The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-10-21
40 tAe Editoe q Ths rosk.


fully ask for space IN your valuable paper
| 10 which 70 reply 10 an editorial in your
Sundays issue. feeling that injustice Is
done me therein by impugning the motive
| OF my remarks on tho subject Of Hon.
! Thomas II. Balls record IN the matter OF
the Improvement OF Buffalo bayou. made
in the address In which opened my cam
paign, as ! can hardly reach that portion
| OF the public who read the editorial IN
| question through any other channel
Referring to that portion Of the criticism
regarding the Advertisement Of Captain
Richie. for bids for work TO be done on the
Galveston ship channel and Buftalo bayou,
! ! reply that ! remember 70 have read In
The Post some weeks since, substantially
the same statement which Is reproduced
IN said editorial. Notwithstanding. I must
complain that my Ignorance concerning
bayou improvements was about as dense
after as before reading said published
statement 1t utterly faia to Inform an
anxious and deeply interested public as to
the extent and character of the improve
ment proposed by tbs engineer IN charge
TO be made in division Of said scheme.
! Il fails TO inform US Us 10 whether or not
said proposed Improvement win begin at
the north end Of Morgans cut aud extend
northwardly from there TO four miles
through the proposed La Porte "laud
| Locked bnrbor to q depth OF twenty feet,
| or begin there and extend twenty miles
uorthWardly, and be e1cavated 10 u depth
or ten feet, OF whether SiU4OOO OF SJOuUJJ
] out Of the appropriation Is proposed 10 ue
expended on division =. 1t must be ad-
| united that The Post left us In the dark
regarding the points which are Of most
| interest and Importance to toe public OF
| houston and tho country tributary there
! to,
! the point regarding division p about
/ which am ignorant, and about which
] tnere Is not aud tan not be any doubt
I -, that under the law OF tue matter, which
/ Is tho Galveston ship channel aud But
! falo bayou" item Of the rivers aud nar-
bors bill, approved June -, 1907, pages
| IS and 30, which reads as fOiloW5 Gal
| weston snip Channel and HuHao Bayou,
! Texas. Continuing improN enleHt. S3CQUOO;
| provided, that contract OF contracts may
ha entered into By the secretary Of war
Tor such materials ami work a. may be
required to prosecute said Improvement, To
bt PAID Tor Us appropriations may from
coed in the aggregate SIuU,UJJ, exclusive
OF the amounts herein aud heretofore np-
propridted lhc amounts hereiu approplI-
( Atcd ana authorized shall be expended IN
/ developing the proposed channel ia dlyi-
SONS and TO uniform depth. PRO
! vided turthcr; mat not more than one half
] % sall amounts shall be expended upon
] division . That Is Ia say, tnat not more
] than $4,000 OF said appropriation can
under nuy conditions or circumstances be
/ expended IN division No. 2 between La
Porto aud Harrisburg Whereas under
/ SAID item 1.-THE law ot the easel, ana fur
iher. ~ the discretion OF the secretary %
/ war, ihe entire appropriation may lie OK.
] pended upon division No l. between CAL
weston icttics and La Porte without any
! right % power ON the part Of Houston TO
! Now Mr. Editor. in the iirht Of tho
/ foregoing, was I not justified In declaring
.hAt the Jaw leaves us 70 graphic. with
/ the tutnre as to what portion of said APP
cciyel'
= In this connection will the esteemed
! Post pardon me for inGuiring why, When
| Mr., Ball. upon his return TO Texas. after
| the adjournment " congress last summer
was being hnnuueted and prcsnted with
handsome testimonials nv tho people or
Houston. why did not The Post demon.
strnte To tho pcople the weight OF obpl
Cation they are under To MIR. Rail by puh.
fishing said Galveston ship channel and
festive favors were IN consideration Of his
'tncnlculablc service to them IN securing
such q nunlhccnt APPROPRIATION for their
The editorial complains that In snying
that Mr.. Bnll DISCOURAGED II he did not
lsplrn, the nroncrcd assistance OF our PEG.
Injustice Is done MIR, Rail Aud contiuu.
Ing, SAYS there Ia not the slightest
foundation for this charge. So far from
discouraglng the assistance of our people
hc, on the contrary. solicited II upon al
occasions when necessary" (There's the
rub Mr. Ball could not appreciate tho
necessity and received much assistance
from a few "A very few During the last
session or congress. after securing the
adopuon Of the million. dollar Item, Ito
he expended MS stated ahovel nv the house
cummittce, Mr. Ban wrote 10 the local
| committee that II would not he neces.
sary 10 send any committee to Washington
until the bill reached the senate, hut that
he would be clad To have assistance at
that timr, Did Mr.. Ball when tho bill
reached the senntc. ever notify any Of our
peoplc, democrats or republicans. that tho
time had arrived when. even II not needed,
assistance from them would he acceptable
10 himf II he did Tho Post failed 20 40
inform an Interested hubble.
Again. pertinent INQUIRY right here is.
why dld Mr.. Boil express q wish To have
. 4 committee go on to Washnftou at the
timc when the hill would he before the
senate. q hodv which had In the former m.
, pFoprlation bill increased the Appropriation
70 Ss.Ooo.oOO from S25OOO0 the best MIR.
Ball could get 10 the house although he
, rivor ana harhor committee? n surely can
not be possible that he wanted to so lobby
the senate as 10 prevent his ability aud
| inuucnce being AGAIN oVershndowed In thnt
body ~ having his anpropriation increased
eight fold
The last assertion In this editorial critl.
Clsm' charging an outrageous distortion 81
the real facts relative TO this matter. IL as
follows III this were nolitlcal cues.
ton, and not ono In which every citizen
IN Houston and Harris county irFespPctiv q
or political ndinltieS or Affiliations IS a..
rectly and vitally interested. Il might do
% pass this over as the plav OF a candi.
GATE seeking personal or uarty advantage;
ssssSsSSssssssssa ssSeOoooos