The Dalles daily chronicle. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1890-1948, 1892-10-07

and harbors and the house conferees,
assailed the boat-railway project most
bitterly and quoted Gov. Pennoyer's S let
tiers and read in the conference com.
mittee extracts from democratic news
papers in Oregon opposing boat railway.
With his, (Mr. Blanchard's, y approval, if
not at his instance, a paper was circu-
lated in the house and quite numerous
ly signed by members threatening to de-
feat the river and harbor bill unless the
Washington canal and the boat-railway
project were eliminated.
/ knew nothing of Paul Mohr's scheme
prior to the adoption of my amendment.
l supposed his project was still upon
paper only. He wrote a letter to Sena-
tor Squire, which was turned over to the
committee, in which he stated that his
company had already expended $420, 1000
upon his project, that it had three miles
of track and were ready to proceed with
the work. knew this was an exaggera-
tion; but when Mr.. Mohr came to see
me about the matter, told him that l
did not desire to interfere with any i'm
provement of the Columbia river
and would have my proposition
amended so as to do him and
his company as little harm as posi-
BILE; that would have the secretary of
war authorized to agree with his COM
pany for right of way over the right of
way secured for the boat railway or for
a right to use the tracks of the govern
ment road. He said that would reduce
their damages compensation, for loss of
business on the Columbia by reason of
the construction of a boat-railway. L
told him that such claim was prepos-
ferrous. He said he would go to New
York and consult other parties interest
ed with him, about my proposition but
he never reported.
In his letter to Senator Squire he
claimed that his company had purchased
the work done upon the north side of
the river by the Northern Pacific Rail
way Company, and had become the
successor of all the rights of the Wash
ington Railroad Col think that was
the name of the mpany-an organiza-
ton created and maintained by the old
o. S. N. Co., and the Oregon Railway
and Navigation Co., to hold the right of
way at the dalles upon the north side
of the river.
I concluded, and leave it to you to
say whether the conclusion was just,
that Mr.. Mohr could never have secured
those interests for the purpose of the
construction of railroad and that his
scheme was simply in the interest of
those who desired to prevent the open
ing of the river, and probably said so
to the conference committee. Some
member of the committee told him this
and he sent me letter threatening me
with his indignation, which / read in
the senate and said in my public speech
that if he had anything to say about me
he could say it on the house-tops.
In violation of the rules of the senate,
the morning the report of the disagree
ment of the conference committee was
to be considered in the senate, he placed
upon the desks of senators and repre-
sentatives a document full of falsehoods
and representations and it became
my duty to answer it. This brought
out the malicious and scurrilous letter
circulated among senators and represen-
tatives, which he tried to have published
in eastern papers without success and
which was published in a paper in this
city. This was the penalty l paid for
my fidelity to the interests of the people.
Mr.. Blanchard, urged on by Governor
Pennoyer, succeeded in defeating the
measure. 1t was constantly asserted in
the committee that the project would
defeat the bill in the house and that
further delay would defeat the bill. 1
held on to the measure until 1 began to
fear myself that there was danger of the
defeat of the river aud harbor bill and
until l could not ask my colleagues
longer to stand by the measure.
1 then, in order to remove all possible
objection to the plan for this improve
ment at another congress, secured pro-
vision for the appointment of a new
board to consist of seven engineers,
der to overcome my prejudice against
army engineers, to examine and report
location and plan for the Improvement,
with an appropriation of SIS 900 for the
payment of the expenses of the board.
What more could any one have done?
will examine very briefly the grounds
of attack against me. First, it is said
that boat-railway is impracticable and
will result in keeping the river closed.
The answer to this is that board of
eminent engineers from the army have
reported that boat-railway is not only
practicable but the most economical and
efficient improYement: that I did not