The Daily Morning Astorian

There are a few inaccuracies in the fine presentation made by the Hillsboro Independent this week of the Astoria proposition which we hope that able paper will clear up.

In the first place, the statement is made that Astoria claims the saving resulting to the inland farmers in shipping their wheat by way of Astoria rather than Portland would be $500,000. Instead of $500,000, as great a sum as that doubtless seems to the Independent, and really is, the Astoria contention, based upon the statistics of wheat exports from the Pacific coast, as published in the Oregonian, is that the total saving to farmers would approximate $5,000,000. The Astorian can show and has shown, by the Oregonian's own figures, that the saving on this year's crop would exceed $4,000,000. With the larger shipments that would undoubtedly go out of the Columbia river, if loaded at Astoria, it is entirely reasonable to put the annual saving at $5,000,000 or over.

Another error of the Independent is in suggesting as one of the factors in the Astoria situation the relative cost of rail as contrasted with inland ship navigation. The Independent is misled into this error by the frantic efforts of the Oregonian to divert discussion from the real merits of the case through frequent assertions that wheat can be sent down the river in ship bottoms cheaper than by the A. & C. railway. Every well-informed person in Astoria knows that this statement is not true; but since it does not concern the real question at issue, the Astorian has refused over and over again to be drawn into its discussion.

What Astoria contends is that the railroads should deliver wheat at the mouth of the Columbia river at the same rate charged to take it from interior common points over the mountains to Seattle. We argue, for instance, that if wheat can be carried from Pendleton to Seattle, over 5,000 feet of mountain grade, and fully 108 miles further, at the same rate charged by the O. R. & N. to send it over its down grade to its own steamers at Portland for trans-shipment to San Francisco (at an additional charge to the farmer of $2.50 a ton for the water carriage) the O. R. & N. can make a fair profit by continuing the wheat on the down grade to Astoria, only 100 miles further from Portland—AND EIGHT MILES NEARER THAN TO SEATTLE—for the same rate; and that if the wheat were so delivered here it could be loaded directly into export ships at a charter rate so much lower than that charged at Portland there would be no profit in taking it to San Francisco, BUT THAT IT WOULD BRING NEARLY, IF NOT QUITE, THE SAN FRANCISCO PRICE AT THE MOUTH OF THE COLUMBIA. This is the Astoria proposition.

The Independent's attention is also called to the last published statistics of the quantity and value of wheat shipments from Pacific coast ports. This statement can be found in the Oregonian of April 4, 1899, and was republished in the Astorian. It shows that during the month of March this year wheat brought three cents a bushel more at Seattle than at Portland, and 11½ cents more at San Francisco than at Portland, and that on the shipments made foreign out of the Columbia basin in the month of last March alone the farmers lost nearly $200,000 because Portland is the seaport instead of Astoria. Another serious error in the Independent's otherwise admirable article is in giving the channel between Portland and Astoria at 25 feet of water. The maximum depth of the Portland channel at highest moon tides is only 22 feet. In referring to the depth of navigable water the rule is to give the depth at mean low tide, and under this rule the river channel should be stated at 18 feet, as that is the mean low tide depth at no less than two places—Tongue Point and Pillar Rock. We ask the Independent to refer to this important subject again and to make the corrections here indicated.

The whole northwest is interested in this vital question and every influential newspaper should enlist into its discussion.