The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-05-14
THE F|FTY.FOURTHC CONGRESS
RIVER AND HARBOR BILL COM
PLETED IN SENATE, EXCEPT
ONE ITEM.
PACIFIC COAST DEEP SEA HARB0R.
Much Debate as to Its Location-Mem-
bers of the House Kindly Vote
Themselves 500 Month
Recess Clerk Hire.

| Washington, May S.-The river and
harbor bill was completed today in the SEN
ate with the exception Of the item for a
deep sea harbor ON the Pacific coast.
This aroused keen opposition, the two
California senators opposing the proposed
contract appropriation of S3,O9S,000 for
a harbor at Santa Monica bay, on the
ground that it is project fostered by the
Southern Pacific as against public senti-
ment and the recommendations of the
boards of army engineers.
Mr.. White of California commented on
the extraordinary condition by which the
commerce committee of the senate was
forcing an appropriation on the state
against the wishes of its senators, repre-
sentatives and people.
With the bond resolution out of the way
the senate gave it's attention to an ac-
emulation of minor measures and then
took up the river and harbor bill. The
amount for the Sioux City revetments,
| Missouri river, was increased from S1O,-
600 to $4,000.
| On point of order by Mr.. German,
the committee amendment was struck out
which provided that all persons employed
on river and harbor works shall be
selected and hired by the officers of the
corps of engineers in local charge of
those, works, in order that the officers
may be held to a strict responsibility for
a proper execution of the work in their
| charge.
The following amendments were made:
BY Mr.. Gray Dem.) of Delaware, to
permit regular army officers to engage
in river and harbor work: by
Mr.. Carter (Rep) of Montana, for a
dam across the upper Missouri river at
Stubs Ferry to develop water power;
by Mr.. Lodge (Rep) of Massachusetts,
for survey of Portland channel, Alaska.
This disposed of the entire bill, except
the reserved amendment for a deep water
harbor at Port Los Angeles, in Santa
Monica bay, Cal, and authorizing con-
tracts aggregating $2,99S,000 for the
work.
A vigorous contest was promised on
this item, the two California senator's,
Mr.. White and Mr.. Perkins, being OPP
posed to it.
Mr.. White offered an amendment for
the creation of a board of three officers
to investigate points of Santa Monica bay
and of San Pedro harbor for the purpose
of deep water harbor
Large eases were brought into the
senate and, maps of the Pacific coast
oIi 'hNih. w llH DDlultT Ill mana
| Mr.. w hite then proceeded to point out
the main points of the contests.
The senators and the people of the coast
wanted good deep water harbor Most
| of the harbors were poor ones. That at
| San Diego was too remote for a large
element of the commerce. This demand
Tor better harbor facilities led to the de-
yelopment of Santa Monica project. and
Senator Jones of Nevada built a railroad
10 Co,
| Il view to ultimate eastern extension But
| the road fell into the hands of the South
| Pacific railroad
Mr.. White then pointed out that a board
| of army engineers had recommended San
| Pedro as the desira BILE point for a har-
Dor. and that this recommendation was
endorsed by Chief Engineer Casey. OBJ
| lection was made to this report. and
through the efforts of Senator Frye
board headed by the present chief of en-
gineers. was appointed. Three points,
Rcdondo, Santa Monica and San Pedro
contended before this board, each ele.
ment being ably represented. the South
ern Pacific railroad being represented by
one of the best lawyers in California.
Eight of the foremost engineers of the
country recommended San Pedro harbOr.
| When this report reached congress moth
ing was done. The fight in behalf of
report had been made.
Mr.. White traced in great detail the
history of the subject. Taking up the
present status, Mr.. White urged that the
| two California senator's and representa-
tives from the Sixth California district
did not vote for the amendment inserted
in the bill for harbor at Santa Monica.
and said the overwhelming sentiment of
the people of the locality were against it.
~
nary and peculiar conditions" by which
the senator's and local representatives
from California were not consulted as to
| the proposed recommendation. 1t indi-
Gated that some extraordinary influ-
ence" had been brought to bear. The
senator commented on the 'persistency"
of the Southern Pacific road and de-
clared that this accounted for it.
Mr. White spoke of the surprise with
which he learned that the paragraph of
| the Santa Monica harbor had been actu-
| ally printed for incorporation in the river
and harbor bill, although the understand
| ing had been reached that there should
| be no appropriation for the inner harbor
| at San Pedro. The senator commented
on the recommendation from ''the third
| house." written by Civil Engineer Cor
thell, ian employee of the Southern Pa
| cific road
| ne selator repuulaleu tne Clalm Dy
COrthell that he made an official investi-
CATION" 1t was Mr.. Huntington whom
he served, and yet, Mr.. White said, ''the
committee had set aside the Recommended
tons of the army boards and had accept,
ed the recommendations of paid EN-
ployes."
Mr. Gray Dem.) of Delaware asked if
there was not some official recommends
ton in favor of the Santa Monica harbor.
"None on EARTH" answered Mr.. White,
"and further, this appropriation of &c.
99S,00O is proposed without an estimate
or recommendation"
! Mr.. George asked further questions.
'DO understand you to say that army
officers, sworn to do their duties, have re-
ported against the appropriation which
the committee recommends to the sem
ate?"
| 81 do
"And do understand that the two Cal