New-York tribune., 1900-01-14
AN AMERICAN PACIFIC CABLE.

An elaborate argument against an all-Ameri-
can telegraphic cable across the Pacific Ocean
has recently been made by a writer in "The
Engineering Magazine" and is being
published in pamphlet form. 1t is based on the
ground that the proposed route from California
to Hawaii, TO Guam and to the Philippines is
long difficult and costly. while one along the
Alaskan coast TO Russian Asia, to Japan to
Formosa, TO the Philippines, is shorter easier
and cheaper. The correctness of those premises
may well be challenged in more than one re-
spect. For example, the writer comedies the
need of a cable frcm California TO Hawaii,
which should be laid even if it is carried no fur
ther and If the Alaska-Siberia-Japa route is
chosen for the transpacifc line Yet he
charges the length of that cable against the all
American route, but not against the America
Russo-Japanese route. Again, he charges the
former with line from Guam to Yokohama, of
which there is not the slightest need, since Ma
Mia is already connected with Yokohama and
all business with Japan might properly go that
way If, then, we deduct from the all-Ameri-
can route the 2,403 knots from San Francisco
to Hawaii, and the 800 from Guam to Yoko-
hama, reduce it from the 9,942 which he
charges against it to only 5,734. For similar
reasons may deduct from the $3.50 knots
of the northern route favored by him the 200
total TO $3.50 We shall then find a margin OF
only 3S4 knots in favor of the northern route
instead Of the 1892 figured out by its advocate
So much for the argument as to length of cable
The argument as to cost fails to q considera-
bic extent with that as to length Of cable. With
a difference Of less than per cent between
the two routes in distance the difference in
cost could scarcely exceed 10 per cent at most
instead Of the 300 more set forth in the ar
ticle in question There remains, then the ques-
ton Of ease and safety. The advocate Of the
northern route dwes upon the disadvantages
of deep sea cables, the danger TO the shore ends
of them from anchors dragging currents and
storms, and the consequent necessity Of making
those ends heavier and more costly, and the
difficulty OF making repairs IT is, we believe,
matter Of record that most accidents TO cables
necessitating repairs occur TO the shore ends of
them, in comparatively shallow water-a fact
limited at indeed. in the reference already
made 10 the dangers that beset those ends.
Now the northern route proposed has nearly
twice as many shore ends as the equatorial or
all-American line, Moreover, its shore ends,
looping along the northern coasts, would be es-
peciaIy exposed TO danger from currents ice
foes. storms, and what not. That argument is,
therefore, decidedly in favor Of the alI-Ameri-
can line. Nor must we neglect the argument
as 10 freedom from cutting in time Of war.
We are told with apparent seriousness that
British Pacific cable from Vancouver would be
in awful peril from the desperate pirates who
swarm in the Fuca Straits, And yet cable
looping along that same coast and along the
Siberian and Japanese coasts would be immune!
We are gravely told, too. that the reason the
United States found so much difficulty in cut
ting off cable communication with Cuba was
that the ables ran 10 neutral shores and that
Admiral Dewey had the same trouble at Manila,
because, while he did cut the cable-which,
by the way. ran to a neutral shore-he could
not shut out messages brought in by boat! That
Is not argument. 1t is farce.
With ali the arguments against the all-Ameri-
can line and in favor of its rival thus hope
essIy discredited. there remains the one great
argument In favor Of the former and against
The latter which is indicated In the very title