The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-03-01


Fight for the Northern Route.
The decision of the house committee
on commerce to recommend the con-
struction of Pacific cable beginning at
San Francisco is not to be wondered at.
Such influence as can be exerted by and
upon the committee was In favor Of the
southern route. We have yet to learn
in this section of the country the inn
portance of keeping good men in con-
gress after we get them The rage for
office keeps us represented perpetually
by new men. each of whom has to begin
at the foot OF the ladder; to establish his
personal relations and to take the lowest
place on committees. Meantime the
communities that are represented by
able men who have been long in the
service and are powerful on committees
have everything their own way.
This, however, is a matter that
should not be permitted to rest upon the
decision of any committee. The fight
for a cable by the northern route should
be carried into the house and contested
stubbornly at every step. 1t Is fight
for justice. for economy, for commercial
advantage. 1t Is a fight in which all the
facts and figures are on our side. The
country is already measurably we'll In
formed upon the merits of the question.
large number of influential news
papers at the East which have no bias
for or against any city on the Pacific
coast have declared themselves in favor
OF the northern route. on a showing
Of the facts. The defeat of the original
ed by an exposure Of the attempt to use
the resources of the country and the
commercial necessities OF It's people 10
favor certain great interests, shows
what public opinion can do. Let the APP
peal to 1t be made in behalf OF the
northern route for Pacific cable.
why should there be any doubt Of re-
suits when the facts are known? How
can the powerful interests centered at
san Francisco control legislation and
direct IL away from the line of the pub
lie welfare? We believe frmly that a
constant iteration, on the floor of con-
gress and through the public press. of
the comparative claims Of the two
routes, viii end in the defeat Of the
southern project TO saddle millions Of
unnecessary cost upon the cable COM
pany. The northern line requires. with
Russian and japanese connections. less
than 5000 miles Of cable. The southern
requires in round numbers 10000 miles.
The latter VIII cost between $4,000. 900
and n5.00o. 900 against 100000 for the
former. These are considerations that
no member Of congress can afford TO
overlook
These facts are reinforced by null
tltude Of others bearing upon ease of
construction and cost 81 operation that
are unanswerable The argument of
commercial utility "a also unAnswerabie
our growing trade is with China and
Japan, and telegraph communication
with them is Of the first importance, II
Is easy enough 10 connect a cable 70
their coasts by way 81 Alaska with the
Philippines a san Francisco cable by
way Of Honoiulu and Guam leaves a
Chlna-Japanese line as essential as ever
And the tolls by the former must remain
forever immensely greater than those
charged for service over route in
volving distance SO much shorter and
a cost for construction - much less.
As the Philadelphia Record said very
aptly some weeks ago in discussing this
question. THE prize in sight for trans
Pacific cable Is not the transmission ot
war dispatches. bat the Asiatic business.
which Is enormous in value" The
military and naval use ~ the cable viii
Dig comparatively small. and even the
executive dispatches passing over e h
our distant possessions must De triaing
IN volume when compared TO the mighty
commercial demands upon Sc that WIFI
follow the development 90 ou- oriental
trade. I; is this commercial use that