The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-05-14
CALIrORNI4Ys AROUSED.
Opposition to {. +, Ifuntington's Schei
fora Deem Water Harbor.

Opposition to {. Z. Huntngton's scheme
fora Deep Water Harbor.
WASHINGTON. May l3.-Speciai.-The
fight in the Senate over the approDria-
lion Tor the harbor at Santa Monica,
California, Is causing no little criticism
OF tho Senate Commerce Committee. and
especially OF Senator Frye. the Chair
man, who is making the light Tor the
appropriation. whether the criticism IS
just or not, the fact remains that santa
Monica harbor which 30 is proposed 10
improve "a = COT Oh $5,gU,lyy, is 81 private
harb0r.
The water front IS owned absolutely ~
Senator Jones, OF Nevada, and &. l..
Huntington, Al the controlling represen-
tAuNe OF tho Southern Pacific railroad.
There Is great deal o. truth in the as
sortiOn Of Senator Frye that Air. Hunt
ington's connection with vast enterprises
on tho Pacific Coast should not pre-
vent the establishment tAele OF a har-
Dor which will benefit the commerce OF
tho world. AT the same time, however,
the fact that this commerce. Ina order 10
DO available. must depend upon Mr..
Huntingtou's railroad, would seem 20 be
"a sufficient reason for Withholding public
money until such arrangements can be
perfected as VIII enable other railroads
and the public generally 10 reach the
harbor without having 20 secure permis-
sion from tho California railroad mag
mates.
ALL CALIFORNIA OPPOSED.
The entire California delegation. includ-
ing both senators. oue OF whom ~ @
member OF the Commerce Committee. are
opposed 90 the Improvement o. the Santa
Monica harbor. and ask that a harhor be
H. .N...Ha ttrHf-
ter front is owned absolutely by the
State.
In the House. when the bin was being
considered by the River and Harbor Com
mttee. the California representatives
made n strong effort 10 secure an APP
preparation for the san Pedro harbor.
At the Same time The representative OF
Mr. Huntington asked the committee for
an appropriation to- build a brcak-Water
at Santa Monica.
no MONEY FOR 4 HARHOR.
IT IS understood the House Committee
refused 10 consider the Santa Monica
proposition. and di1 consider the San
Pedro proposition They concluded. how
ever. that IN the present condition Of the
public finance The establishment OF an
other harbor on the Pacific Coast was
not so urgently needed as 10 justify the
appropriation Of several million dollars
al this time.
In addition to this. the report Of tho
Government engineers on the two harbors
was adverse 20 Santa Monica and I'm IA
v0r Of San Pedro When the bin reach
ed the senate and was sent 10 the Com
mittoe on Commerce. the California sem
ators. although ono IS a Democrat and
the other a Republican. united i'm m ef-
fort 10 secure an appropriation FOR San
Pedro and I'm opposing am appropriation
for Santa Monica, when they round the
committee waa seriously considering the
latter proposition.
AMPLE GROUND FOR CRITICISM.
These facts and circumstances would
seem 20 furnish ample ground for the
criticism TO which Senator Frye and the
others who favor cxpendng 100000 in
constructing n hreaf-watcr 90 protect Mr..
Huntngton's wharf II does not ahso-
lntely satisfy the public when senator
FRYE dlrlaims any personal interest IN
the matter nor do his references 10 Mr.
Hntlngton's successful efforts 10 develop
Newport News quite explain why public
money should be used 10 improve pri-
vafe property.
II is understood the House will fsht the
Senate provision aud if tho assertions
NJ tho California representative are tue
There seems to be every reason why such
a fight should he made