The San Francisco call., 1896-04-02

ment of the s'inner'' harbor at San Pedro,
to cost $685., 600, as recommended by the
board of Government Engineers, was not a
subject of controversy, and it was under
stood that this improvement was desired
by all Southern California people and all
the railroads terminating at Los Angeles.
Senator White, who addressed the Rivers
and Harbors Committee several weeks ago,
with Colonel II. G. Otis and others, who
were here TO urge the improvement, made
this statement, and Huntington, who was
present, did not contradict it.
1t was generally understood that the
Southern Pacific would not oppose Inner
harbor" improvements at San Pedro;
neither would it urge its Santa Monica
project. Representative McLachlan of
Los Angeles, by his energy and influence
with the mem oers of the Rivers and Har-
bors Committee, succeeded in securing
from them promise to insert an appro-
pr1ation of 1892, 900 for Improvements on
the inner harbor at San Pedro. This was
done and McLachlan was greatly elated
and received the congratulations of his
friends and colleagues; but, TO his amaze
ment and the astonishment of the entire
California delegation, it was discovered
that Huntington and his agents had been
at work, and the Committee on Rivers and
Harbors had appropriated $4,000 to COM
mence deep-harbor project at Santa
Monica, which would have ultimately cost
So OO0,OO0
Huntington's work had baen done so
quietly that no one had any idea of what
he was about. His agent, John Boyd, had
approached the member. of the committee
and reported to them that the California
delegation as well as almost the unani-
nous sentiment of Southern California
| people favored this Santa Monica improve
ment. The com bine friendly to Hunt
| ington was not hard to influence and the
| item was inserted.
| McLachlan was afraid to antagonize it,
| for fear that it might defeat his appro-
| priation for the ''inDer" harbor i'm
provements at San Pedro. He endeav-
o-ed to induce his colleagues from Cali
fornia not to antagonize the Santa
Monica appropriation; but Bowers, Ma
guire and Barham did not heed his wishes.
The former went before the committee
and protested strongly against any money
being appropriated for Huntington har-
| Dor, declaring that the boards of engineers
had reported adversely TO it, and Southern
/ California people were almost unanimously
| opposed TO it, and were in favor OF San
| Pedro. Judge Mcguire and Representa-.
| tive Barham also talked with individual
| members of the committee.
Representative McLachlan was in a
! frenzy of rage to-day. and was very bitter
| in his denunciation of Bowers and Bar
ham. He declared that Barham had no
| business to interfere with Southern Cali
| fornia affairs. He INDUCED in some very
intemperate language when he referred to
the work of Barham. The latter said TO
The CALL corresp spondent to-day:
| Last May | visited both San Pedro and
Santa Monica for the express purpose OF
| informing myself as to the relative merits
of these rival sites, and from personal OBJ
servation concluded that there was no
comparison between them; that San
Pedro was, by all odds, the best place for
| the deep harbor. | attended meeting at
| Los Angeles at which Senator White and
| Representative McLachlan were present
and when, in answering TO the toast Cali
| fornia.' / mentioned that / would favor
| San Pedro for harbor, there was enthu-
sastic applause from nearly 2000 citizens
| who were at that meeting. This convinced
me that the sentiment was for San Pedro.
Several days ago members of the
| Rivers and Harbors Committee said to me
that Huntingdon agents had approached
| them and represented that the California
delegation and California people generally
| favored Santa Monica. I told them the
truth as 1 understood it and have no
reason to regret it. But did not appear
! before the committee, for / have 400 miles
of coastline in my own districts, besid es
| several rivers, TO look after, and did not
seek to interfere with Southern California
affairs. Mr.. McLachlan seems TO hold me
partly responsible for to-day's result, and
although he admits that I correctly stated
! the attitude of our California people he
blames me in part for defeating San
Pedros appropriation"
Senator White said to THE CALL CORE
spondent tonight: II was very much sur
| prised to learn that San Pedro's appropri.
alton had been stricken out, merely be.
cause an objection was made TO the Santa
Monica appropriation. The Government
engineers, California's Representative:
and both Senators favorlng San Pedro and
opposing Santa Monica would seem to
leave an impartial committee but one
course to pursue"
Another member of the California dele
CATION said: THE River and Harbor Com
mittee seems to be completely subservieni
to Huntington's wishes. The fact thai
ne or two members of the California
delegation (or the entire delegation
for that matter) demonstrated against
any appropriation being made fol-
Santa Monica was no reason for striking
out the provision for the inner harbol
project at San Pedro. They were separate
and distinct propositions and were in ne
way related. 1t merely shows that Hunt
ington is a power, and dominates more
than one committee of Congress. / had
believed until to-day that the Southern
Pacific was not opposed to the San Pedro
inner harbor project, but now am of the
opinion that Huntington had his So, ,000, 90,
Santa Monica item inserted merely to Kill
the San Pedro appropriation. 1t is posi-
BILE that Huntington will attem pt TO have
his Santa Monica item incorporated wher
the bill reaches the Senate. Frye, ths
chairman, is his friend, and can do abou
as he pleases, but in conference COMMITTEES