New-York tribune., 1902-02-14
PACIFIC CABLE FIGHT.
MR. CORLISS OPPOSES CONSTRUCTION
BY \ PRIVATE COMPANY.
IRY TELEGRAPH To THE rRInuNE.I ]

TRIBUNE.
Washington Feb. 13-Representative COrliss, of
Michigan author of the bill which provides for the
laying of a government cable from San Francisco
TO Manila. made his first presentation of the case
to the House to-day. Mr.. Corliss. who is bitterly
opposed to the construction of a cable by private
companies. has mapped out rather original cam
.paign I'm Offering his side of the argument He
has divided the different aspects of the situation
into six chapters. TO be argued from day to day in
the battle that he will wage against Congress
granting any concessions cable companies.
notably the Commercial Cable Company The
right to construct cable lines Mr. Corliss said
rs public utility franchise held byathe peo-
pie. Its control is inherent right of the nation
No one has a right to lay cable without permis-
sion of Congress There is no law In existence
der which cable lines may be laid
The special acts under which Congress author
ized private companies 20 lay cable then
enumerated, and Mr. Corliss said that. while these
acts conferred privileges on the companies named
they contained provision of a general character
on the subject and the scope of such legislation had
been positively determined by the Department of
Justice, which held that the permission given by
Congress applied only TO interior lines of telegraph
with points of communication within the United
States. and not TO ocean cables This procedure
Mr. Corliss explained, was not confined the rul-
ings Of the Department of Justice. Congress in
the joint resolution annexing Hawaii expressly re-
served to itself the right control the public
main On this point Mr.. Corliss said:
Congress has assumed the right TO control the
construction and operation cable lines in Alaska
ana has authorized the Secretary of War to estab-
ilsh commercial business such lines II is
important to note that in this act il was expressly
provided that no telegraph cable lines owned
or operated or controlled by persons not citizens OF
the United states or by any foreign corporation
government shall be established in permitted to
enter Alaska.
Mr.. Corliss then described the conditions estab-
hshed by President Grant under which ca bic lines
mad been laid, but never with the direct authority
or the President. IL order to prevent the estab-
LshInent or an offensive cable monopoly President
Grant threatened to employ the army and navy to
resist the landing of a French cable In 1863 com
peling the company to agree to certain conditions
people before II was permitted TO proceed. He dd
not assume the power to grant permission lay
communication TO Congress for their COnsdera-
uon-a communication fully covering the matter
In the opinion of Mr.. Corliss, this demonstrated
the absolute power of Congress control the lay
ing OF cables, and he quoted from an opinion of
secretary Gresham, who expressly held that the
president had no authority to grant permission for
the laying OF cables without AUTHORITY OF Con
gress This position I'm full accord with the
opinion OF ms predecessors In the State Depart
also sustained by Mr. Olney when Attorney
General.
was discussed at some length by Mr.. Corlss. who
said that the proposal II had made to Lag Pacific
cable was full OF sinister notifications which he
could best expose in the deadly parallel In com
pairing the conditions laid down by Grant and
Blaine. and those offered by the Commercial Gable
Company Mr.. Coriss said the company evaded th,.
any foreign government such privileges as would
prevent the establishment and operation of the
tion, and by the insertion of a carefully wOrded
clause sought TO disregard the provision expressly
for the purpose OF regulating rates Mr.. COrlss
said such surrepttious action was employed by the
Commercial Gable Company solely in behalf of its
English ally. In whose interests IL made applica-
tInn to lay IA cable