  The Congress reassembled in the Auditorium, Saint Paul, after luncheon, September 6, and was called to order by Vice-President Condra. Professor Condra—Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: President Baker has asked me, as one of the vice-presidents, to preside pending his arrival. We are to be congratulated in that we are to hear from many distinguished speakers on many interesting topics this afternoon. We are especially happy in that the first speaker is one who has done much, not only in Washington but throughout the world, for conserving human life through the work of the Red Cross. I have great pleasure in presenting to you Miss Mabel Boardman, of Washington. (Applause) Miss Boardman—Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: Of what value would Conservation be without human life? For the benefit of man's life are given all these energies which are devoted to the Conservation of our natural resources. So at the very foundation of Conservation must lie the preservation of that for which Conservation exists. It is in this principle of Conservation of human life that the Red Cross has its being. Though first inspired by Florence Nightingale in the Crimea, it was born on the bloody battlefield of Solferino, more than fifty years ago, when Henri Dunan witnessed the terrible waste of human life because of the lack of medical and nursing care. The Red Cross has become one of the great conserving forces of all the world. It acts under the only universal Conservation treaty in existence. One after another all the nations of the world have signed this Treaty of Geneva, first drafted in 1864, revised in 1906, and its provisions extended to naval warfare by the Treaty of The Hague. The opening words of the Geneva Treaty read: "Officers, soldiers, and other persons officially attached to armies, who are sick and wounded, shall be protected and cared for, without distinction of nationality, by the belligerent in whose hands they are. The belligerent in possession of a field of battle must search for and protect the wounded, and may grant immunity to those inhabitants who have taken into their homes the disabled men. The neutrality of hospitals and ambulances with their personnel, who cannot be made prisoners of war, must be respected, and, for humanity's sake, lists of the dead and wounded must be exchanged for transmission to the families of these men by the authorities of their own country." This wonderful treaty provides its own insignia, and wherever throughout the world the grating doors of the Temple of Janus open wide their terrible portals it flings to the winds of heaven its merciful banner of Conservation of the sick and wounded, the flag of the Red Cross. The treaty provides, moreover, protection for the volunteer aid societies which have received official authority from their respective governments. These are the three great Red Cross Societies. Recognizing two facts, first, that no medical service of any nation can be adequate to the demands of war, and second, that at such times the humanity and patriotism of a people become deeply stirred into active life and that this activity should be utilized in such a systematic way as to be of real value in the saving of life for the I am tempted here to dwell for a moment on one or two facts connected with the Japanese Red Cross. It has today more than 1,522,000 members, and its annual revenue in 1909 amounted to more than $2,000,000. In spite of the late war which was such a serious drain upon the resources of the country, the Japanese Red Cross never depleted by a single yen its permanent fund. The report for 1909, just received, gives this permanent fund as more than $5,000,000, and it has besides in other funds more than $2,000,000 on hand. By 1913 it plans to have increased its permanent fund to $7,500,000; and knowing what Japan has already done, we cannot doubt the carrying out of this expectation. But though since the beginning of history wars have been from time to time the misfortune of mankind, the great forces of nature bring a far more frequent need for such assistance as the Red Cross is able to render. Because of this ever recurring need of organized aid the Red Cross reached out its strong and well-trained arms into this broader field to succor the victims of great disasters. The charter granted by Congress to the American Red Cross, and which created it the officially authorized Red Cross of our Government, provides that it shall not only "take charge of the volunteer relief in time of war" but that it shall "carry on a system of national and international relief in time of peace, and apply the same in mitigating the sufferings caused by pestilence, famine, fire, floods, and other great calamities, and to devise and carry on measures for preventing same." Under this charter our own American Red Cross is not a private association of certain people, but an officially authorized agency of our Government, responsible to the people, and whose existence Congress may at any time cancel by annulling the charter. Its accounts are audited by the War Department. The chairman and five members of the Central Committee, representing the Departments of State, Treasury, War, Justice, and Navy are appointed by the President of the United States. The State Department is represented because of participation in international relief. The Treasury provides the National Red Cross treasurer, the Department of Justice, the counselor, and the army and navy have their reasons for representation not only because of war association but because, during National disaster relief as at San Francisco, Hattiesburg, and Key West, the Red Cross has the heartiest and most invaluable aid of our army, while in international relief, as in Italy after the earthquake and at Bluefields, The war relief board, of which the surgeons representing the army and navy on the central committee are respectively chairman and vice-chairman, has prepared a complete list of every coastwise vessel suitable for a hospital ship, so that such a ship could be chartered at a moment's notice. It has moreover drawn up a complete and detailed list for the equipment of such a ship with estimates of the cost of this equipment and the necessary transformation for hospital purposes. It is studying the questions of civil hospital accommodations for war-time need, of hospital trains, of field hospitals, rest stations, the use of private automobiles for ambulances, and other kindred subjects. A sub-committee, six of whom are members of the board and nine of whom are representative women of the trained nursing profession, and whose chairman is Miss Jane Delano, Superintendent of the Army Nurse Corps, has systematized the Red Cross nursing service, prepared uniform regulations, organized State and local committees, and is fast enrolling the best trained nurses in the country for active service in time of need. These splendid nurses at such times not only undertake the most difficult work under frequently severe hardships, but when on this active duty accept from the Red Cross only half of their usual salary. This Red Cross nursing committee will later take up the plan of providing courses for women in simple home nursing of the sick. Another sub-committee of the war relief board is the First Aid Committee, the chairman of which, Major Charles Lynch, of the Army Medical Service, is detailed for this particular duty by the Surgeon-General. The work of this committee is the organizing of courses in first-aid instructions throughout the country. On this committee such men as Mr John Hays Hammond represent the mine companies; Mr John Mitchell, the miners; Mr Julius Kruttschnitt, the railroad companies; Mr W. G. Lee, the trainmen; Dr D. A. Mansfield, the sailors' interests; Dr J. A. Holmes, the U. S. Bureau of Mines. The Y. M. C. A. is also represented on the committee, as it now gives The first-aid courses will soon be extended to trainmen and employees of large industrial concerns, as has been done by the British and German Red Cross. Major Lynch has prepared for the Red Cross a most excellent general text-book on first-aid, also a special book for miners and trainmen, and another, at its request, for the Bell Telephone Company. Furthermore, valuable and inexpensive anatomical charts have been printed for these courses, and small metal boxes hermetically sealed containing first-aid bandages and a leaflet of directions have been made for the society, as well as a larger box for railroad stations, mines, factories, etc. Competitions in first-aid have been held, and prizes and medals awarded. More than sixty thousand posters calling attention to precautions to be taken to prevent personal injury on railroads, and over thirty thousand of a like nature for trolley cars, have been issued by the Red Cross and are distributed on application from various companies. To spread abroad throughout the country the knowledge of first-aid among our industrial classes, in fact, among all classes of our people, is the aim of this department of Red Cross work. Not only in time of war or disaster will such knowledge prove of great value, but in all of the frequent accidents of daily life will this training be of help. (Applause) The second board, that of the national relief, has to do with the study, planning and overseeing of relief after national disaster. It is not possible, nor would it be wise, for the Red Cross to maintain a corps of trained workers for active duty after disaster, when such duty comes only from time to time; so to provide itself with an experienced personnel, it has created an institutional membership consisting of the best charity organization societies of the country. These associations in accepting membership consent to utilize their personnel under direction of this board and of Mr Bicknell, the national director, for active relief duty. For example, Mr Logan of the Atlanta organization, went on Red Cross orders to Key West last September, systematized relief work so as to avoid imposture, unfortunately prevalent at such times, advised with the Mayor and commanding officer of the army post there, arranged that the contributions be mainly expended in rehabilitating the fishermen who had lost their little boats, their only At the time of the Cherry Mine disaster, Mr Kingsley of the United Charities of Chicago, went immediately to the scene of the disaster, remaining until Mr Bicknell could arrive. Then for several months, at the request of the Red Cross, his assistant and two good women who could speak Italian and Polish to the poor distracted miners' widows, remained at Cherry while Mr Bicknell's plan for permanent relief could be perfected and accepted. By this plan, which is now being carried out, the generous funds contributed by the people of Illinois, by its State Legislature, and by the miners' unions, amounting to about $300,000, have been consolidated and are being administered by a joint commission so that a pension can be paid to each widow and minor child until the children are of an age to become wage-earners themselves and the fund is exhausted. (Applause) The national relief board has also had charge of the little Red Cross Christmas stamp—next year to be called a "Christmas seal"—placed on the back of letters out of deference to the wishes of the post office department, which has suffered from a multiplicity of stamps issued by others because of the success of the Red Cross stamp. That stalking spectre of pestilence, tuberculosis, had laid its devastating hand on every nation; it invades the palace as well as the hovel, and the youth of the people are its surest prey. With a weapon tinier than the stone in David's sling, the Red Cross sends forth this little seal to do its part. In the last two years it has netted more than $350,000 with which to war against this grim destroyer. Here again the Red Cross carries out its principle, the conservation of the human life. (Applause) The third board is that of international relief with a representative of the state department as its chairman. Two maps hang on the walls of the Red Cross office at Washington, one of the world, the other of the United States with its insular possessions. Starred over these large maps are little red crosses marking the fields of its noble labors for Conservation. Not alone within our own borders lies its merciful service. Far away in Russia, China, and Japan, when famine claimed its thousands of tortured victims, went the Red Cross, aided by the Christian Herald of New York, with food for the starving multitudes: when earthquakes in Chili, Jamaica, Italy, Portugal, and Costa Rica brought destruction and desolation, when floods in Mexico, France, and Servia devastated the land, when massacres in Armenia brought suffering, misery, and even death to thousands, when internal war in Nicaragua left regiments of wounded, naked, and starving boy prisoners, our American Red Cross stretched out her helping hand to these, her sister nations in distress (applause). If in Conservation lies But a moment more on its organization: In over thirty States, boards of representative men, with the Governor in each State as president of the board, have already been appointed, and before the end of the year the boards for all of the other States and for the insular possessions will probably be completed. The duty of such a board is to act as a financial committee for the receipt of contributions of the people of the State in case of war, local, national or international disaster. The Governor being president of the board, may issue an appeal to the people of the State when in his judgment a disaster of sufficient magnitude within the State justifies such an appeal. On the occurrence of disasters without the State, appeals are issued only on advice from the National officers. The Governor or State board may, in case of any disaster within the State of sufficient magnitude, request of headquarters the assistance of the National body. Chapters of the Red Cross may exist in any town, city or county where there are five or more members who pay the annual dues of one dollar. It is the duty of these chapters to respond promptly and vigorously to any request for action on the part of the Red Cross in time of war or disaster at home or abroad. Appeals issued by the president of the State board or from Washington will state the needs for money or supplies, or both, which the chapter should at once begin collecting. In case of a serious local disaster, the chapter acts as the supply agency for the National director and institutional member, when such member is present. In case no institutional member is at hand, it is expected to take prompt relief measures pending the arrival or instructions of the National director. This, then, in brief, is the organization of the Red Cross for active service: National officers, a central committee, relief boards with their sub-committees; State hoards, chapters, and institutional members. It seems impossible in a non-military country like ours to obtain and retain a large supporting membership with small annual dues, as is done in other countries. When reports of great calamities fill the papers, our people give with wonderful generosity, but the minor disasters, whereby small communities suffer greatly, receive but little notice from our public. If Japan plans to increase its Red Cross permanent fund to $7,500,000, could not the people of this country raise for our American Red Cross a permanent fund of $2,000,000? I, for one, believe they will, for New York City alone has already promised nearly quarter of that amount, and this autumn endowment committees of prominent men, appointed by the President of the United States, will make an appeal to our people all over the country to raise this permanent fund for the American Red Cross. And, last, may I say a word or two for some of the by-products of Conservation in Red Cross service? In the work of the Red Cross first-aid department lies the far-reaching results of conservation of the life of the wage-earner of the family as well as the labor-producer of the country, or in case of his death in disaster, as at Cherry, the administration of the relief funds so that the unfortunate widows can keep their little children at home (applause),—a by-product, the conservation of the family. The preservation of life in time of war has not only its humane feature but its patriotic reason. In fact, the Japanese Red Cross puts this principle first. The saving of one of the most important assets of any country, that of its young manhood, becomes a by-product of Conservation for the sake of patriotism. Another by-product is the conservation of communities. Whether some little hamlet or some large city suffers from the overwhelming calamity of fire, flood, storm, earthquake or pestilence, or the still more pitiful disaster of widespread famine settles over a great province or empire, its people are brought down to desolation and despair. Their neighbors suffer as well and there are none at hand to help. Without aid they must die or drift away from their homes like unmoored boats after a storm, to be swamped at sea or wrecked upon the rocks of unknown shores. It is then to these communities as well as to the individual that the Red Cross comes. It calls to the disconsolate "Comfort ye, my people, build again your homes. Sow again your fields; the strong arms of the Red Cross are here to aid you, held up by your brothers of the Nation, yea, by your brothers of the world, if there is need" (applause). On a beautiful silver tablet, presented by an Italian relief committee to the American Red Cross, are engraved in Latin the words of an old Roman historian, "Your bounty has repaired the catastrophe not merely of individual citizens but of entire cities." And there is one more by-product of Conservation not having so much to do with things material but for the well-being of the world. Is there not need of a conservation of higher things? Above the passion of war, amidst the desolation of terrible disasters, in the dangers of the daily occupations so many of our fellowmen must undergo to earn their livelihood, does not the Red Cross conserve, protect, and extend the great bond of human brotherhood, and, touched by sorrow, make the whole world kin? Strangely taking its inception on the field of battle, this great international organization of the Red Cross for the conservation of human life was born, has passed from infancy into a strong and noble maturity ever ready to protect and preserve human life, for which the Conservation of all material things has its reason and its purpose. (Applause) Chairman Condra—We shall now have the privilege of hearing the Commissioner of Corporations, called to that responsible duty by President Roosevelt, and continued in his responsibilities by President Taft, Honorable Herbert Knox Smith, whom I have great pleasure in introducing (applause). Commissioner Smith—Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: My text is that superb word "power"; and it has no more appropriate place for enunciation than this center of gravity of imperial power, the Mississippi valley. In our complex civilization there are many things that are necessaries of life. Control over any of them represents a power that is essentially governmental. This is plainly true of basic necessaries like food, clothing, transportation, heat, and light; it is true also of the natural resources that are back of these. It is no less true of the mechanical power that produces and delivers them. Private control of any one of these, unrestrained either by business competition or by governmental authority, means that irresponsible individuals hold a command over the daily life and welfare of the citizen which the men of our race have never willingly granted to any except their own representatives chosen by them. For us of our generation, mechanical power is a basic necessary. Our daily existence is borne on its current, and our power demand steadily increases. Our chief present sources of power supply—coal, petroleum, and natural gas—although at present ample, are absolutely fixed in quantity and cannot be replaced. Water-power is the one important source of mechanical power now practically available which is self-renewing. Its importance, therefore, to our present vision, must steadily increase. Effective restraint, imposed by competition on its control, is becoming more and more improbable. There has been a marked concentration of water-power control in private hands, and this process is advancing rapidly. Public regulation of water-power, the only other alternative, therefore, becomes a necessity. Electric transmission has worked this change within the last decade. As now commercially practicable, such transmission allows a given water-power to reach a market area of at least 80,000 square miles. It has raised water-power from purely local work, and made it the vital energy for great communities and distant enterprises. It has brought our water-power resources suddenly within the sweep of great economic forces. Within these market areas just described, there are strong practical reasons for consolidation of water-powers—what is known as "coupling up." A power plant must be constructed to meet the highest point of its expected demand—the "peak of the load." The nearer the "load" (the power demand) approaches that peak for all the time, the The investigation of developed water-powers now being made by the Bureau of Corporations shows that up to date 18 concerns or closely allied interests control over 1,800,000 horsepower of the water-power developed or in process of construction, and, in addition, over 1,400,000 horsepower of undeveloped water-power. As to undeveloped powers, this information was secured merely as an incident to our main work, and certainly much understates the case. As it stands, however, it makes a total water-power controlled by these 18 groups of over 3,200,000 horsepower. The total water-power in use in the United States in 1908, as estimated by the Census and Geological Survey, was only 5,300,000. And this total includes a very large number of small powers which the Bureau did not include, as it dealt almost wholly with powers of over 1,000 horsepower. The total now commercially capable of development is variously estimated at from 30,000,000 to 60,000,000 horsepower, the smaller figure being the preferable one. The great bulk of both developed and undeveloped water-power lies on the Pacific Coast, in the Northwest and Northeast, and in the South Atlantic States. Our power demand as measured by the total unduplicated capacity of all prime movers—steam, water, and gas—is now at least 30 million horsepower. It is obvious that a local monopoly of power covering simply one market area is nevertheless as complete in its effects on the inhabitants of that area as if it covered the entire country. Conditions in separate sections are therefore important. In California, for example, four principal hydro-electric companies dominate the water-power industry. They have a total developed horsepower of 259,000, with probably 500,000 additional undeveloped, and a very strong hold on the most important power markets. And between these four concerns there is also evidence of considerable harmony. This is not a unique case. Conditions somewhat like this exist in the Puget Sound territory, in the southern peninsula of Michigan, in Colorado, in Montana, and in The horsepower figures do not fully represent the extent of actual commercial control. The best powers have of course been developed first. These will always hold a disproportionately dominant position over later developed and less favored powers, because of their lower operating cost and prior hold on the important power markets. There is also going on a concentration of a wider sort—a process of deep significance, but as yet little recognized. There is a marked progress toward a mutuality of interests among public service companies generally, electric light, power, gas, and street railway concerns. The significant identity of officers and directors in a large number of such companies throughout the United States is very remarkable. This is due in part to specialization by financial houses in given lines of investment; in part to the common employment of certain eminent engineering firms; and in part to relations with certain leading equipment companies. Electric equipment is usually supplied by one of a few great equipment concerns and frequently paid for, at least in part, in the securities of the proposed project. Thus the equipment company acquires interests in widely separated power and light concerns. Take a single example, the General Electric Company, the most powerful electric equipment concern in the world. Men who are officers or directors of the General Electric Company, or of its three wholly controlled subsidiary companies, are also officers or directors in many other corporations. These other companies, with their subsidiaries, and the General Electric with its subsidiaries, make thus a group interconnected by active personal and financial relationship. This one group includes 28 corporations that operate hydro-electric plants, with at least 795,000 horsepower developed or under construction, and 600,000 undeveloped in 16 different States, a total of 1,395,000 horsepower (equal to more than 25 percent of all the developed water-power in the United States in 1908). This group includes also over 80 public-service corporations, not counting their minor subsidiaries; more than 15 railroads; 6 companies that use their power in the manufacture of cotton goods, with 35,000 hydraulic horsepower developed; and over 50 banks and financial houses, many of them in the first rank of importance. This remarkable financial connection in itself is very significant. Fifty-three General Electric men, in all, constitute this chain of connection. Nor are these men, as a rule, of the figurehead type; their presence on a directorate means something. Of course these facts in no sense always mean identity of control. They certainly do mean a striking degree of non-conflicting interests and personal relationship which makes further concentration easily possible. This wider concentration is still in a formative stage, developed almost wholly within the last decade. The forces compelling thereto Here, then, is the present situation of the hydro-electric industry: (1) It deals with a basic necessary, and its importance inevitably increases as the fixed supply of other sources of power decreases. (2) Substantial control of mechanical power means the exercise of a function that is essentially governmental in its effect on the public. (3) Driven by underlying economic and financial forces, concentration of control of water-powers in private hands has proceeded very rapidly. It is doubtful if anything can arrest this process, and a swift advance to a far higher degree of concentration is entirely possible. (4) Any chance, then, of restraint by competition is rapidly disappearing, certainly over given sections, and public regulation is therefore an imminent necessity. The extent of such regulation will depend mainly on constitutional limitations. A State, roughly speaking, can at any time exercise a high degree of control over power companies as quasi-public servants. The jurisdiction of the Federal Government covers a wider range geographically, but involves some difficult constitutional questions. Over water-powers on the public lands it has full control. I concede no merit to doubts as to the Government's unlimited jurisdiction there. As to powers on navigable streams not in the public domain, there is an undetermined constitutional question. It is well settled that no power dam can be maintained on a navigable stream without the consent of the Federal Government. Nearly everyone admits that the Government may impose upon such grants any desired time limitation, and may thus require readjustment of terms at any desired period. But some hold that the Federal Government, in exercising its arbitrary power as grantor, may also impose any further conditions it chooses upon such grant, as, for example, that the grantees shall pay a rental for the power acquired. Others hold that the Federal Government can only impose such conditions as are directly connected with the Federal power over interstate commerce, such as navigation. Even this view would apparently at least permit a rental charge, if applied to navigation improvement. Personally, I am strongly inclined to the former and broader view that any conditions whatsoever may be imposed (applause), both on general principles and on well-established The scope of the Federal jurisdiction is of first importance, because the water-power problem is, in the main, a National one. Much of the power is transmitted across State lines, or is used by interstate carriers. The bulk of the capital that is developing our most important powers comes from interests outside the States where the powers are located, and from the brief survey I have already given of the interrelationships existing between public-service companies it is obvious that State lines and State jurisdiction have no practical relation whatsoever to the sweep of these forces (applause). The hydro-electric industry has been largely nationalized by those who are foremost in it. The Nation and the State will have to use their full powers to meet the water-power situation. The most effective time to use them is before, not after, private rights accrue. The one certain method is for the State or the Federal Government, to retain its interest, or impose its conditions, at the inception, as a part of the grant. Then public control and private rights go together, as they must if we are to safeguard the public interest in water power. (Applause) Let there be no unnecessary hampering of hydro-electric development, but let the public be in on the ground floor at the start: for at the start the public must grant the power and for all time the public will be the party chiefly interested in its use. (Applause) As President Taft very justly said yesterday, when a man talks to you about conservation, you have the right to ask him to specify what steps he desires to take. I am going to specify. (1) The status quo of all water-power still controlled by the Nation or State should be maintained until we know what we have, and can act intelligently thereon. (2) No water-power grant should be made except for a fixed period, with at least the reserved right to readjust terms at the end thereof. That period, however, should be long enough to permit adequate financing and complete development. (3) Complete publicity of accounts and transactions should be required, as well as a record of cost, and the real relation of investment to stock and bond issues. (4) Power to revoke the grant for breach of conditions should be lodged in a specified public authority. Otherwise there will always be the possibility of protracted litigation to determine the status. (5) So far as is possible, direct provision should be made against excessive charges and monopolistic abuse. (6) Public authorities should reserve such constitutional compensation or rental as will establish the principle of underlying public interest. (7) All public easements of navigation, fisheries, etc., should be safeguarded. (8) In the case of new grants, all these provisions should be made conditions of the grant. Finally, the purpose and probable effect on the public of any water-power grant should first be fully ascertained and carefully considered, in order to determine whether public interest justifies beyond a reasonable doubt the surrender by the public of even a part of its power over this great public resource. Where reasonable doubt exists, the surrender should not be made. (Applause) [During the delivery of the address President Baker arrived and resumed the Chair.] Honorable John Barrett—Ladies and Gentlemen: President Baker has requested me to announce that Professor George E. Condra, of Lincoln, Nebraska, has been appointed chairman of the Committee on Credentials in lieu of Mr Edward Hines, of Chicago. (Applause) Governor Pardee has an announcement to make in regard to the Committee on Resolutions. Governor Pardee—Simply that the Committee on Resolutions will meet at the Saint Paul hotel this evening at 8 oclock, in Room 534. President Baker—The program in your hands announces that an address entitled "Safeguarding the Property of the People" will be delivered by Honorable Francis T. Heney, of California. He is prevented from being here this afternoon, but will arrive later. We have now the opportunity of hearing from one whose name has been so closely associated with the work of Conservation that he is regarded as one of its greatest and ablest advocates; I have great pleasure in introducing, to speak on "The Federal Government's Relation to Conservation," Honorable James R. Garfield, of Ohio. (Applause) Mr Garfield—Mr President and Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen (renewed applause): I appreciate your applause at this time very much, for I fear me at the end of what I have to say it may not be forthcoming. The subject I have chosen is one that affects very directly what may not merely be talked about but can actually be done by the people of this country in connection with Conservation problems. It was often said a few months ago that Conservation was an enthusiasm—that it was an idea, or perhaps an ideal, and that those who were urging Conservation were not practical men and looking forward to practical work-a-day solutions of their own problems. So I chose to speak on the relation of the Federal Government to Conservation—a very practical subject, one on which we have been working, as well as talking, for a number of years. There are two good reasons why the Federal Government is directly interested in Conservation. In the first place, it is the largest land-owner in this country; and, in the second place, it has high duties to perform for the interests of all the people of this country. For these reasons, the Federal Government comes directly in touch with the practical questions of Conservation in dealing with what is left of the natural resources of our public domain. The value of these resources cannot be measured in mere terms of acres. Some 700,000 acres of our public lands remain; but that means nothing unless we know what is contained in or on the land represented by the mere statement in figures. Now we are learning that this great area, both on the mainland and in Alaska, is filled with priceless treasures in the resources needed for the lives of the people of our country; and it is in the handling of these resources—either disposing of them or providing for their use or development—that the Federal Government must deal practically with the problems of Conservation. Only as we know this tremendous area and its priceless treasures do we realize that we must, in the practical handling of these resources, make as few mistakes as possible, and constantly keep in view the interest of all the people as a guide in the solution of any given problem. Now, we meet with serious difficulties in attempting to decide how best to use the property owned or held by the United States Government as trustee for all the people. We have under our system of government a dual jurisdiction, or rather, two jurisdictions—that of the Nation on the one hand, and that of the State on the other. Yet between these two jurisdictions there is no real conflict; there ought to be no insuperable obstacle to such cooperation between States and Nation as will make possible a wise solution of all questions in which both jurisdictions have duties to perform. We hear much about States' rights, as though the problems of Conservation have brought to life again an old doctrine, as though in some way the Conservationist is endeavoring to take something away from the States. The very opposite is true. There is no effort on the part of the Conservationist to interfere with any duty that the State ought to and can perform. Those duties devolving on the States should be performed by the States; and the people of each commonwealth should see to it that their State representatives not only do what is wise and necessary each year but exercise foresight in dealing with all resources subject to their jurisdiction (applause). That, however, does not mean that the Federal Government is debarred from proper use of the public domain within the areas of the several States; it likewise has great duties devolving on it in so administering its property as to safeguard the interests and the rights of all the citizens of the country. The State lines are merely accidental in many instances. The States of the old Northwest and the States of the Middle West today were carved out of public territory simply by drawing of lines; they were In the early period of our development there was but little need of giving heed to the questions that are now uppermost in our minds in relation to the public domain. There was land enough and to spare; and the early purpose of the Federal Government was to provide easy methods for getting the public domain (which in those days was considered chiefly useful for agriculture, as it is in the middle West) into farms, and building up commonwealths that are now theatres of agricultural industry. But today the conditions are very different. The remaining agricultural land that can be used without irrigation or drainage is very little in comparison to the needs of our people; and in handling what is left of the public domain it becomes the duty of the Federal Government to see to it that not one acre of land that can be used for agricultural settlement and development is directed to any other purpose—and likewise to see to it that land capable of mineral development or of water development is not stolen from the public domain under the guise of homestead entries. (Great applause) In order to understand exactly what the Federal Government can do in relation to the use of the public domain, let us keep clearly in mind the powers granted to it under the Constitution, and the laws enacted in accordance with the Constitution by Congress. The Constitution provides that—
Now, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Congress has enacted the following laws affecting the public domain:
Congress, acting under these general provisions, has from time to time enacted laws affecting portions of the public domain. It has provided the Homestead Act, the Timber and Stone Act, the Mineral Entry Act; provided for the creation of the National Forests; enacted Meantime, the Executive on his part has performed the duties devolving on him under the Constitution—duties few in number and easily expressed, though of great importance to the public welfare. They are, in brief, to see to it that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed; and he is granted all the executive power that could have been given by the use of the English language. There is no limitation. It is simply "executive power"; whatever that may be was granted to the President of the United States. One of the great objects for which this Nation was created was to promote the "general welfare." That object was not only stated in the preamble of the Constitution, but was likewise written into the body of the instrument; and the power was specifically granted to Congress to provide for the general welfare of the United States. That was not an idle phrase. The founders of the Republic recognized that it was impossible for them to foresee all the things that it might be necessary for the Federal Government to do; it was not possible for them to define in specific language all the powers that were to be exercised, nor was it possible for them to indicate to what extent these powers, once granted, might properly and wisely be used; and this welfare clause has made it possible to carry out by both the Legislative and the Executive branches of the Federal Government the beneficent purposes of the founders in ways which they never contemplated or could have contemplated in detail. Fortunately, during the early days of our National existence we had at the head of the Supreme Court a master mind. Marshall was as profound a statesman as he was a great jurist. He recognized with that great far-seeing insight that amounts almost to inspiration, that it would have been to sound the death-knell of the Republic if he, as the chief law interpreter from the judicial seat, should so interpret the Constitution as to tie the hands of the Government and prevent the people from doing the things necessary to make themselves a great and permanent Nation. In one of the earliest decisions involving interpretation of the Constitution (McCullough vs. Maryland. 4 Wheaton 315) Marshall used this language:
Another sentence in the same opinion sets a standard for judging existing or proposed law; he says—
Clearly, Marshall saw at that time that if the Supreme Court endeavored to prevent Congress from exercising to the full a power granted under the Constitution, it would at that very moment overstep its legitimate ground and interfere with the functions granted to the legislative body; and in dealing with the powers granted to the Executive, exactly the same rule of interpretation applies. Now, it is most interesting to notice how from generation to generation Marshall's interpretation has made possible the doing of the things that have been done by our people. In those days it was impossible for men to conceive of the commercial development that has taken place during the hundred years. They could not have realized that within a hundred years we would be a great manufacturing Nation, and that our commercial relations would not be confined to the thirteen colonies but would spread broadcast throughout the entire world. A striking example of the application of this wise interpretation arose in dealing with the questions of the Philippine government. We there had an entirely novel proposition. The forefathers of the Republic had never contemplated the acquisition by us of territory in the Pacific, or islands elsewhere. Yet when we faced that problem, we found that under Marshall's interpretation, our Constitution was broad enough and big enough, and the powers granted therein were great enough, to permit us to fulfill the Nation's duty to the islands and islanders. President Taft, discussing our work in the Philippines, used this language three years ago:
That interpretation of the power of both the Executive and the Congress is exactly in line with the power that is exercised by both in dealing with this question of the public domain and the welfare of our people (applause). It would be a childish interpretation of the Constitution to hold that we as a Nation could act for the people in the Philippine Islands as was best necessary for their well-being, and yet within our own confines as a Nation would be prohibited from doing that which is necessary for the well-being and the welfare of our children and their children. (Applause) The interpretation by Marshall gave vigor to the young Nation. He was not afraid of great responsibilities. He recognized that great responsibilities likewise meant the possibility of great mistakes, but that did not deter him from so interpreting the Constitution as to make possible the doing of the things that have been done. He was But we are not left simply to academic discussion as to whether the Federal Government has power to deal with the National domain. The Supreme Court has held, over and over again, that the Federal Government, acting through both the Legislative and the Executive branches, has the power to do what is best for the people's interests in handling the public domain. The Court has wisely and properly held that the power granted under the Constitution to dispose of the public domain carries with it every lesser power (applause)—that because Congress has the right to provide for the sale or the gift of land, it can likewise provide for the lease of land under such conditions and regulations as it may prescribe or as it may permit the Executive to prescribe. Therefore, the way is clear for the Federal Government to do whatever may be wise and necessary to protect the interests of the people in the use of the public domain. Let us take another view of Executive authority. The chief Executive, above all other officers, is recognized and properly held as the great steward, the immediate custodian of the public property and of the people's rights. He is single-headed. He is one upon whom responsibility may be fixed. He is constantly at his desk; he is ever vigilant; he is constantly in touch with the things that interest the people and their rights therein; and as the custodian and guardian of the people's interests, it is to him that we must look for the protection of the public domain. It is not enough that the Executive shall simply carry into effect the specific language of a statute. He must go farther than that; he must be as aggressive in his vigilance as are those who would take the public property without conforming to the law (applause). The Executive is required to see to it that the laws are enforced. Now, in the enforcement of law he often finds that while the paper record presented to him or to his subordinates by those who seek to acquire the public domain is perfect (there is no difficulty about making a land title good on paper) his duty is only partially fulfilled unless he goes behind the paper record; and when the last Administration took hold of the question of the land frauds, the Executive decided that there was but one way to enforce the law, and that was to see to it that the paper record conformed to the facts in every case presented (great applause). The greatest land frauds that have been perpetrated The founders of our Republic recognized and understood the vital need of giving ample power to the Executive. It is well to recall what Hamilton wrote when defending the Constitution:
Thus the Executive must be held responsible for much that is done in connection with the administration of our laws. Congress enacts the laws; they may be faulty; if so, they may be amended. If they are faulty, it is the duty of the Executive to carry them into effect, but to recommend their amendment, alteration, or repeal; but under no circumstances is he fulfilling his duty if he sits supinely by and allows the public domain to be despoiled because the law is not as efficient as he thinks it should be. (Applause) Much has been said in recent years regarding Executive usurpations. It has been held by those who objected to the new order of things—those who objected to that change in methods by which the public frauds were stopped—that the Executive was usurping powers not granted to him under the Constitution. Now, if it be usurpation to so enforce the law as to prevent dishonesty, fraud, and theft, then there has been usurpation (applause). But I as yet have failed to have presented to me a single instance of actual usurpation. The Executive is as much subject to the courts of the United States as is the ordinary citizen. If the Executive has transcended his power, if he has in his execution of law gone beyond what someone thinks is his power, then the Executive can be haled into court; and over and over again I have said to complainants who came to me when I was in office "All you have to do is to go into the courts of the United States, and if the Executive power that is being exercised is improperly exercised, there in that jurisdiction you can bring us to account." But no one has yet seen fit to bring such an action; and the reason is that there has been no usurpation of executive authority. (Applause) There is a wide difference between simply being within the law and executing the law. A man may be within the law and yet do absolutely nothing to further the spirit of the law; like an engineer, he is on the track whether he is standing still, going backward, or That brings me again to a subject mentioned a moment ago, namely the relation of the Nation to the States; and the Executive here plays an important part. An example will show how the executives of both the Nation and the States should cooperate in working out any given problem: A great water course is a natural entity; the water-shed must be considered as a unit—otherwise the people within that water-shed will not have equal justice done them in their right to the water. For example, the waters of the Rio Grande rise in Colorado; they cross the line into New Mexico; they then become the dividing line between Mexico and Texas. If we admit for a moment that the power to use and control all the water of the Rio Grande shall be left solely with Colorado because it rises in the great mountains of that State, then we instantly jeopardize the rights of all the people who live south of the Colorado line (applause). If the Chief Executive of the Federal Government had feared to exercise his power to prevent water-power sites and reservoir sites in Colorado from being taken exclusively by Colorado people; if he had been unwilling to exercise the power granted him by the Constitution, then the people below would have had just cause for complaint that the Executive instead of obeying the law was in effect a party to a violation of law in jeopardizing their rights. The only way in which that matter could properly be handled was for the Executive of the Federal Government to withdraw certain lands from sale or entry; and by so doing he made it possible for the people of New Mexico and Texas, and of the Republic of Mexico in conformity with the treaty made by the Federal Government, to have their fair share and just proportion of the use of that water. The best way to deal with conflicting water rights between States is for the Federal Government to continue to hold every acre of public land capable of use in water development pending agreement with the various States as to how the lands shall be used, to the end that the rights of all the people of each water-shed, rather than the special interests of a few, shall be protected in the use and disposition of that great resource. (Applause) What I have said in relation to water applies equally to the development of our coal, our phosphates, and our timber. The phosphates recently discovered in the West lie in four States. When the matter was first called to my attention by the report of the Geological Survey and the special report of Dr Van Hise, I was astonished to learn the conditions then existing in our country. Practically all of the mineral phosphates known in the United States were held by one great corporation, and over 40 percent of the products of the Southern So, if you trace the actions of the Executive and of Congress in dealing with the public domain, you will find that wherever there has been a vigorous execution of law coupled with recommendation of further legislation looking to the welfare of all of our people, there we have made advance along lines that will promote the development of our country in future years; and that wherever there has been laxity in the enforcement of law, wherever we have allowed the interference of big business interests to interrupt the enforcement of law as it should be enforced, land frauds there have crept in and in those conditions we have found the big interests getting control of more than their fair share of the resources of the public domain. Sometimes we have been accused of being unfair to the big interests. We have been accused of assailing these interests simply because they were big; and we have been charged with raising ghosts to frighten the people, and naming those ghosts water-power trusts, timber trusts, land trusts, or coal trusts, when in reality there was no danger of trust development or of monopolistic holding of these resources. And yet, my friends, if you trace back the history of the acquisition of the public domain you will find that in every instance where there has been a failure to strictly enforce the laws the special interests have slipped in and have gained control of the resources of the public domain. They have never been idle. We ourselves have been indifferent, we have been negligent; and it is not for us now altogether to blame the beneficiaries of our neglect, but we must blame ourselves—and must blame our representatives in office now if by any chance they permit a return to the old conditions. (Applause) The power of the Executive and of Congress is ample to do all that is necessary to protect the public welfare and the common good. There must be no backsliding in what has already been so splendidly started. We must see to it that our representatives, both in the Senate and in the House, are men who will take a long look into the future—men with imagination. Men with enthusiasm? Yes! Nothing President Baker—Ladies and Gentlemen: Now that this subject has been so ably opened by Mr Garfield, we are going to call upon another man who has been militant in the work of Conservation—an Ex-Governor who is even more active as an ex than he was as Governor, a sort of characteristic, these days, of prominent men (laughter). I am sure you will have great pleasure in hearing from Ex-Governor George C. Pardee, of California. (Applause) Ex-Governor Pardee—Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I hope the Chair will forgive me if I differ from him very radically in one statement that he made, to the effect that all of us who have been things (laughter) are now more active than we were when we were things. (Laughter) I sat here today in this vast Auditorium and saw thousands of men and women and children, gathering to do honor to the man whom we, in common with the rest of the world, consider to be the greatest American now alive (great applause). When I saw those thousands of people filling this great Auditorium, row on row and tier on tier, until the heads of those standing in the topmost row touched the very roof, I thought to myself that the activities of him who was in office are being only continued since he left the office which he filled to our entire satisfaction. (Applause) I come here this afternoon to discuss the very able paper so well presented to you by him who was once Secretary of the Interior, in the cabinet of the President of the United States (applause); and I hope you will not consider it presumptuous that I should attempt to discuss that very able paper. Mr Garfield was good enough to furnish me with a copy of his address several days ago, and I am free to confess to you that I have given it prayerful consideration and that I can find nothing in it to discuss (applause), because it calls a spade a spade and a thief a thief (applause); and with both of those propositions I have no doubt the ladies and gentlemen here assembled will thoroughly and totally agree. (Applause) Every now and then we hear of some poor, miserable fool sent to the penitentiary for crimes and frauds against the land laws; but will any one be kind enough to mention to me the name of any principal in such crimes and frauds who, with shaved head and striped suit, is looking through the bars of the penitentiary today? I take So when I speak of my own State of California, and say that its people have been robbed and plundered and pillaged; when I say that its government has been debased and corrupted; when I say with shame and with blushes that my native city of San Francisco has been humbled and shamed into the very dust by the corrupting influences of men and public-service corporations who, with us as their benefactors, have turned and stung the breast that warmed them into life; when I say these things I have but to call to your attention conditions which have existed in almost every large city, in almost every State of this Union. (Applause) Like Mr Garfield, I do not find it in my heart to blame the men who have taken advantage of our laxness; I cannot find it in my heart to blame the two men who own each over a million acres of the best timber land in the State of California for having taken advantage of the laxness in administration of the law in times past—not of the law itself, for the law has been good, and if it had been administered as it should have been administered these two men could not have owned a million acres apiece of the best timbered land in the State of California (applause). But who of us has not heard—in times past more than since the time of Theodore Africanus (laughter)—who of us has not heard those who, perhaps with a selfish interest, have sneered and said, "Well, we're all a little crooked, and why should we take exceptions to the man who is a little more crooked?" when the question of frauds against the land laws was in discussion? I take it that the officials who had those matters in charge should be, as Mr Garfield has so well said, ever vigilant within the law to do those things which the law does not prohibit and not wait for the prods and stings of outraged public opinion that compel them to do the things which they should, in common honesty to the people whom they represent, perform and do for the protection of you and me and your children and my children. (Applause) I listened yesterday afternoon with mingled feelings to the statements of the gentlemen who four short years ago I would have hailed as brother governors. I heard some most violent utterances concerning the feeling of the people of the Pacific-coast States in regard to State rights. One good brother governor said that 95 percent of the people of the Pacific Coast were in favor of State rights. We had We have in California, my fellow-citizens of other States, a great deal of your property. We have several millions of acres of National forests that belong to you. They cannot belong exclusively to the people of the State of California until the people of the United States, to whom they belong, give them to us. And I thank God that the National Government, representing the people of other States, has not given those millions of acres of National forests in the State of California Let me instance one case. The Oregon and California Railroad begins at Portland and runs south toward California. The California and Oregon Railroad begins at Sacramento and runs north toward Oregon. They meet somewhere north of the Oregon line. They are both adjuncts of the Southern Pacific. When those roads were contemplated, the Government, by an act of Congress, donated to them 6,000,000 acres of land, much of it covered with as fine timber as grows out of doors—I bar none. In the act of Congress donating that land it was specified that the land should be sold in 160-acre tracts for $2.50 per acre to all actual settlers who might apply therefor. Was any of it sold to actual settlers? A very few acres of it. Half of the 6,000,000 acres was sold, however, in large tracts to land speculators, to timber corporations, and to people of that kind and class, for $5.00, $10.00, $15.00, $20.00, $30.00, $50.00 an acre. And when the Southern Pacific was brought to bar and asked why it hadn't lived up to the letter and spirit of the law, it said it had. And then we asked, "How do you make that out?" And it said, "Why, only a few actual settlers have applied for the land." And we asked, "Haven't people gone there and attempted to buy that land of you in order that they might settle upon it?" "Oh, yes, but they are not actual settlers." "Why not?" "Because we construe the words 'actual settlers' to mean those persons who had actually settled in that country before the act of Congress was passed." (Laughter and applause.) And when, at the Sacramento session of the National Irrigation Congress, Mr E. H. Harriman was asked why his company was holding 3,000,000 acres of that land grant, he said, "For future generations." And everybody laughed. Now, let that sink into you. The absolute arrogance, the indecent indecency of that kind of a proposition ought to make the blood boil in the veins of every American citizen who is face to face, or who was seven or eight years ago face to face with the proposition whether or not the American people were to rule themselves or whether they were to continue to be ruled by the "big interests," as Jimmie Garfield puts it. (Applause) The sun rises every morning, three hundred and sixty-five days in the year, in California; it reddens the cheeks of our girls; it makes our boys strong and healthy; it brings the gold to the oranges that hang upon our trees. And for all these years we have been thanking God for the rising of the sun in California. "The gentle rain from Some time ago a good friend of mine, who has never denied when I have charged him with receiving $20,000 per annum (and by the way, he is a delegate from California to this Congress) as the chief counsel of one of the power trusts of California, said to me, "Oh, how the President is usurping the powers of the Government! Isn't it awful?" But I never could see anything very awful about it when Roosevelt and Garfield and Pinchot and the rest of them were hustling around trying to keep my friend's corporation from stealing from us of California the few things we have left (laughter and applause); nor have I forgotten that, before the time of Roosevelt, Garfield and Pinchot, the corporations represented by my friend did not believe in State rights. But since the time of Roosevelt, Pinchot and Garfield they have begun to sing a different song. That song is State rights. Nor have I forgotten that my friend used to be and still claims to be one of the most hide-bound republicans that mortal man ever looked upon (laughter and applause). Now he says that the rights of the people of the States are being pillaged and plundered and robbed away from them. I speak again for my State of California when I say that if there is anything in the State of California that the National Government has not nailed down that has not been stolen, I would like to know what it is. (Great laughter and applause) There are, as you heard Mr Herbert Knox Smith say here on this platform an hour ago, four great power corporations in the State of California. That is so; but there are practically only two power trusts Christopher G. Horr—Mr Chairman: The State of Washington having been mentioned, I wish one minute to speak in behalf of that State. President Baker—Is the Gentleman a Delegate from the State of Washington? Mr Horr—Yes. It has been stated from the platform that the State of Washington believed in State rights. I want to contradict that. As one of the Delegates of the State of Washington, I want to declare my belief that not only the Granges of the State of Washington, as Brother Pardee has stated, but the majority of the citizens of that State, will repudiate any such sentiment coming from anyone in this Congress (great applause and cheers). I want to say that the State of Washington is peopled in part by 25,000 former residents of the State of Minnesota, and that they have full confidence in the National Government—they have full confidence in President Taft, they have full confidence in your Senators Nelson and Clapp, and in Congressman Stevens and the other congressmen of the United States; President Baker—After the next address on the program, any further discussion of the subjects presented will be welcome. It was gratifying to hear from California through the voice of Ex-Governor Pardee. One of the fortunate features of this Congress is the presence of men of prominence and influence from all sections of the country. Not merely the North and the East and the West are represented, but the sunny South; and we will be pleased to hear from a representative of the great State of Louisiana, who has always been deeply interested in Conservation, and is no less competent to speak on the subject now than when he wielded the power of Governor of that commonwealth. I have great pleasure in introducing Ex-Governor Newton C. Blanchard. (Applause) Ex-Governor Blanchard—Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Congress: I am not on the program for a formal address, but I am here to supplement and endorse and support the admirable address delivered you a little while ago by Ex-Secretary Garfield. (Applause) The times change, and men's opinions seem to change with them. On yesterday, in this Auditorium, I listened to a number of western Governors preaching the doctrine of State rights. For many years prior to the fateful year of 1861, and for four memorable years following it, the question of State rights was forcefully discussed in the forum of the Republic, and afterward practically settled on the battlefield (applause); and we of the South, who went down in that struggle to determine whether these rights of the States were paramount to the authority of the Federal Government, accepted the situation in good faith (great applause)—and we are now marching side by side with the North and the East and the West in that grand procession of progress that makes for the might and power of our great Republic. (Renewed applause) It seems strange to a southern democrat like myself (applause) that "a voice should come out of the West" (laughter) telling us that this movement for Conservation must be abandoned by the Federal Government and relegated to the tender mercies of the western States (laughter and applause). Gentlemen of the Congress, was the question of State rights, the real, genuine doctrine of State rights, behind that demand? No; everyone of you know that it was not. It was a mere pretext; and the history of all nations is full of examples where strong men, having risen to ascendancy and ruling power and wanting to do something not exactly right (some usurpation of power or act of tyranny), first sought a pretext to justify it (applause). Why, The natural resources of the United States belong to all the people (applause), not alone to those who happen to live in the States where what is left of the public domain is principally situated today; you and I have just as much concern and interest and proprietorship in the natural resources on and in and springing from the public domain in Wyoming, in Montana, in Idaho, and in other western States, as have the people of those States themselves (applause). Gentlemen, as has been well said already during this Congress, the smaller the community the easier it is for special interests to control it; and that is the reason for this demand that the Conservation of the natural resources in the western States should be turned over to the States themselves. If you want Conservation to amount to anything—if you wish it to go forward in the fullness of development so that what is left of the public domain, of the coal lands, the phosphate lands, the oil and gas lands and the forests belonging to the United States may be preserved and conserved and utilized without present waste and handed down to our children and children's children without exhaustion, then I say the power that should lead in this movement is the mighty power of the Federal Government. (Applause) When the distinguished and able gentleman who occupies the executive chair in the State of Montana was speaking yesterday, he claimed for his State "the earth and the fullness thereof" in respect to the Conservation of natural resources. He claimed that the movement there had antedated anything done by any other State or by the Federal Government, and to hear his eulogy of what Montana had done in this respect and his absence of expression as to what the Federal Government had done there, one might think, to use the vernacular of the day, that Montana was "the whole cheese" (laughter) in matters of conservation. And yet, when I met the gentleman today and asked him if the Federal Government had not been doing Gentlemen, you heard today from the lips of Theodore Roosevelt a truth that struck me most forcibly, and that was this: It is not so much the question as to who shall take the lead in the matter of Conservation, whether it be the power of the States or the authority of the Federal Government, but which of these powers is best equipped and most able to keep what remains of the public domain and the natural resources from falling into the hands of the special interests and the monopolists (applause). Some of those western Governors, when the imputation was made that if the natural resources were turned over to the States in the manner proposed by them the special interests might handle their legislators, grew virtuously indignant; and yet all of us remember that it has been charged time and time again—and I think no one will have the temerity to deny it—that powerful interests with unlimited money have put forward their own selections for the high office of Senator of the United States and elected them (applause). That has been done repeatedly in the past; and is anyone here bold enough to say that even now there does not sit in the Senate of the United States men from the western States who owe their election to that position through the instrumentality of money? (Applause) No; that is true; and everyone of you knows it is true. If the Legislatures—and I do not mean to imply or to charge that the Legislatures of those particular western States are any more corrupt or more subject to the blandishments of corporations and men of means than the Legislatures of other States, whether they be North or South or East or West—can be induced through those instrumentalities to elevate men to high position, then I say those Legislatures can be controlled by the same means in other respects; and all of us know that special interests have always out a grabbing hand for what there is in the way of coal lands, in the way of water-power sites, in the way of phosphate lands and oil and gas lands. So I say, gentlemen of the Congress, we had better leave this matter of Conservation in the hands of the Federal We have heard much from these western Governors in their speeches last afternoon relative to the waters in the rivers of their States, and the position was taken that the waters belong to the States. Flowing through the public domain, the land and the water-power sites would belong to the Federal Government, and where that is the case there is good ground for cooperation; but I am far from admitting that those waters belong to the States. There are some decisions of the Supreme Court that so declare, but such decisions were made by the courts under peculiar circumstances and facts differing from the circumstances and facts set before us in the matter of Conservation. Take the great Mississippi; to whom does the Mississippi river belong? Do its waters belong to the States through which those waters flow? Why, don't you know that every drop of water precipitated from the clouds, except that which is taken up by evaporation, every drop of rainfall from the top of the Alleghenies to the summit of the Rocky mountains finds its way through the innumerable channels and smaller streams to the great main trunk that we call the Mississippi river? Don't you know that it is the receptacle for the drainage of half of this great Republic of ours, that much of even the waters that fall in the western part of the great State of New York find their way into the channel of the Mississippi? All of the water thus gathered into the main channel flows by the cities of all the States from Minnesota down to Louisiana, my own State; and all of that water flows through the State of Louisiana to find lodgment at last in the Mexican Gulf. Now, does all the water thus garnered from this immense watershed to flow through the State of Louisiana belong to the State of Louisiana? If so, we don't want it! (Laughter and applause) It fell on these great western States, and too much of it comes down upon us, and we have had a great struggle, extending through many years, to keep that water off our land (laughter). I have known one great flood in Louisiana to cause destruction to the extent of ten millions of dollars. The State of Louisiana alone has expended, by State taxation and levee district taxation, more than thirty millions of dollars since the War in keeping the waters that fell upon your territory off our fertile lands (applause); and not being able to perform the herculean task ourselves, we have appealed, in season and out, to the Federal Government for aid, and a liberal hand has been extended to us. (Applause) I was for years in Congress from Louisiana and for years a member and chairman of the committee on rivers and harbors of the Prior to 1892, large appropriations were made by Congress for the Mississippi river, all of them with a proviso that none of the money should be expended for the purpose of preventing the floods of the river; and not a dollar was available for the repair and construction of levees. That was the situation in 1882 and on down to 1892, when the argument that the river belonged to the Federal Government and it must so regulate and use it that it should not be a damage and a hurt to us in the lower valley prevailed; and in the river and harbor bill of 1892, at a time when I was chairman of the committee, the Secretary of War was authorized to expend $10,000,000 on the lower Mississippi from Cairo to the Gulf, and the restrictions and provisos that had hampered the Mississippi River Commission theretofore in the expenditure of money for the two-fold purpose of improving navigation and preventing floods were removed (applause). We wrote these limitations all out; Congress had been educated up to the point where it recognized the second duty it owed to the great river in preventing its And yet they tell you that these waters do not belong to the Federal Government? They admit that they belong to the Federal Government for purposes of navigation. Congress is committed already to the principle that the waters of the river belong to the Federal Government, because Congress has undertaken to help us to keep those waters off of our lands. But I go further than that; I agree with my distinguished friend Mr Garfield that the jurisdiction of the Federal Government extends, where the navigable waterways of the United States are concerned, far beyond the point to which they are navigable; it extends to the headwaters of those rivers, and for the very good reason that if the jurisdiction of the Federal Government did not so extend, then where these rivers take their rise some of these western States might undertake to divert from the great Mississippi channel the water needed to supply that river with enough water for navigation purposes. Every river, therefore, must be treated as a unit (applause). That is the view we take of it in the South; and in taking that view we hold to the National idea that water, being one of those natural resources which needs conservation in respect to its greater and wiser use, ought to be controlled by the Federal Government. Water is one of those natural resources that man can do nothing to add to or diminish in quantity; the snows and the rains are the result of great cosmic action—and fortunate it is that such is the case, for past experience in this country shows that if man could diminish the supply he would long since have done so by his neglect and his wastefulness. (Applause) I have spoken long enough. I wanted to supplement, from the standpoint of the South, the admirable remarks made by the distinguished Governor of Mississippi on last afternoon. We of the South are hand in hand with the Federal Government in this great question of the Conservation of the natural resources; and we look to the Federal Government to lead in that movement (applause). At the same time I repeat that this great movement, so auspiciously inaugurated by Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot (applause), needs for its full consummation and for the realizing of the greatest benefits possible the cooperation—with the Federal Government leading—of [In the course of the foregoing address, President Baker surrendered the Chair to Professor Condra.] Chairman Condra—Ladies and Gentlemen: Before continuing the program, a few announcements will be made. Ex-Governor Pardee: I again announce that the Committee on Resolutions will meet at the Saint Paul Hotel this evening at 8 oclock in Room 534. Those having resolutions will please write them out, sign them, and hand them in. Several announcements were made on behalf of State delegations. Chairman Condra: In place of Honorable B. A. Fowler, of Phoenix, Arizona, who was to speak on "Water as a Natural Resource," I call upon a man who has done much for the advance of irrigation, and who organized the first National Irrigation Congress, Mr William E. Smythe, of San Diego, California. Mr Smythe—Mr Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Congress: I am called upon at very short notice to speak for our distinguished president of the National Irrigation Congress on water as a natural resource. I need not remind you how valuable this resource is. Some years ago I went to the White House in company with a cabinet officer to confer with the then President of the United States concerning a mooted irrigation question. Secretary Moody presented me to President Roosevelt, saying that I was a democrat interested in the subject of water; whereupon the President turned to me with a smile and said, "What! a democrat interested in water?" (Laughter) "Yes, Mr President," I said, "for democrats have sense enough to know that in a country where it seldom rains water is too valuable to drink." (Laughter) Water is so valuable that we want to guard it carefully as a natural resource. I have but a moment at my disposal, and I am glad to take the advice of the President of the United States who yesterday told us to come out of the clouds, get down to brass tacks, and talk business. He asked us to say what we mean by Conservation, to tell what are the evils that we want to remedy, and explain how we propose to remedy them (applause). In a word, the evil that we want to remedy in the We should have joint ownership of land and water. Today we have a magnificent construction company at work in the seventeen States and Territories of arid America; the name of it is "The United States of America, Unlimited." (Applause) That construction company turns the work over to the people at actual cost, with ten annual payments, and without one dollar of interest (Applause). If the National Government can do that with irrigation, it can do so just as wisely with power; and if it doesn't seem wise for the National Government to do it as a matter of public enterprise, then give us a form of construction company; but in the end, in the day of our children and our children's children and our remote descendants, in the name of God and in the name of humanity, let the people own the water which is essential to their existence. (Applause) Just one word further. I stand here to endorse what has just been said by one of the few real men whom California ever had the good fortune to put into her Governor's chair (great applause). California is not for State rights; that doctrine was trampled to death fifty years ago under the feet of a million armed men. Yesterday it raised its head and stretched out its weird arms seeking to grasp the remnant of the natural resources and turn them over to exploitation by private monopoly. But that will not be permitted. I am here, my friends, to say to you, as Governor Pardee has said, that in this great controversy—the most momentous which has arisen in this country since the close of the Civil War—California and the Pacific slope, and I believe all the splendid States of the Rocky mountain region, stand with that fine young American statesman who during the past few months has thrilled this nation in his fight to save the resources of the people to all the people for the benefit of all the people; that young man who said at Denver the other day that it is more important to help the small man make a living than to help the big man make a profit; that man, who has sounded the highest notes since Lincoln, who has declared that he is in favor of Government by men for human welfare and against Government by money for profit—we stand first, last, and all the time with Gifford Pinchot. (Great applause) Colonel T. H. Davidson (Delegate-at-large from Minnesota)—Mr Chairman: I noticed scattered through the program of this great Congress Chairman Condra—The rule adopted today fully covers the point, though it has not been put in effect this afternoon. We have two days, perhaps three, for full discussion, and the time will be limited under the rules which will govern tomorrow. The last speaker on the formal program is one who has been greatly interested in this movement and closely associated with Mr Pinchot. I have pleasure in introducing Mr Walter L. Fisher, a Vice-President of this Congress and of the National Conservation Association and President of the Conservation League of America. Mr Fisher—Mr Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen: I would not take any of your time this afternoon were it not that I, too, have felt the appeal of President Taft for concrete and practical suggestions as to how to solve some of the more difficult of the problems of constructive statesmanship presented in the Conservation movement. The particular point on which I wish to make a suggestion is the relation of the States and the Federal Government to the question of water-power grants. This question, it seems to me, has been allowed to assume a phase entirely unjustified by the facts. There is, in my judgment, not only no necessary conflict between the interests of the State and the Nation, but there is every incentive for practical cooperation between State and Nation on this matter (applause); and in my opinion the question can never be rightly settled until there is just that cooperation. (Renewed applause) The Federal Government is the natural agency to which we must look for many of the things which are essential to a solution. There are two phases of the problem, one involving a question of law and the other a question of public policy. As to the strict legal right, it must be apparent that on any stream where the Federal Government owns the riparian property, or on any stream which is navigable in fact or in law, the consent of the Federal Government is absolutely necessary as a pre-requisite to the construction of any water-power works. For myself, I believe that the power conferred by the Constitution upon the Federal Government with relation to interstate commerce absolutely carries the power to make such conditions in any permit to erect a structure in a navigable stream as the Federal Government may believe it wise policy to insert. The power to make or to withhold the permit, under all the decisions of the courts which have in any way touched that question, implies the power to impose conditions to the permit. There are, I know, those who disagree as to this proposition; but even they will agree on the broader question of public policy which underlies the whole subject. When the Federal Government undertakes You have heard the eloquent Ex-Governor of Louisiana explain what the interest of that State is in the intervention of the Federal Government in the regulation of the Mississippi river. There are few places throughout this country where the owners of water-power grants and those who are interested in all the other uses of flowing water have not appealed to the Federal Government for financial aid or for assistance not financial which that Government alone can effectively render. It must be apparent that in rendering that assistance the Federal Government creates property of value, or enlarges the money value of property already existing. No hardship, then, is done if the owners of this property are required to contribute to the original cost. Not only so, but there can be no justice in the proposition which requires the taxpayers of the United States as a body to pay the cost of the improvement or the protection of any stream when as a matter of fact the people who own the property immediately along the stream will get, in direct money value, a larger benefit than the cost of the improvement. There are many reasons besides these why the Federal Government must, in the very nature of things, be the effective agency to do many of the things which the States can never effectively do, no matter if the whole subject were turned over to them this afternoon. On the other hand, I wish to call attention to the fact, which I believe to be established by experience, that whenever a local community is once aroused to an intelligent appreciation of its interests and its rights, that local community will better and more effectively regulate local service and local rates than any more remote governmental agency whatever. Herein lies the advantage of local home rule. Now, I am not talking about railroad rates connected with interstate commerce, or about other things which affect more than the local community, but about those things which affect merely particular localities. If a water-power company starts in alongside of a great industrial community and that community is built up so that its industries depend on it, that community itself, once thoroughly aroused and intelligently educated upon the question, will far more effectively regulate those rates in the interests of the public, while at the same time dealing fairly with the corporate or private interests involved, than would the State or the Now, let us apply the principle to the water-power situation. And my whole purpose in speaking is merely to call the attention of this Congress to a method of treating this question, which will, in my opinion, meet both situations. It is not a novel suggestion; in one of the very last of the water-power grants made by Secretary Garfield, the essential provisions of it were at least hinted at and a preliminary provision made. In my humble opinion, the Federal Government should control the water-power grants on streams that are navigable or where the Government itself controls the riparian property. It should make grants for definite periods of time and should provide for compensation. That compensation as a broad, general rule should be applied to the improvement and protection of the stream and the watershed from which the water-power has been derived, or to other streams and watersheds of like character, for all uses of the water, whether for irrigation on the one hand or for water-power on the other. There should be periodical readjustments of the rate of compensation. In the beginning, and especially in an experimental enterprise, the rate of compensation should be exceedingly low. There should be, as President Taft himself said here in his speech, a readjustment of the rate, say every ten years; and the person or the corporation invited to invest money should be given proper protection in that readjustment. Capitalist and industrial pioneer should be treated not only fairly but liberally, that vigorous development may result. On the other hand, such a grant should contain this provision, or be subject to this fundamental legal limitation, that the grantee, by acceptance of the grant, acquiesces and will acquiesce in any reasonable regulation of the service and of the rates which may be charged the public that may be provided by the State or by any delegated agency of the State. In that way, the thing in which the local community (the State, its municipalities or minor communities) has the greatest interest will be amply protected and left free to act in its own interest. Now, what will be the result practically? At the end of the first ten-year period the question of readjusting the compensation will arise. If the local government has not adequately protected private interests, if it has not regulated the rates so that the people are obtaining power upon fair terms and the corporation restrained from making extortionate profits, all the Federal Government will have to do will be simply to increase the compensation. If, on the other hand, the fundamental question is being taken care of and the community in which the water-power is generated and distributed is receiving it at fair terms, the compensation can be left where it is or only slightly increased, depending entirely on the situation. And this has another side? The Federal Government may possibly at times not be looking after some public interests in particular localities as well as it should, for these same Federal officials who are Chairman Condra—Fellow-Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: In taking note of the remarkable representation from all over the country in this Congress, we should not forget that our President, Mr Bernard N. Baker, is from Baltimore, right on the Atlantic coast and in a southern State; and I desire to say, with a great deal of satisfaction, that a large part of the success of this Congress is due to his unflagging efforts. (Applause) We shall close our formal program for the day with a brief address by Colonel James H. Davidson, whom I now have the pleasure of introducing. Colonel Davidson—Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I shall only detain you a few minutes to make some suggestions which seem to me pertinent. Many delegates in this Congress seem to have it fixed in their minds that Federal control would settle the questions before us, and other delegates, from the Far West, seem to claim that the States should control absolutely; and to my surprise and great pleasure, I find that the representatives of southern States, like Louisiana and Mississippi, are favoring Federal control. I say to you, Mr Chairman and Delegates to this Congress, that this question is large enough and broad enough to enlist all the statesmanship in the Federal Government and in all the States composing the Union (applause). Reference has been made to that great struggle of nearly fifty years ago, in which I took part for nearly five years from private soldier to brigade commander as a full colonel (being one of but five who advanced in rank from private soldier to a full colonelcy); and I cannot stand up and ask as an American for State rights as against the Federal Government (applause). But it seems to me, Gentlemen, that there is enough for each and all of us to do; and if we, as States, neglect the duties that devolve upon us under the police powers, which all the States have, of regulating internal affairs, including these manufacturing corporations and monopolies, we are weak and are not making full use of the great privileges conferred upon us. I was interested very much in the discussion by Ex-Governor Pardee; and he pointed out a fact which indicates to my mind that Federal control alone is not sufficient. He says that 6,000,000 acres of They speak of four great water-power companies in California, and two water-power trusts. I thoroughly investigated that subject, spending over six months on it three years ago, and I found that water was king in California, yet the water is owned by these four imperial companies. One-half of my life and of my most valuable treasure is my son and his family, now in the San Joaquin valley; and every crevice and caÑon, in the mountains, almost, has been pre-empted by these great water-power combinations, and it costs fifty dollars per horsepower per annum for the use of it for pumping or for any other purpose. If the State of California had been alert, and had had proper regulation, it would have seen to it that these monopolies could not take possession of all these caÑons and control the water-power against the interests of the people. A board of most distinguished army engineers reported two or three years ago that the cost of generating one electrical horsepower at the falls of Saint Anthony—within ten miles of where I stand—was less than $6 per annum, and that in the city of Minneapolis to generate one horsepower by steam costs $42. Is there any reason why these great monopolies that can generate horsepower by water at an expense of from five to six dollars—and I think in California at less—should put it to the people at fifty dollars per horsepower? I hope that one of the results of this Congress will be earnest cooperation between the States and the Federal Government. Let each one be alert. When the Civil War broke out and President Lincoln called for 75,000 men, the Governors of the different States in the North did not hesitate, nor the Governors in the different States in the South; they immediately began calling for volunteers, making all arrangements to take care of the soldiers, and not an hour was lost. Governor Alexander Ramsey, of Minnesota, tendered a regiment to President Lincoln within an hour after the firing upon Fort Sumter (applause). It was Chairman Condra—It is now long after six oclock; and the Congress is adjourned, to reassemble tomorrow morning at 9.30. |
|
