San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1890-05-03
HE TRUE INWARpNEss.

| GuaJ mas YET appeared, having any
bearing at all upon the question o
deep water on the Gulf coast of Tex
as, recently appeared in the Denver
Republican and was reproduced IL
the Galveston News of last Tuesday
| This article affords valid reason fol
the expenditure of so large sum as
a quarter of million of dollars, by
the Galveston deep water lobby, and
justifies that expenditure, or even th&
outlay of a much greater sum. The
point of the article is that the expen
diture of s., 200. 900 at Galveston will
so boom the town that if the effort tC
secure deep water at that point is in
| effectual, as is not improbable, the
town will have so grown in import
ance during the slx-and-a-half years OF
effort, in which one million per annum
will lie expended by government,
that congress will be compelled to
continue the appropriations and
secure deep water, no matter how
many millions may be sunk in the
attempt. This presentation of the
matter affords food for very serious
reflection. The article in question
was written by some one who was
evidently we'll affected towards Gal
weston and was forecastlpg its future
as the outlet and gulf terminus of rail-
way lines reaching southwark from
Denver itself. The writer conveys
the idea very plainly that the passage
of this bill, and its becoming law, will
direct the attention of all railway
lines towards Galveston that are
looking for business in the South
west, and give that city an advantage
which would handicap every other
city in Texas, and, as the writer says,
make of Galveston the Denver of the
gulf. All this is pre-eminently right
and proper for Galveston, provided
it. is brought about in a legitimate
way, but it is grave question if in
ducing the government to boom Gal
weston under the specIOus plea of
opening a deep sea passage across
her three mile bar is a legitimate way.
The language of the Republican is
peculiar.
"Admitting that ultimately it will
be discovered that the deep harbOr
cannot be secured in this way, the
town will, anyhow, in the meantime
have enjoyed boom if the apprOpria-
ton of Sc, 200 900 be made. 1t will
have a boom upon the prospect of
securing a deep water harbOr by the
expenditure of this amount Of money.
At least the town will, in that event,
have attained to so much Importance
that circum stances will compel the
government to make a deep harbOr
there, regardless of what the cost may
be-"
The meaning of this is plain. Gal
weston is making very uncertain
effort for deep water. She is making
a very certain effort for the expendi-
ture of Sc, 20O, 900 of the nations money,
in the expectation that failing to
secure deep water the expenditure of
81, 100000 per annum for six years will
so boom the town that congress cam
not refuse to continue this eXpendi-
ture of 81 900 900 per annum for an in
definite period. Under this view of
the case would it not be well tor the
house of represen tatives to pause be-
tore committing the national treasury
to the supply of such an inordinate
demand. There are hundreds of well
informed people III Southwest and
Western Texas, people thoroughly
posted on this deep water question
and deeply interested in successful
solution of it, who do not now and
never have believed that deep water
could be secured and maintained at
Galveston; but, these people did not
think that Galveston shared this
opinion, and gave that city and its
Colorado friends credit for an honest
faith in the success of the ett)rt for
deep water at Galveston. The article
from the Denver Republican, from
which the above is a brief extract,
gives grave cause to doubt the faith
of Galveston and her friends in the
successful outcome of the deep water
effort, and gives reason to question if
the expenditure of 81 100000 per an
mum of government money is not the