Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-03-19
REAGAN ON DEEP WATER
He Is ChanpioniBe No Bill In Favor Of
Galveston or Any Other Locality
On the Texas Coast.
BE Ia Working For the State and Wants
Marrow Mindedness and sslfishness
Put aside in This Matter,



pre-eminent interest, and hence the ut
teralce Of any expressions in regard to
1t from so distinguished a citizen OF
Texas as Hon. John n. Reagan cannot
fail to DE worth the serious consideration
Of the people. Some days ago the Corpus
Christi Caller, not understanding Judge
Reagan's true position, printed the fol-
lowing:
Senator Reagan's proposition to Introduce
separate bill, asking Congress to appropriate
S,CoJ,U00, contingent upon he state of Texas
aLprOp isting 81 59hC00 'or the same purpose.
making total of ST. 800, OOO for deep water at
Galveston is areylvsl of Galyeston's old grab
naLew form. The people of Texas will not
subm 70 IL, when deep water can be secured at
ZONE other port for tenth of he amount and
in much less TINA than at Galveston This is
concentration with a vengeance. Il would
e unfair, unreasonable and profilgate waste
of government mon y No Congressnan with
ihim5leful OF brains would advocate 1t.
RBAGAN's REPLY
TIE following is a duplicate OF Senator
Rasgsn's reply addressed TO the eci:or OF
lae Caller:
WASHINGTON, D. O.. March 9, 1855
+ itor Of the Caller, Corpus Christi, Tex.
l cuG aud irclese a slip from the edito-
risl columns of the Caller of March 8, Tor
the purpose Cf calling Your attention 70
the Injustice which is done me by that
paragraph, and by another which appears
ID tire same column.
The Texas Senators and REPRESENTA-
tiyes were called together for considers
ton with Messrs. Hancock, Giddings and
Moody 10 consider some project for ob-
ing &c p water on the coast Ct Texas.
IN all the conversation that occurred that
evening, do not think single person
mentioned = desire that whatever should
DE done, should be done with exclusive
reference to Galveston. Every express
s:o1 in relation 10 the obtaining of
dyeo waller on the coast OF Texas,
ether by the committee or by the
members of Congress, h.d reference
to OBJ slning it st the most practicable
point. Ia the conversation about this
subject mentioned that deep and safe
haroor 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 IS we
were without goo1 hsrbor and o greSt
commercial city, our people and their
commerce would be tributary % the com
mercial cities OF other states, ana our
people would remain poor for the want
Of such commercial port,
I mentioned in this connection that 8
deep ESrbor on the coast of Texas would |
be accessible to larger area of country |
than any other port would be on the |
American continent; that all of |
Texas, the Iadian Territory, Kansas,
Colorado, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ari- |
z1na, with Western Arkansas and West |
ern Missouri, together with the whole |
oyerlsnd trsde from the Pacific coast
would be tributary to such point; that l |
thought 1t an objeCt worthy Of the best |
efforts # our people to secure euch port |
and such city. l stated to this end that |
II l had the power to control the subject
I would propose to Congress to give
$1,000, 900 on the condition that the state
Of Texas you'd give $4,000, 900, as 1 WAS
informed there were 81. 900, 900 Of surplus
in the state tressury-to secure the con-
stTucdcn Of such harbor; thst I would |
have the point for its construction Sc
lec'ed by en- impartial board of engineers
appointed for that purpose, and located
ct such plsCe IS, all things considered,
would best accommodate the COM
nercisl interests of the state of Texas;
out added that l did not suppose ths
RCODAS Va 4G0a5 uOul1 SOuSGub " Liz
adoption of that plan. also mentioned
that, while 1 believed this committee
from Texas were advocating the right
plan ia seeking to secure one great port
for the concentration of commerce en-
our coast, the members of Congress here
hSd to meet the expectations of the peo-
pie at all points on the coast, and that
they c0uld not undertake to select any
one point to the prejudice of others. /
did not mention Galveston, and did not
propose to direct the location of sucn
point, but to leave it to an impartial
board Of engineers to select such place as
they may have seen proper.
So you will see that you have been mis-
informed about my having made propo-
sition to introduce and support
q bill asking Congress to appro-
pirate 100000 contingent upon
the State of Texas Sppropriating 50, $780,
900, making total Of 81, 800, 900 for deep
wRter st Galveston; and you will see that
/ made no suggestion or revival of what
you call "Gslveston's old grab in new
form" / trust your sense of Justice will
induce you to publish this statement,
with the extract 1 send from the Caller.
What l state to you is known to every
member of the Texas delegation aud of
that comm ttee to be true. LIDO not know
how you could have gotten information
of that kind. 1t must have come from q
source that had as little friendship for me
as regard for truth.
In the second paragraph of your paper
alluded to, you mention "thst Reagan is
q $4,000 freeze-out bill
a ls E1ds grab, but that 1t will never
pass" You add TO this, "Poor
Resgan must do something to keep his
name before the public" You had bet
ter reserve your pity for the people of
Texas who have to suffer from the mar
ro8-minded sel6sbness of those who are
to adopt course which would
enable sn impartial selection of a great |.
port and city in TexSs, which would add !,
countless millions to the wealth of Texas
and to the prosperity of her people.
Irepeat, there was not 8 single sug-
gestion made in that consultation about
the selec ion Of Galveston as the place
for that port, but every person who men
toned the subject mentioned that the !
most available place on the coast of Texas
should be selected. Very respectfully,
JOHN 81. REAGAN.
Situation In Mills County.