Los Angeles herald., 1892-09-08
DEEP WATER HARBOR.
SOME UNFAIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST
SANTA MONICA ARREsrED.
Correspondent Discusses some Mia
taken Assertions Recently Made
by Contemporary-some
Strong ReasoninE.

~eiAn6 soo P"se tch uayrs anu IL may Do
safe to say that some who have read all
the articles published find themselves
in more uncertain state of mind than
they were in the beginning.
As q sort of summing up of the case.
as far as argued, the Express of last
night and the HERALD and Times this
morning each treated this matter elito-
rally, and thousands of readers have by
this tune mentally digested the harbor
pabulum, with such relish as their nre.
dilections would permit. The Express
makes quite concession to Santa Mon
lea, by even conceding that the best
place should be selected, without regard
to fear, favor or previous preference.
The HERALD, after a careful survey of
the situation, claims that Santa Monica
is the best place, which conclusion. it
seems to the writer, is amply fortified
by the facts. The Times claims to hold
the scales of justice with fair hand,
but anyone can see that the down
weight is given to San Pedro.
Your morning contemporary SAYS
that, outside of certain engineering
| problems involved, there are some gem
eral questions of commercial expedien-
cy which will no doubt have hearing
on the selection of the harbor site, and
which the general public are perfectly
able to discuss. This is correct.
Upon this basis the Times has ad-
mitted many communications into its
columns, on both sides, and now takes
a hand itself.
The writer desires, through the me-
dfum OF the HERALD's columns, to no.
tice few of the points made by the
/ Times.
| That paper presents the two claims of
Santa Monica and San Pedro, as re-
CARDS distance, both from northern
ports and from Los Angeles. It is i'd
mitted that Santa Monica has the ad-
vantage in both respects. In rebuttal,
San Pedro's claim is published that it
will be nearer to the southern ports.
when the Nicaragua canal is completed,
and that the distance between the city
and old Santa Monica caf1on is about as
great as the distance from the city to
San Pedro. Ge
1t is true there is not much stress to
be put upon the sailing distance. There
! is this difference, however, in favor of
Santa Monica: There will be a greater
frequency OF vessels coming from the
north, and the character of the freights
will be such as to require quicker de-
livery than from the south. As regards
the land distance from the proposed
harbor site to Los Angeles being about
the same as the distance from San Pedro
to the city, it is not truthfully stated.
There is difference of at least miles,
which will be 10 miles the round trip
| for each car.
1t ia, therefore, not easy to see, as the
Times states, that the arguments upon
these points ''seem to be about q
stand off,"
Santa Monica's being better site for
city than San Pedro. everybody
| recognizes; also that the lands lying
between the city and the sea are better
adapted for settlement, and that the
city is growing towards Santa Monica.
But the Times thinks there is little ad-
vantage in this. as it would not be
expedient to haul goods up from
tue wharf by drays! That paper
then adds that this work will be done by
railways, and railroad fiom San Pedro
to the city will be as reliable as from
but the distance from Santa Monica will
be five miles shorter, or ten miles for
the round trip.
admits Santa Monica has the advantage,
and then enters upon what it regards as
the main point in the discussion of the
harbor site. 1t is in the form of an ital-
ioized query, as follows:
''Is any individual or corporation to
have monopoly of this deep-sea harbor
when it is constructed ?"
This is very proper question, but the
Times hardly deals fairly with it in it's
eurmises and comments. It is trua the
Southern Pacific hae "peculiar advan-
tages" here, but it does not follow that
that corporation is to monopolize the
situation. If this is the best place for a
deep-sea harbor, it can be legitimately
utilized in manner that would prove
most beneficial to all the railways, as
well as the public at large.
The Southern Pacific company cannot
monopolize this harbor, if constructed.
The organic law of the land, the consti-
tuition OF California, provides, in article
l5, sections l, 2 and 3, that the right of
eminent domain exists to all frontages
to navigable waters in the state, ETC.:
that no individual, partnership or cor
poration, claiming or possessing the
frontage or tidal lands of harbor, bay.
inlet, estuary or other navigable water
in this state, shall be permitted to ex-
clude the right of way to such water
whenever it is required for any public
purpose, ETC.. that all tide lands within
two miles of any incorporated CITY or
town, etc., shall be withheld from grant
or sale to private persons or corpora
tions.
In article IL, section II, it is provided
that any railroad shall connect with.
intersect or CROSS any other road, etc..
and shall receive and transport each
others passengers, tonnage, etc.
Under such laws, it is difficult to see
how any railroad or wharf can be shut
out from this harbor.
But this is not ALL The Southern Paci-
fc.does not, as the Times says, cover the
shore line. That road has a 5O.foot
right of way in front of portion of the
town, and instead of there being not
enough room for another track, as the
Times says, there is ample space for two
more tracks.
Nor is it true, as the Times saye, that
the Southern Pacific has cut off other
roads from reaching the harbor by
skirting along the table land facing the
cafion. There are no engineering diff.
culties here.
The writer has merely indicated the
weak spoints in the editorial of the
Times this morning. The people of
Santa Monica only ask for fair deal.
and all are ready at any time to resist