The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-09-19

Baseless as the fabric OF q dream, the arm.
ments OF the opponents of the Lake Washington
ship canal vanish into thin air before the
pointed statement OF Hon. Newton C. Blanchar
M. c., addressed to the editor of the Psess-
Times and printed below.
Congressman Blanchard has sat In five con.
crosses and 10 q member Of the present con
gress. He 10 chairman of the house Of repre-.
sentatives committee on rivers aud harbors
His statement 10 authorized, Is authentic and 10
final. It disposcs absolutely of the charges of
the enemies OF the Lake Washington ship canal.
The whole line of argument of the opponents
of this measure has been that the passage OF the
canal appropriation by congress necessarily de-
feated an appropriation for the Columbia river.
1t has further been persistentiy stated that:
Tristan appropriation made by congress for
one part OF the state necessarily initiates
against similar appropriations Tor other parts
OF the same state.
second-That each state has q specified
''Quota" or share in the general river and har-
Dor appropriation bill
Third-That when the states "Quota" OF ap-
preparations is exhausted that state will receive
no more appropriations until it has repaid its
quota" to the federal treasury in the form of
federal taxes paid.
The editor Of the Press Times addressed let.
ter to Mr.. Blanchard asking if the assertions
given above were true. His answer follows:
yours of the 9th ult, would say:
First-That the fact that an appropriation 10
made by congress for one part Of a state does
not necessarily initiate against similar appto-
priations for other parts of a state.
Second-Each state does not have a specified
quota or share in the general appropriation
Dill BY the general appropriation bill" l sup
pose you mean the general river and harbor APP
preparation bill
The river and harbor bill is not made up on
state lines. The different projects of river and
nnyia tod fnpn
their merits 1.-THE italics are Mr.. B!anchard's.-
Ed PIT j. taking into consideration the neces-
siiy existing for such expenditure Of public
money, the present and Immediately prospec-
tive commerce to be benefited, etc.
At the same time regard Is had to the size OF
the bill-not TO have il too large, keep it within
limits possible TO pass, etc; make il in this
sense a practical bill.
general regard, too, is had to states In this
sense-that states of equal water 'front.' equal
number OF projects OF improvements, equal
volume of commerce to be benehtei, equal de-
mand aud necessity for appropriations on this
line, should fare about alike.
Third-No such rule as here referred to. Yours
truly, n. G. BLANCHARD.
In view OF these facts the opposition existing
in Eastern Washington or elsewhere is shown to
be unjust, unwarranted and opposed to the gen.
eral welfare of the whole state.
Our readers are particularly requested to note
that Mr. Blanchard distinctly says, and en-
phasizes his statement by i:a.ici1ing il, tina,
tSst, .n~s1ts. That the present house OF repre-
senta;;ves did not approve of tho Lake WASH
ing;on canal we believe 20 be because OF q lack
OF knowledge OF its fun merits. and because the
house Ia overwhelmingly Dartizan and Demo-
cratic. The same statement applies to the rea.
son for failure OF the scheme to improve tho
Columbia river. That the one did no. ntegon-
Hize the other Mr.. Banch ard letter is su icenr
proof Tor any rational and impartial man.
For this cause 1T was emlnently fit and propor
for the Republican party to say In its pia,forrn:
"We condemn the action of the Democratic
house OF representatives in refusing an apprc.
priation for the opsning of the Columbia river
and :he Lake Washington ship esasi."
The Columbia river and the Lake Washington
ship canal today ara political questions because
they are OF vital Importance to this state be-
cause the Republicans have Endorsed aud tho
Democrats opposed them. There can DO no
shutting or evasion.