He was asked to continue his advocacy of that route, with the assurance that the enclosure was a mere earnest of what they would pay for it. 'Please to look at this,' he said; 'these people seem to think money the chief object of all endeavour.' He returned the cheque at once in a courteous note of thanks because he could not admit personal interest into his discussions of measures for the general good of the people."
In a letter to Jno. Locke, Esq. (read before the Royal Dublin Society, January 28th, 1857), Maury said:—"The real question for future protectors of lines of submarine telegraph is not how deep, or how boisterous, or how wide the sea is, but what are the electrical limits to the length of submarine lines."[1] The following letters will be found interesting in this connection:—
To Professor J. B. Minor, University of Va.
| Dear John, | Washington, July 26th, 1855. |
The mails this morning, notwithstanding my protestations of yesterday, have changed my plans, by tempting me to Newfoundland. The company insists upon my going and bringing the whole family with me. It was a struggle between duty and inclination before; and now I think, considering the part that I have taken in the submarine telegraph, I should not be true to myself if I slighted this opportunity.
M. F. Maury
.
- ↑ In this connection see letter to Professor Morse, Feb. 23, 1854; letter to Hon. C. J. Faulkner, Aug. 30, 1858; to Cyrus W. Field, forty-three letters between June 30, 1855, and March 26, 1860; Peter Cooper, Dec. 27, 1855; Hon. J. H. Dobbin, May 5 and Nov. 8, 1856; Hon. Issac Toncey, Sep. 4, 1858. On the Telegraphic Plateau, see letters to Capt. Washington, London, Nov. 6, 1857; to Capt. de la Marche, Paris, Dec. 22, 1857; to American Journal of Science, Sep. 5, 1858; paper in reply to coast survey claims; letter to Jno. Locke, Dublin, Dec. 29, 1858. All of these and more were on file at the Observatory.
