of Senator
Rsagsn's reply addressed to the editor Of
the Caller;
WARRINGTON, D. O., March 9, lsss.
& sitor Of the caller, Corpus Christi, Tex.
cut and inclese slip from the edito.
rial columns of the Caller Of March 8, for
the purpose Ct calling your attention to
the Injustice which is done me by that
paragraph, and by another which appears
in the same column.
The Texas Senators and Representa-
tives were called together for considera-
ton with Messrs. Hancock, Giddings and
Moody to consider some project for OBJ
tai0iDg deep water on the coast Of Texas.
In all the conversation that occurred that
evening, do not think single person
mentioned desire that whstever should
be done, should ba done with exclusive
reference to Galveston. Every expires.
sion in relation to the obtaining OF
deep water on the coast OF Texas,
either by the committee or by the
members Of Congress, had reference
to Obtaining 1t at the most practicable
point. In the conversation about This
subject mentioned that deep and safe
naroor on the Texas coast was essential
to the prosperity OF Texas, and that If
such an harbor were obtained, great
commercial city would grow up as rapidly
snd more rapidly than did Chicago On
Lake Michigan, and that SO long as we
were without go0l harbor and great
commercial city, our people and their
commerce would be tributary o the com
merciel cities of other states, ana our
people would remain poor for the want
of such commercial port,
mentioned in this connection that a
deep harbor on the coast Of Texss would
be accessible to larger area Of country
than any other port would be on the
American continent; that all of
Texas, the Indisn TERRITORY, Kansas,
Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, An-
zons, with Western Arkansas and West
ern Missouri, together with the whole
Cverlspd trade from the Pacific coast
would be tributary to such point; that l
thought 1t an object worthy of the best
etforts Of our people to secure euch port
,nd such q city. / stated to this end that
4 had the power to control the sunj CT
would propose 10 Congress to give
81, 600, GOO on the condition that the state
Of I, xas would give $4,000 600, as 1 wss
Informed there were 81 O00, 900 If surplus
In the state treasury-tD secure the con-
struc,iun OF such hsrbor; that would
have the point for It's construction se-
appointed for tina. purpose, and located
It euch place ss, all things considers d.
would best accommodate the COM
,ercisl interests Of the state OF Texas;
cut added that l did not suppose tn
people of Texas would consent TO the
adoption of that plan. l also mentioned
hat, while I believed this committee
rom Texas were advocating the right
plan In seeking to secure one g'eat port
Tor the concentration Of commerce On
our coast, the members of Congress here
had to meet the expectations of the peo-
pie at ail points On The ceast, End that
they could not undertake TO select any
1ue point to the Dr. jadice of others. 1
lid not mention Galveston, and did no;
propose to direct the location Of suca
point, but to lasve it to an imDarliSi
BOARD Of engineers 10 select such place as
hey msy have seen proper.
SO yea will see that you have been mis-
Informed about my having made q propo-
sition to iatroduca and support
! bill asking Congress to sppro-
pirate S5.oG0,0o0 Go1tiugent upon
me state of Tsx.s Sppropristiug 81, $780,
700, msklUg total Of 81, 800 600 for deep
water al Galveston; ana you will zee tina
made 10 suggestion or revival Of whs'
7ou call &c tlveston's old grab in new
'orm." l trust your sense of justice viii
induce you to publish this statement,
With the extract l send from the Caller
What state to you is known to every
member of the Texas delegation and of
hat comm ttse to be true. do not know
how you could have gotten informauoD
u that kind. II must have come from
source that had as little friendship for me
Is regard for truth.
Ia the second paragraph Of your psper
Alluded to, you mention "fhst Rssgan is
s5,0o0,000 freeze-cut bill
, la Eds grab, Tut mat 1t will never
oass." You add 10 this, "PJor
Reagan must do something to keep mis-
name before the pablic." You had bet
Ter reserve. your pity for the people CT
Texas who have to suffer from the mar
row minded selhshness of those who are
INV Hing to adopt course which would
enable an impsrtisl selection OF great
port and city In Texss, which would add
countless millions TO the weslth Of Texas
and TO the prosperity Of her people.
Irepeat, there was not single sug-
yestion made In that consultation about
he selec ion of Galveston as the place
Tor that port, bnt every person who men
toned the subject mentioned tnat the
most svsilsble place on the cosst Of Texas
shonld be selected. Very respectfully,
JOHN 81 Reagan.