Proceedings of the second National Conservation Congress at Saint Paul, September 5-8, 1910
by unknown · English · Gutenberg #36031 · 1,557,332 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Proceedings of the second National Conservation Congress at Saint Paul, September 5-8, 1910
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Proceedings of the second National Conservation Congress at Saint Paul, September 5-8, 1910
Creator: United States. National Conservation Congress
Release date: May 5, 2011 [eBook #36031]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36031
Credits: Produced by Bryan Ness, Stephen H. Sentoff and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS AT SAINT PAUL, SEPTEMBER 5-8, 1910 ***
Produced by Bryan Ness, Stephen H. Sentoff and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
ADDRESSES AND PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
SECOND
National Conservation Congress
HELD AT
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 5-8
1910
[Illustration: BERNARD N. BAKER
Baltimore, Md.
President, Second National Conservation Congress]
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
Second
National Conservation Congress
AT
Saint Paul
SEPTEMBER 5-8, 1910
"Let us conserve the foundations of our prosperity"
(Declaration of the Governors, 1908)
WASHINGTON
NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS
1911
W. F. ROBERTS COMPANY
PRINTERS
WASHINGTON, D. C.
[Illustration: HON. J. B. WHITE
Kansas City, Mo.
Chairman, Executive Committee, Second National Conservation
Congress and Third National Conservation Congress]
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES FOR 1909-10
_President_
B. N. BAKER, Baltimore
_Executive Secretary_
THOMAS R. SHIPP, Washington, D. C.
_Secretary_
L. FRANK BROWN, Seattle
_Vice-Presidents_
JOHN BARRETT, Washington, D. C.
JAMES S. WHIPPLE, Albany
E. J. WICKSON, Berkeley
ALFRED C. ACKERMAN, Athens, Ga.
HENRY A. BARKER, Providence
_Executive Committee_
J. B. WHITE, Kansas City, Mo., _Chairman_
B. N. BAKER, Baltimore
J. N. TEAL, Portland, Ore.
A. B. FARQUHAR, York, Pa.
L. H. BAILEY, Ithaca
THOMAS BURKE, Seattle
HENRY E. HARDTNER, Urania, La.
W. A. FLEMING JONES, Las Cruces
Mrs PHILIP N. MOORE, Saint Louis
Mrs J. ELLEN FOSTER, Washington, D. C.
_Local Board of Managers for the Saint Paul Congress_
Hon. A. O. EBERHART, _Chairman_
FRANK B. KELLOGG, _Vice-Chairman_
J. S. BELL, Minneapolis
H. A. TUTTLE, Minneapolis
GEORGE M. GILLETTE, Minneapolis
B. F. NELSON, Minneapolis
L. S. DONALDSON, Minneapolis
JOSEPH H. BEEK, Saint Paul
GEORGE H. PRINCE, Saint Paul
REUBEN WARNER, Saint Paul
PAUL W. DOTY, Saint Paul
THEODORE W. GRIGGS, Saint Paul
W. C. HANDY, _Secretary_
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES FOR 1910-11
_President_
HENRY WALLACE, Des Moines
_Executive Secretary_
THOMAS R. SHIPP, Washington, D. C.
_Treasurer_
D. AUSTIN LATCHAW, Kansas City, Mo.
_Recording Secretary_
JAMES C. GIPE, Clarks, La.
_Executive Committee_
J. B. WHITE, Kansas City, Mo., _Chairman_
B. N. BAKER, Baltimore
L. H. BAILEY, Ithaca
JAMES R. GARFIELD, Cleveland
FRANK C. GOUDY, Denver
W. A. FLEMING JONES, Las Cruces
Mrs PHILIP N. MOORE, Saint Louis
WALTER H. PAGE, New York
GEORGE C. PARDEE, Oakland, Cal.
GIFFORD PINCHOT, Washington, D. C.
J. N. TEAL, Portland, Ore.
E. L. WORSHAM, Atlanta
_Vice-Presidents_
ALABAMA, Hon. Albert P. Bush, Mobile; ALASKA, Hon. James Wickersham,
Fairbanks; ARIZONA, B. A. Fowler, Phenix; ARKANSAS, A. H. Purdue,
Fayetteville; CALIFORNIA, E. H. Cox, San Francisco; COLORADO, Murdo
Mackenzie, Trinidad; COLUMBIA (District of), W J McGee, Washington;
CONNECTICUT, Rollin S. Woodruff, Hartford; DELAWARE, Hon. George Gray,
Wilmington; FLORIDA, Cromwell Gibbons, Jacksonville; GEORGIA, Hon. Jno.
C. Hart, Union Point; HAWAII, Mrs Margaret R. Knudsen, Kanai; IDAHO,
James A. MacLean, University of Idaho; ILLINOIS, Julius Rosenwald,
Chicago; INDIANA, F. J. Breeze, Lafayette; IOWA, Carl Leopold,
Burlington; KANSAS, W. R. Stubbs, Topeka; KENTUCKY, James K. Patterson,
Lexington; LOUISIANA, Newton C. Blanchard, Shreveport; MAINE, Bert M.
Fernald, Augusta; MARYLAND, William Bullock Clark, Baltimore;
MASSACHUSETTS, Frank W. Rane, Boston; MICHIGAN, J. L. Snyder, Lansing;
MINNESOTA, Ambrose Tighe, Saint Paul; MISSISSIPPI, A. W. Shands, Sardis;
MISSOURI, Hermann Von Schrenk, Saint Louis; MONTANA, E. L. Norris,
Helena; NEBRASKA, Dr F. A. Long, Madison; NEVADA, Senator Francis G.
Newlands, Reno; NEW HAMPSHIRE, George B. Leighton, Monadnock; NEW
JERSEY, Charles Lathrop Pack, Lakewood; NEW MEXICO, W. A. Fleming Jones,
Las Cruces; NEW YORK, R. A. Pearson, Albany; NORTH CAROLINA, T. Gilbert
Pearson, Greensboro; NORTH DAKOTA, U. G. Larimore, Larimore; OHIO, James
R. Garfield, Cleveland; OKLAHOMA, Benj. Martin, Jr., Muskogee; OREGON,
J. N. Teal, Portland; PENNSYLVANIA, William S. Harvey, Philadelphia;
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Maj. George P. Ahern, Manila; PORTO RICO, Hon.
Walter K. Landis, San Juan; RHODE ISLAND, Henry A. Barker, Providence;
SOUTH CAROLINA, E. J. Watson, Columbia; SOUTH DAKOTA, Ellwood C.
Perisho, Vermillion; TENNESSEE, Herman Suter, Nashville; TEXAS, W.
Goodrich Jones, Temple; UTAH, Harden Bennion, Salt Lake City; VERMONT,
Fletcher D. Proctor, Proctor; VIRGINIA, A. R. Turnbull, Norfolk;
WASHINGTON, M. E. Hay, Olympia; WEST VIRGINIA, A. B. Fleming, Fairmont;
WISCONSIN, Charles R. Van Hise, Madison; WYOMING, Bryant B. Brooks,
Cheyenne; NATIONAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, Gifford Pinchot,
Washington.
_Standing Committees_
FORESTS--H. S. Graves, U. S. Forester, Washington, D. C., _Chairman_; E.
M. Griffith, Madison, Wis.; E. T. Allen, Portland, Ore.; J. Lewis
Thompson, Houston.
LANDS--Governor W. R. Stubbs, Topeka, _Chairman_; Dwight B. Heard,
Phenix; J. L. Snyder, Lansing; Murdo Mackenzie, Trinidad; Charles S.
Barrett, Union City, Ga.
WATERS--W J McGee, Washington, D. C., _Chairman_; E. A. Smith, Spokane;
Henry A. Barker, Providence; J. N. Teal, Portland, Ore.; Herbert Knox
Smith, Washington, D. C.
MINERALS--Charles R. Van Hise, Madison, _Chairman_; Joseph A. Holmes,
Washington, D. C.; D. W. Brunton, Denver; John Mitchell, New York; I. C.
White, Morgantown, W. Va.
VITAL RESOURCES--Dr William H. Welch, Baltimore, _Chairman_; Professor
Irving Fisher, New Haven; Dr H. W. Wiley, Washington, D. C.; Dr J. H.
Kellogg, Battle Creek, Mich.; Walter H. Page, New York.
[Illustration: HENRY WALLACE
Des Moines, Iowa
President, Third National Conservation Congress]
CONTENTS
PAGE
CONSTITUTION ix
OPENING SESSION 1
Invocation by ARCHBISHOP IRELAND 1
Greeting from CARDINAL GIBBONS 3
Address by GOVERNOR EBERHART 3
Welcome by MAYOR KELLER 13
Address by PRESIDENT TAFT 14
SECOND SESSION 34
Induction of GOVERNOR STUBBS as Chairman 34
Address by SENATOR NELSON 35
Address by GOVERNOR NOEL 48
Address by GOVERNOR NORRIS 52
Address by GOVERNOR DENEEN 59
Address by GOVERNOR HAY 64
Announcement by PROFESSOR CONDRA 71
Address by GOVERNOR BROOKS 72
Remarks by GOVERNOR STUBBS 75
Address by GOVERNOR VESSEY 77
THIRD SESSION 79
Appointment of Credentials Committee 79
Action on Constitution of
the National Conservation Congress 79
Remarks by DIRECTOR-GENERAL BARRETT 80
Remarks by GOVERNOR STUBBS 81
Invocation by REVEREND DOCTOR MONTGOMERY 81
Address by EX-PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT 82
FOURTH SESSION 93
Address by MISS BOARDMAN 94
Address by COMMISSIONER HERBERT KNOX SMITH 101
Modification of Credentials Committee 106
Address by HONORABLE JAMES R. GARFIELD 106
Address by EX-GOVERNOR PARDEE 115
Remarks by DELEGATE HORR, of Washington 120
Address by EX-GOVERNOR BLANCHARD 121
Address by WILLIAM E. SMYTHE 127
Address by WALTER L. FISHER 129
Address by COLONEL JAMES H. DAVIDSON 132
FIFTH SESSION 134
Invocation by BISHOP EDSALL 134
Address by PRESIDENT FINLEY 135
Report of Credentials Committee 145
Address by SENATOR BEVERIDGE 146
Response by GIFFORD PINCHOT 152
Address by PRESIDENT MCVEY 152
Discussion by CHAIRMAN WHITE 158
Address by MRS WELCH,
of the General Federation of Women's Clubs 160
Address by MRS HOYLE TOMKIES,
of the Women's National Rivers and Harbors Congress 163
Address by MRS SNEATH,
of the General Federation of Women's Clubs 166
Report by MRS HOWARD,
of the Daughters of the American Revolution 167
SIXTH SESSION 168
Induction of SENATOR CLAPP as Chairman 168
Address by PRESIDENT CRAIGHEAD 168
Postponement of Call of States 171
Address by D. AUSTIN LATCHAW 171
Address by JAMES J. HILL 177
Discussion by HENRY WALLACE 188
Address by SECRETARY WILSON 194
Discussion by REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS 201
Address by PROFESSOR BAILEY 203
SEVENTH SESSION 213
Address by PROFESSOR GRAVES 214
Address by ALFRED L. BAKER 222
Address by FRANK H. SHORT 226
Address by DIRECTOR-GENERAL BARRETT 237
Address by HONORABLE ESMOND OVEY 243
Action on time for election and report of
Resolutions Committee 246
EIGHTH SESSION 246
Appointment of Nominating Committee 246
Induction of GOVERNOR EBERHART as Chairman 246
Address by DEAN WESBROOK 247
Address by WALLACE D. SIMMONS 257
Address by COMMISSIONER ELMER E. BROWN 264
Address by MRS SCOTT, President of
the Daughters of the American Revolution 270
Action in memory of MRS J. ELLEN FOSTER 276
Presentation by MRS HOWARD to GIFFORD PINCHOT 276
Response by MR PINCHOT 277
Address by FRANCIS J. HENEY 278
Address by GIFFORD PINCHOT 292
Expression by GOVERNOR EBERHART 298
Statement by PROFESSOR CONDRA 298
CLOSING SESSION 299
Commencement of Call of States 299
Response by DELEGATE HARVEY, of Pennsylvania 299
Interlude by E. W. ROSS, of Washington 302
Report of Nominating Committee 303
Nomination by CHAIRMAN WHITE 303
Second by GIFFORD PINCHOT 304
Election of and response by HENRY WALLACE as President 305
Election of other Officers 306
Resolution of thanks to retiring PRESIDENT BAKER 308
Response by MR BAKER 308
Report of Resolutions Committee 308
Adoption of Resolutions 312
Interlude by E. W. ROSS, of Washington 312
Remarks by DELEGATE HORR, of Washington 313
Ratification of Vice-Presidents 313
Resolution in memory of PROFESSOR GREEN 313
Resumption of Call of States 314
Response by DELEGATE PURDUE, of Arkansas 314
Response by DELEGATE BANNISTER, of Indiana 314
Response by DELEGATE MILLER, of Iowa 314
Response by DELEGATE YOUNG, of Kansas 314
Response by DELEGATE BAKER, of Maryland 314
Response by DELEGATE THORP, of Minnesota 315
Response by STATE GEOLOGIST LOWE, of Mississippi 315
Response by GENERAL NOBLE, of Missouri 315
Response by CHAIRMAN WHITE 316
Response by PROFESSOR CONDRA, of Nebraska 317
Response by a Delegate from New York 318
Response by DELEGATE NESTOS, of North Dakota 318
Response by DELEGATE KRUEGER, of South Dakota 319
Remarks by DELEGATE JOHNS, of Washington 320
Privileged statement by LAND COMMISSIONER ROSS,
of Washington 322
Response by DELEGATE FOWLER, of Arizona 324
Response by DELEGATE HUNT, of District of Columbia 324
Response by DELEGATE BARKER, of Rhode Island 324
Response by PROFESSOR WHITE, of West Virginia 325
Response by DELEGATE WORSHAM, of Georgia 325
Motion for adjournment by DELEGATE MARTIN, of Oklahoma 326
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS 327
Laws that should be Passed,
by SENATOR FRANCIS G. NEWLANDS 327
Conservation of the Nation's Resources,
by CHAIRMAN J. B. WHITE 328
Practical Aspects of Conservation, by A. B. FARQUHAR 331
Report from Arkansas, by SID B. REDDING 333
Report from Colorado, by FRANK C. GOUDY 334
Report from Florida, by CROMWELL GIBBONS 335
Report from Idaho, by JEROME J. DAY 336
Report from Indiana, by A. E. METZGER 336
Report from Iowa, by A. C. MILLER 337
Report from Louisiana, by HENRY E. HARDTNER 339
Report from Maine, by CYRUS C. BABB 341
Report from Massachusetts, by FRANK WILLIAM RANE and
HENRY H. SPRAGUE 343
Report from Missouri, by HERMANN VON SCHRENK 344
Report from Montana, by RUDOLPH VON TOBEL 345
Report from New Mexico, by COLONEL W. A. FLEMING JONES 347
Report from New York, by J. S. WHIPPLE 347
Special report from New York, by HENRY H. PERSONS 352
Report from North Dakota, by PROFESSOR WALDRON 362
Report from Ohio, by PROFESSOR LAZENBY 364
Report from Oklahoma, by BENJ. MARTIN, JR. 365
Report from Oregon, by E. T. ALLEN 367
Report from Rhode Island, by HENRY A. BARKER 368
Report from South Carolina, by E. J. WATSON 369
Report from South Dakota, by DOANE ROBINSON 369
Report from Texas, by WILL L. SARGENT 370
Report from Utah, by O. J. SALISBURY 372
Supplementary report from Utah, by E. T. MERRITT 372
Report from Vermont, by GEORGE AITKIN 373
Report from Washington, by E. G. GRIGGS 375
Report from West Virginia, by HU MAXWELL 376
Report from Wisconsin, by E. M. GRIFFITH 377
Report of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 379
Report of the American Automobile Association 380
Report of the American Civic Association 383
Report of the American Forestry Association 384
Report of the American Humane Association 385
Report of the American Institute of Architects 386
Report of the American Paper and Pulp Association 388
Report of the American Medical Association 389
Report of the American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance of Way Association 392
Report of the American Railway Master Mechanics'
Association 393
Report of the American Scenic and Historic
Preservation Society 394
Report of the Association for the Protection of
the Adirondacks 397
Report of the Carriage Builders' National Association 410
Report of the Delaware State Federation of
Women's Clubs 411
Report of the Farmers' Union of America 411
Report of the General Federation of Women's Clubs 412
Report of the Lakes-to-Gulf Deep Waterway Association 413
Report of the League of American Sportsmen 415
Report of the National Board of Fire Underwriters 416
Report of the National Board of Trade 419
Report of the National Business League of America 420
Report of the Missouri Valley River Improvement
Association 420
Report of the Upper Mississippi River Improvement
Association 421
Report of the Washington State Federation of Labor 422
Report of the Western Forestry and Conservation
Association 423
Report of the United Mine Workers 424
Timber Conservation, by GEORGE H. EMERSON 424
Forests and Stream-Flow, by WILLIAM S. HARVEY 428
The Conservation of Minerals and Subterranean Waters,
by GEORGE F. KUNZ, Ph.D. 429
The Question of Land Titles, by FRANKLIN MCCRAY 430
INDEX 431
[Illustration:
1. GIFFORD PINCHOT, Vice-President (1910).
2. JAMES R. GARFIELD, Vice-President (1910).
3. HENRY A. BARKER, Vice-President (1909-10).
4. A. B. FARQUHAR, Executive Committee (1909).
5. W. A. FLEMING JONES, Vice-president (1910).
6. E. L. WORSHAM, Executive Committee (1910).
7. GEORGE C. PARDEE, Executive Committee (1910).
8. J. N. TEAL, Executive Committee (1909-10).
9. WALTER H. PAGE, Executive Committee (1910).
10. L. H. BAILEY, Executive Committee (1909-10).]
_CONSTITUTION_
ARTICLE 1--NAME
This organization shall be known as the National Conservation Congress.
ARTICLE 2--OBJECT
The object of the National Conservation Congress shall be: (1) to
provide a forum for discussion of the resources of the United States as
the foundation for the prosperity of the people, (2) to furnish definite
information concerning the resources and their utilization, and (3) to
afford an agency through which the people of the country may frame
policies and principles affecting the wise and practical development,
conservation, and utilization of the resources, to be put into effect by
their representatives in State and Federal Governments.
ARTICLE 3--MEETINGS
_Section 1._ Regular annual meetings shall be held at such time and
place as may be determined by the Executive Committee.
_Section 2._ Special meetings of the Congress, or its officers,
committees, or boards, may be held subject to the call of the President
of the Congress or the Chairman of the Executive Committee.
ARTICLE 4--OFFICERS
_Section 1._ The officers of the Congress shall consist of a President,
to be elected by the Congress; a Vice-President from each State, to be
chosen by the respective State delegations, and from the National
Conservation Association; an Executive Secretary; a Recording Secretary;
and a Treasurer.
_Section 2._ The duties of these officers may at any time be prescribed
by formal action of the Congress or Executive Committee. In the absence
of such action their duties shall be those implied by their designations
and established by custom. In addition, it shall be the duty of the
Vice-Presidents to receive, from the State Conservation Commissions and
other organizations concerned in Conservation, suggestions and
recommendations, and report them to the Executive Committee of the
Congress.
_Section 3._ The officers shall serve for one year, or until their
successors are elected and qualify.
ARTICLE 5--COMMITTEES AND BOARDS
_Section 1._ An Executive Committee of seven, in addition to which the
President of the National Conservation Association and all ex-Presidents
of the Congress shall be members ex-officio, shall be appointed by the
President during each regular annual session to act for the ensuing
year; its membership shall be drawn from different States, and not more
than one of the appointed members shall be from any one State. The
Executive Committee shall act for the Congress and shall be empowered to
initiate action and meet emergencies. It shall report to each regular
annual session.
_Section 2._ A Board of Managers shall be created in each city in which
the next ensuing session of the Congress is to be held, preferably by
leading organizations of citizens. The Board of Managers shall have
power to raise and expend funds, to incur obligations on its own
responsibility, and to appoint subordinate boards and committees, all
with the approval of the Executive Committee of the Congress. It shall
report to the Executive Committee at least two days before the opening
of the ensuing session, and at such other times as the Congress or the
Executive Committee may direct.
_Section 3._ A Committee on Credentials shall be appointed, consisting
of five (5) members, by the President of the Congress not later than on
the second day of each session of the Congress. It shall determine all
questions raised by delegates as to representation, and shall report to
the Congress from time to time as required by the President of the
Congress.
_Section 4._ A Committee on Resolutions shall be created for each annual
meeting of the Congress. A Chairman shall be appointed by the President.
One member of the Committee shall be selected by each State represented
in the Congress. The Committee shall report to the Congress not later
than the morning of the last day of each annual meeting.
_Section 5._ Permanent Committees, consisting of five (5) members each,
shall be appointed by the President of the Congress on each of the
following five divisions of Conservation: Forests, Waters, Lands,
Minerals, and Vital Resources. These committees shall, during the
intervals between the annual meetings of the Congress, inquire into
these respective subjects and prepare reports to be submitted on the
request of the Executive Committee, and render such other assistance to
the Congress as the Executive Committee may direct.
_Section 6._ By direction of the Congress, standing and special
committees may be appointed by the President.
_Section 7._ The President shall be a member, ex-officio, of every
committee of the Congress.
ARTICLE 6--ARRANGEMENTS FOR SESSIONS
_Section 1._ The program for the session of each annual meeting of the
Congress, including a list of speakers, shall be arranged by the
Executive Committee. The entire program, including allotments of time to
speakers and hours for daily sessions and all other arrangements
concerning the program, shall be made by the Executive Committee.
_Section 2._ Unless otherwise ordered, the rules adopted for the
guidance of the preceding Congress shall continue in force.
ARTICLE 7--MEMBERSHIP
_Section 1._ The personnel of the National Conservation Congress shall
be as follows:
_Officers and Delegates_
Officers of the National Conservation Congress.
Fifteen Delegates appointed by the Governor of each State and Territory.
Five Delegates appointed by the Mayor of each city with a population of
25,000, or more.
Two Delegates appointed by the Mayor of each city with a population of
less than 25,000.
Two Delegates appointed by each Board of County Commissioners.
Five Delegates appointed by each National Organization concerned in the
work of Conservation.
Five Delegates appointed by each State or Interstate Organization
concerned in the work of Conservation.
Three Delegates appointed by each Chamber of Commerce, Board of Trade,
Commercial Club, or other local organization concerned in the work of
Conservation.
Two Delegates appointed by each State or other University or College,
and by each Agricultural College or Experiment Station.
HONORARY MEMBERS
The President of the United States.
The Vice-President of the United States.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The Cabinet.
The United States Senate and House of Representatives.
The Supreme Court of the United States.
The Representatives of Foreign Governments.
The Governors of the States and Territories.
The Lieutenant-Governors of the States and Territories.
The Speakers of State Houses of Representatives.
The State Officers.
The Mayors of Cities.
The County Commissioners.
The Presidents of State and other Universities and Colleges.
The Officers and Members of the National Conservation Association.
The Officers and Members of the National Conservation Commission.
The Officers and Members of the State Conservation Commissions and
Associations.
ARTICLE 8--DELEGATIONS AND STATE OFFICERS
_Section 1._ The several Delegates from each State in attendance at any
Congress shall assemble at the earliest practicable time and organize by
choosing a Chairman and a Secretary. These Delegates, when approved by
the Committee on Credentials, shall constitute the Delegation from that
State.
ARTICLE 9--VOTING
_Section 1._ Each member of the Congress shall be entitled to one vote
on all actions taken viva voce.
_Section 2._ A division or call of States may be demanded on any action
by a State delegation. On division, each Delegate shall be entitled to
one vote; provided (1) that no State shall have more than twenty votes;
and provided (2) that when a State is represented by less than ten
Delegates, said Delegates may cast ten votes for such State.
_Section 3._ The term "State" as used herein is to be construed to mean
either State, Territory, or Insular Possession.
ARTICLE 10--AMENDMENTS
This Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Congress
during any regular session, provided notice of the proposed amendment
has been given from the Chair not less than one day or more than two
days preceding; or by unanimous vote without such notice.
[Illustration:
1. D. AUSTIN LATCHAW, Treasurer (1910).
2. THOMAS R. SHIPP, Executive Secretary (1909-10).
3. JAMES C. GIPE, Recording Secretary (1910).
4. JOHN BARRETT, Vice-President (1909).
5. Mrs PHILIP N. MOORE, Executive Committee (1909-10).
6. FRANK C. GOUDY, Executive Committee (1910).
7. THOMAS BURKE, Executive Committee (1909).
8. E. J. WICKSON, Vice-President (1909).
9. HENRY D. HARDTNER, Vice-President (1909).
10. JAMES S. WHIPPLE, Vice-President (1909).
11. W J MCGEE, Vice-President (Editor of Proceedings).]
SECOND NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS
_OPENING SESSION_
The Congress convened in the Auditorium, Saint Paul, Minnesota, on the
morning of September 5, 1910, President Baker in the chair, and was
called to order on arrival of the President of the United States.
President BAKER--Mr President, your Grace, Ladies and Gentlemen: The
honor I have today in opening this great Congress is one that will
always be highly treasured, for I feel that what we are trying to do is
to make our country great and strong by men who see the Nation's wrongs
and are giving their time to this great object. We are meeting today for
the purpose of using our very best efforts to assist in protecting the
interests of this great country in a way that will best protect every
man and woman and child in his or her rights, with justice to all. That
our great National resources are in danger of being wasted and not fully
preserved for the future, I am satisfied is the thought of all the great
minds assembled here today to take part in this Congress.
There is a Great High Power that rules and governs for the best in the
world, and I now call upon His Grace, Archbishop Ireland, to open our
Congress with an invocation to that Great Power for help, guidance, and
direction.
INVOCATION
_Almighty and eternal God. We bow before Thee in deep humility. Accept
from us, we beseech Thee, from submissive minds and sincere hearts,
adoration, praise, gratitude, love, and the promise of abiding
recognition of Thy sovereignty and of loyal obedience to Thy laws._
_O God, all things are Thine; all things were made by Thee; no thing
that was made was made without Thee; "the heavens show forth Thy glory
and the firmament declareth Thy power, day to day uttereth speech, night
to night showeth knowledge," ever proclaiming that Thou are the Master,
that things created are the scintillations of Thy power and wisdom. We
are Thine, O God, Thee our Father and our Master; earth and skies are
ours through gift of Thy munificence. "Till the earth," was it said to
us, "and subdue it and dominate over the fishes of the sea and the fowls
of the air and all living creatures that move upon the earth." Earth is
ours, not, O Lord, that we use it at our will and caprice, but that
under Thy guidance we bid it turn to our best and truest welfare, to the
best and truest welfare of our fellow-men, Thy children all; over all of
whom spread Thy love and care._
_Grant to us, O Lord, this morning wisdom in our counselings and
deliberations, that the intents of Thy providence be our intents, and,
Thy will the inspiration of our counselings and our actions._
_We thank thee, O God, for the gift to us of America. As to few other
lands, Thou hast been prodigal to America of gifts rich and rare. In
America skies are serene and health-giving above us; beneath us fields
are verdant and fertile; nowhere else are forests more fruitful, hills
and mountains richer in imbedded treasure; nowhere else are lakes and
rivers endowed with higher grandeur or more ready to proffer to man
useful and ennobling service. Of America, through Thy munificence, O
God, we are the caretakers. May we be wise and prudent in our duty. We
pray that under Thy abiding watchfulness, through our intelligent
industry, America grows ever in fairness and in wealth, and be the first
and most beauteous of the stopping-places allowed to men in their
pilgrimage toward their abiding home in heaven._
_Bless, O Lord, America, and bless its people, that they be ever
faithful to Thy laws; bless its citizenship, bless its Government, that
the spirit of its freedom-giving institutions never die, never lessen in
sweetness and in power; that here liberty be ever encircled in order,
and order ever wreathed in liberty; that righteousness dominate and
permeate prosperity; that whatever the laws we form may be
scintillations of Thy own eternal laws--compliance with which is life
and felicity, forgetfulness of which is misery and death to men and to
nations._
_And we pray Thee, O God, send down Thy blessing upon the President of
the Republic, upon whose shoulders descends the chief responsibility of
upholding the salvation and the dignity of America. We pray that Thou
bestow upon him Thy precious blessing. The burthen is heavy, often the
horizon is dark, often the polar star is hidden from which guidance
might come; but in Thee, O God, he confideth,--send upon him the wisdom
and the strength of Thy Holy Spirit, the wisdom that he may know, the
power that he may do, ever Thy will. In Thee, O Lord, in Thy omnipotent
hand--prompt to give aid in single-mindedness of purpose and in
rectitude of intention--he puts his trust. Be Thou his teacher, be Thou
his guide._
_Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily
bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass
against us, and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from all
evil. Amen._
* * * * *
President BAKER--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: His Eminence,
Cardinal GIBBONS, sends you greeting:
Allow me to say how earnestly I wish the Congress every success in the
much-needed work of National Conservation.
It is said that the French and Germans could subsist on what we waste;
and I fear that to a stranger visiting our country it must seem that in
a hundred years we have wasted more of our natural resources than the
nations of Europe have done in all the centuries of their existence. But
if we have been reckless in the past, wasting like vandals our rich
inheritance, it is also most consoling and full of promise for the
future that with the strong aid of our President, of Colonel Roosevelt,
and of leading citizens in various parts of the country, we may look for
a wiser use of our resources in the near future. And I am the more
hopeful of a successful Congress from the fact that there is no
political issue involved in the great subject before it which might
threaten to divide our counsels and breed discontent, but that the sole
motive that actuates the Congress is to conserve and increase our
natural resources and thereby contribute to the material prosperity of
our beloved country.
It is also decidedly my opinion that we should regard our natural
resources as the patrimony of the Nation, a sacred trust committed to
our keeping to be administered for the good of the whole people, and to
be transmitted by us, as far as possible unimpaired, to our posterity.
By husbanding and using economically the gifts of Nature, we shall have
an abundant supply for our own times, and also make suitable provisions
for the future. Mother Earth is not only a fruitful mother; she is also
a grateful mother, and repays her children for every kindness and
tenderness we exercise toward her. And there are also instances on
record to show that she is relentless when she chastises.
Did my many duties allow, I should gladly take a more active part in the
greatly needed Conservation labors. However, I trust you will feel
assured of my entire sympathy and of the hope I confidently entertain of
the very great benefits coming to us all as the fruitful result of these
devoted laborers. JAMES CARD. GIBBONS.
* * * * *
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: The opening of the Congress today
in Saint Paul is due largely to the kind assistance and friendly welcome
of the Governor of Minnesota, His Excellency A. O. Eberhart, who will
now extend you a welcome. (Great applause and cheers)
Governor EBERHART--Mr President, Members of the Congress, Ladies and
Gentlemen: When I was invited to appear before this Congress and bid you
welcome, it was suggested that I also outline what the people of
Minnesota felt when they sought to have this splendid gathering at Saint
Paul.
I am sure that no State or city could receive greater honor than to have
the President of the United States come fifteen hundred miles to deliver
the most important message on Conservation that has ever been presented
to the people of this great country. (Applause) Yet I am not going to
take more than the twenty minutes allotted to assure you that the only
interest this State has in the Conservation movement is that which every
true friend of the movement stands for. Last night I cut out the meat of
my remarks, this morning the bones, and now there is nothing left but
the nerve, and I have scarcely enough "nerve" to deliver it. (Laughter
and applause)
The Conservation of natural resources does not consist merely in the
preservation of these resources for the benefit of future generations,
but rather such present use thereof as will result in the greatest
general good and yet maintain that productive power which insures
continued future enjoyment. (Applause) While it is true that exhaustible
resources like mineral wealth cannot be conserved for both future and
present use, except by economic regulations and the prevention of
wasteful methods, Conservation deals with their distribution in such a
way as to prevent their control by grasping corporations and
individuals, who would monopolize them for their own exclusive benefit
at the expense of the general public. (Applause)
It follows necessarily that any theory of Conservation which does not
provide for the present as well as the future does not cover the entire
field and cannot possibly bring the best results. (Applause) From every
economic standpoint it is desirable that the present generation should
be preferred, since future discoveries and inventions may render present
resources of less value and importance to the coming generations.
In its broadest sense the Conservation movement is not limited merely to
the consideration of natural resources. Every great convention called to
consider the problems involved has widened the scope of the movement so
that today it includes the elimination of wasteful methods in almost
every field of human activity and the conservation of all human endeavor
so as to confer on all mankind the greatest blessings that a bounteous
nature and twenty centuries of enlightenment can bestow.
Every consideration of natural resources for the purpose of eliminating
wasteful methods, preserving and increasing productive power, as well as
regulating operation and control, has for its ultimate object the
conservation of human energy, health and life, the securing of equal
opportunities for all, and such dissemination of knowledge as will
guarantee the continual possession and enjoyment of these blessings. The
subjects for consideration by this Congress should, therefore, include
not only the restoration and increase of soil fertility, the protection
and development of forests, mines and water-powers, the reclamation of
arid and swamp lands by irrigation and drainage, the forestation of
areas unsuited to farming, the control of rivers by reservoirs so as to
prevent flooding, as well as the elimination of waste in the use of
these resources, but also the problems of public comfort, health and
life that are so intimately connected with all material and
intellectual development. (Applause) Many of these questions will
concern home attractions and management, industrial education in the
public schools, public highways, State advertising and settlement, pure
food, public health, and sanitation.
By far the most important of all natural resources is the soil, and the
maintenance and increase of its fertility must, therefore, be given the
greatest consideration. (Applause) As long as food is necessary to human
life, agriculture must continue to be the most vital industry of man,
and the farm will be the most general and indispensable theater of his
activity. We must have manufacture, art, schools, churches and
government to round out our sphere of civilized existence, but the
foundation of them all is the farm. (Applause) From the earth come all
the materials for manufactures, the commodities of commerce, and
ultimately the support of all human institutions. During the half
century just past our country has devoted its energies to the
development of manufacturing and commercial industries to such an extent
that the scientific methods of agriculture necessary to insure not only
the permanency of our institutions but the very existence of human life
itself have been comparatively neglected. The pendulum is now swinging
back to the farm, and our great Nation is becoming aroused to the fact
that its most vital concern is the elimination of soil waste, the
promotion of scientific methods of agriculture, and the conservation of
that soil fertility which is the foundation of our entire social,
political and commercial superstructure. (Applause)
This new birth of agricultural progress comes at a psychological moment.
We have developed American manufactures until the $16,000,000,000
product of our mills and factories exceeds that of Germany, France, and
the United Kingdom combined. (Applause) We have built railroads by
liberal public and private enterprise until the United States has about
one-half of all the railway mileage and tonnage of the world. We have
developed banking enterprise and home trade until we have the greatest
banking power on earth, and an internal commerce which far exceeds the
entire foreign commerce of the globe. We have become the model of the
world in our free public schools and our republican form of government.
But while we have demonstrated the possession of the greatest
agricultural resources on the globe, and have heretofore supplied the
world's markets with an unparalleled volume of farm products, we have
wasted a wealth that would maintain our population for centuries. The
loss in farm values in nearly all of the older States, as shown by the
census records from 1880 to 1900, varies from $1,000,000 to $160,000,000
in each State and aggregates the enormous total of more than
$1,000,000,000. Is this not sufficient to arouse the entire Nation and
cause such a wave of reform as will put into activity every agency and
instrumentality for scientific and progressive methods of agricultural
reconstruction?
The unprecedented agricultural growth of the United States, in spite of
wasteful methods, has been caused by the extraordinary fertility of its
virgin soil, the great inducement offered by States and Nation to
promote settlement and cultivation, the rapid growth of favorable
transportation facilities, as well as the great demand for agricultural
products resulting from the rapid increase of population, wealth and
commercial enterprise.
Minnesota affords a splendid illustration of this development process,
and I trust that I may be pardoned for using my own State for that
purpose, since I am best acquainted with her conditions, development,
and resources. Of her 50,000,000 acres of land area, about one-half is
actually tilled, constituting the field area of about 200,000 farms
whose aggregate area, including lands not tilled, approximates
32,000,000 acres, or 160 acres each. Nearly 4,000,000 acres of her area
are covered by 10,000 lakes. This vast farm area possesses a soil
unsurpassed by any State or any country in the world. The great glacier
of several thousand years ago was generous to Minnesota. Its fine
glacial drift almost wholly covers the old rock formations. Coming from
many regions and rock sources, it has given to the soil an excellent
chemical composition. This, together with the vegetal mold, accumulated
for ages, makes the very best of hospitable soils. The incomparable
fertility of the Minnesota soil and its ability to withstand fifty years
of starvation methods in cultivation is accounted for by the almost
uniform mixture of vegetal mold with all kinds of decomposed rock drift,
thus making it possible for less than half of the State to produce farm
products aggregating the enormous total for 1909 of more than
$427,000,000. (Applause) It accounts also for the fact that, while
Minnesota, like all other States, during this period of fifty years has
been rather mining the fertility out of her soil than cultivating it,
she has withstood the consequent impoverishment without appreciable
shrinkage in farm value. There is perhaps not a single representative in
this distinguished assemblage who cannot recall the day when the virgin
soil in his locality did not produce from 50 to 100 percent larger crops
than it does today, when dense forests covered large tracts now a barren
waste, and when the bosom of the earth contained untold millions of
mineral wealth now represented on the surface by huge spoil-banks and
sunken surfaces. We remember only too well when our fertile fields
yielded thirty-five to forty bushels of wheat to the acre, and that the
same fields produced only about twelve bushels five years ago. In nearly
every community there is found that pathetic omen of decay, the deserted
farm--even in this young State.
The economic importance of soil conservation is so great that it can
scarcely be estimated. In making my estimates I have taken a very
conservative view, and while no absolutely accurate figures can be
obtained, the few that I shall give will be found sufficiently reliable
to establish the paramount value of soil conservation.
In Minnesota the low tide of soil impoverishment occurred about five
years ago. At that time, after several years of apparently unsuccessful
effort, the Agricultural College and schools, assisted by the State
Farmers' Institutes and the press, succeeded in stemming the tide and
arousing considerable interest in new methods of farming along more
intelligent and intensive lines. Only within the last year, however, has
progress been marked and rapid. When the first State Conservation
Congress was called to meet in Saint Paul, March, 1909, nearly every
township in the State was represented and all but two counties presented
agricultural and industrial exhibits, attracting a total attendance of
more than 150,000 people. The wonderful success of that Congress and the
enthusiasm it stirred up all over the State gave a great impetus to this
new era of agricultural reform in the entire Northwest and insured the
complete success of this Congress from a local standpoint. Never before
had 6,000 of the most progressive farmers of a State met for the purpose
of discussing more intelligent methods of farming, as well as the
suppression of wasteful methods in all fields of agricultural and
industrial activity.
During the past short period of five years the average cereal yield of
this State has been increased more than five bushels per acre; the corn
belt has been extended northward more than 300 miles to the Canadian
boundary by the production of hardy and early maturing varieties of
corn, yielding the State last year over 60,000,000 bushels, and placing
Minnesota among the dozen leading corn States of the Union. It is
estimated that plant breeding and seed selection alone last year added
about $15,000,000 to our agricultural products. The cereal production
has also affected clover, timothy and other tame grasses, thus largely
contributing to the growth of the dairy industry, which has been
increased ten-fold in twenty years until it now yields the State
$50,000,000 annually, several counties netting more than $1,000,000
each. Similar progress has been made in the live stock, fruit, and truck
gardening industries, and it is safe to conclude that Minnesota has
entered in earnest upon a complete plan of agricultural reconstruction.
But let us consider the opportunities for advancement that are still
open, in order that we may determine the economy of soil conservation in
terms of dollars and cents. The average yield of Minnesota wheat last
season was seventeen bushels per acre. At the agricultural experiment
stations the same wheat with improved seed selection and better
preparation of soil by crop rotation and tillage yielded twenty-eight
bushels per acre, climatic and soil conditions, as well as expense of
tillage being otherwise similar, a difference in favor of intelligent
farming approximating from five to eight dollars per acre, depending on
local conditions. Assuming for the sake of argument that the average
difference in the State would not be more than four dollars per acre, it
would still increase the agricultural net earning of the State on the
basis of the present acreage $100,000,000 annually. These figures do not
take into consideration the further increase of soil productivity by
various methods of fertilization other than those resulting from
planting crops which enrich the soil with nitrogen, phosphoric acid,
potash and calcium, the essential elements of plant growth. Besides, I
have not attempted to estimate the value of raising almost maximum
yields, where weather conditions are unfavorable, by such drainage,
preparation of soil, planting and tillage as will best suit local and
climatic conditions. No crop emphasizes the value of seed selection in
such unmistakable terms as corn. The average stand of this crop does not
exceed 60 percent, which means that the farmer spends 40 percent of his
time in the cornfield without result. By selecting the seed in the field
at the proper season, testing each ear before planting, and separating
with reference to size, so that as nearly as possible the planter will
put three kernels in each hill, the stand can be increased to at least
95 percent. Applying this increase to the 2,000,000 acres of cornfield
in Minnesota, it would add approximately 30,000,000 bushels with
practically no additional cost of production. That the importance of
this matter might be more firmly impressed upon the people of the State,
I have issued a seed-corn proclamation designating the time when the
seed-corn should be selected and calling the attention of the people to
the feed value of the corn product as well as corn fodder, which is of
utmost importance in a dry season like the one we are now experiencing.
This proclamation has received extensive publicity, and it is safe to
say that a large number of Minnesota's 200,000 farmers will heed the
note of warning.
Of still more vital importance, if possible, is the maintenance and
increase of soil fertility as a source of support for future
generations. The soil is the only permanent asset of the farmer, and its
net returns in crops constitute his annual dividends. Any impairment of
this asset will not only reduce the dividends on which his support
depends, but will destroy the productive power of the soil to such
extent as to deprive future owners of the most essential means of
livelihood. A loss of $1,000,000,000 in farm values, such as the older
States have already suffered, does not mean merely that this vast sum of
money has been wasted, but that its annual earning capacity on which
thousands should depend for support has been entirely destroyed, and
that these thousands have been forced to seek their sustenance from the
fields of commerce and manufacture in the large cities. We enact
stringent legislation to prevent the impairment of capital in our
banking institutions to protect depositors from loss, but the working
capital investment of millions in farm property on which all human
institutions must necessarily depend for existence has not been
safeguarded in any manner whatsoever. Without any organized effort to
interfere, we still permit millions of farmers to mine out the fertility
of the soil, thus increasing the drudgery of farm life, reducing every
source of farm income, converting the producers of the farm into
consumers of the city, and thus contributing directly to the great
increase in cost of living, the scarcity of farm labor, and the
congested conditions that breed disease and crime in our large cities.
Apply the situation to the country at large and you will find a
situation that is simply appalling. There are approximately 500,000,000
acres under actual tillage in the United States. Instead of figuring
four dollars per acre waste, which probably would be a fair average, we
will place the loss at the extremely low estimate of one dollar. This
will still make the total loss through wasteful farming methods in the
United States reach the enormous total of $500,000,000 annually. In
other words, if the loss were in fact not greater than one dollar per
acre, which is unquestionably too low, and that rate could be maintained
perpetually without an ultimate depletion of the soil, it would mean
that a capital investment of $12,500,000,000 with an earning capacity of
four percent per annum aggregating $500,000,000 annually, had been
completely destroyed.
At the rate of two dollars per acre, which is a low average, we are
every year wasting the income from $25,000,000,000, a sum so great as to
be entirely beyond human comprehension. In many of the older States,
where farms were sold forty years ago at $150 per acre, the same farms
cannot be sold today for $25 per acre, sometimes less than the actual
cash value of the buildings and other improvements, because the soil has
been robbed of its fertility, making it impossible for the owner to earn
the most meager living without restoring the vitality of the soil
through expensive methods of fertilization.
It is not at all difficult to see how such wasteful methods of farming
must affect the entire industrial situation. The younger generation,
inspired with the hopes, aspirations, and energy of youth, stirred by
the achievements, opportunities, and general prosperity of a truly great
Nation, and encouraged by the possibilities of a liberal education,
cannot afford to stake its future on the eking out of a mere existence
under the shadow of a rapidly increasing farm mortgage or the
threatening omen of a deserted homestead. All honor and credit to that
farmer's boy who early realizes the handicap placed upon him by the
impairment, and oftentimes utter destruction, of the only safe capital
investment of the farmer--fertile and productive soil. Should we
complain because he goes to the city to seek more inviting and
attractive fields of existence after having been robbed of his only
means of livelihood on the farm? This is the proper time for us to think
it over. In the younger States, where soil mining has been of such short
duration as to be incomplete, and the value of the land through
settlement, city growth, and increased transportation facilities is
constantly growing, the young man, who has learned intelligent and
progressive methods of farming, should have no fear as to the future,
for he has the making of a safe investment; but the young lad who,
without experience or training, unexpectedly finds himself possessor of
a farm where land values have ceased to rise and the soil has been
starved until it no longer can yield in abundance, has a white elephant
on his hands, and the sooner he can be brought to the realization
thereof the better for himself and the entire community.
Where a certain amount of labor should produce thirty bushels of wheat
to the acre, it yields but ten, or even less; and when the farmer
cultivates his corn, working ten hours per day, four hours thereof is
spent in vain, because 40 percent of the field has no corn--not to speak
of the poor quality of the corn grown on account of defective
preparation of soil, poor tillage, and the lack of necessary nutritive
elements within the soil itself. In addition, he has no knowledge as to
diversified farming, the value of live stock, dairying, fruit-raising,
truck-gardening, and many other means of livelihood which yield large
incomes to the possessor of a well-managed farm, nor does he appreciate
the enormous waste committed by unnecessary exposure to the elements of
farm machinery and buildings.
The young lady faces a similar situation. Every field of employment bids
her welcome at wages from $50 or more per month, and she has already
achieved such abundant success in every line of human enterprise, and at
the same time enjoyed all the pleasures and delights which bring cheer
to the heart of the young, that she cannot afford to even hesitate.
Should we complain if she refuses to stay on the farm and take her
chances of marrying a $25 man and a ruined farm plastered all over with
mortgages, and be chained in matrimonial bonds of lifelong drudgery to a
devastated farm homestead, robbed of everything that contributes to the
beautiful and good and true in a woman's life? (Great applause) There is
only one answer, and its conclusions are just.
Though I have presented a sad picture, it is not pessimistic. The
background is altogether cheerful. Two words express the most simple and
effective remedy: intelligent farming. This will not only make farming
profitable, but it will surround the home life on the farm with so many
attractions as to remove all desire for the deceptive allurements of a
city. Intelligent farming does not merely guarantee good dividends on a
farm investment, but it builds good roads to save cost of
transportation, consolidates rural schools where intelligent farming,
industry and home economics can be taught by precept and example,
beautifies the home and its surroundings and fills it with all the
attractions that elevate manhood and womanhood, teaches the younger
generation the dignity as well as reward of farm labor, and inspires the
laborer with the hope of a bright future.
Drainage, farm settlement, good roads, forestry, transportation,
industrial education, minerals, cheap heat and power resources, are all
important factors in the Conservation movement. Minnesota has
successfully drained about 3,000,000 acres in the northern part of the
State at an average cost of two dollars per acre, and converted into
meadows, grain and clover fields, celery and cranberry gardens, what
only a year or two since was a rough wilderness. Every State should have
some effective way of making these results known to prospective settlers
through exhibits and judicious advertising. No State officer is in a
position to bring greater returns to the State than the immigration
commissioner, and it is to be regretted that his work is so often
crippled by lack of sufficient appropriations.
In marketing produce, distributing material, fertilizer and machinery,
the farmers of Minnesota haul annually approximately 20,000,000 wagon
loads. Averaging the cost of each load over mostly unimproved roads at
$1.50, the cost of highway transportation in the State aggregates
$30,000,000. Most experts claim that uniformly good roads would reduce
this cost one-half, but conceding for the sake of argument that the
reduction would be only a third, the net saving to the farmers of the
State in one year would be about $10,000,000. However, this is not the
most important result. The building of good roads would build up farm
intercommunication and promote the consolidation of rural school
districts by making it possible to carry the pupils at all seasons of
the year some distance over country roads to the school at a minimum
cost.
Several of the north-central border States were the chief shippers of
lumber only a few years ago. Now our great forests are largely depleted,
and scientific deforestation has become an absolute necessity. One of
the most important duties the States as well as the Nation have to
perform is the transformation of this vast stumpage area into forests
and farms. Practical and scientific reforestation should convert the
lands unsuited for farming into forests, so that every acre would
produce revenue and furnish some necessity of life. The dry season of
1910 has particularly emphasized another important duty in this
connection, and that is the protection of our forests and settlers from
fires. It is a well known fact that enough timber has been destroyed by
fire within the last four months to pay for the adequate protection of
all our forests for a period of ten years or more, not to mention the
great loss of human life, which in itself imposes upon States and Nation
the duty of protection. This Congress should be instrumental in stirring
public sentiment to such an extent that the various legislatures and the
Congress will take immediate steps to stop this needless and expensive
waste.
Since mineral wealth is exhaustible, it follows that the interest of the
people in this important resource should be guarded against the
encroachments of greed with the utmost care. Minnesota furnishes now
one-half of all the iron-ore in the United States, and one-fourth of
that of the world, exporting this year about 40,000,000 tons. It is
estimated that not less than 2,000,000,000 tons of ore has been
definitely located, and that the volume of the undeveloped properties is
enormous. The State is the owner of very large quantities of ore, and
the income from this source alone will increase the State school fund by
at least $100,000,000.
No section of our country could profit more by water transportation than
that tributary to this great mineral wealth. The canalization of the
Mississippi river system with its 16,000 miles of streams would by cheap
transportation bring together the coal fields of the central interior
with the iron ore of the North, and produce in the Mississippi valley
the greatest iron and steel industries of the world, besides opening up
the greatest agricultural and industrial sections to the transportation
facilities of the Panama canal.
No commercial nation can long retain supremacy unless it has unlimited
supplies of cheap heat and power. In the north-central border States are
located peat deposits that should furnish cheap heat and power for
untold generations, Minnesota alone possessing more than 1,000,000
acres; and as the source of the three great watersheds of the country,
with an elevation of about 1,500 feet over sea and gulf level, there is
an abundance of water-power to turn the wheels of manufacture and
commerce.
Time will not permit any consideration of the strictly human side of
Conservation. We have saved millions of dollars annually by guarding
against plant and animal disease, and are just beginning to take note of
the untold millions wasted every month through neglect of preventable
and curable disease, impure foods, defective sanitation and health
inspection in homes and schools, unsuitable playgrounds for children,
and the lack of safeguards against railway, mine and factory accidents,
all of which come properly within the Conservation scope.
The splendid progress made by Minnesota and other States merely
emphasizes the importance of the Conservation movement. Warned by the
decay of older nations, we must act before the crisis of exhausted
natural resources reaches our Nation and commonwealths. Indeed, warned
by signs that are only too plain in our own midst, we must take decisive
action without delay. Fortunately, we have passed the pioneer stage of
development. Our Nation and commonwealths have all experienced many of
the disasters resulting from the skimming of natural resources. Having
discovered the vast mines of wealth which surround us everywhere, we
must now and forever determine that ignorance, selfishness, and greed
shall no longer control our governments and exhaust our resources.
(Great applause and cheers)
The problems before us are not merely of tremendous importance, but they
are also difficult as to solution. They frequently involve sharply
conflicting claims and interests as between the Nation and the various
commonwealths. Every State as well as the Nation itself should have a
distinct and separate department empowered to deal with all these
problems. It matters but little how it should be designated, though it
would serve all purposes best to be known as a Conservation Commission.
But it is of vital importance that the agency should be given sufficient
authority and funds, so as to enlist the strongest and best men in the
Conservation service. That such commissions would have sufficient work,
and that from an economic standpoint they would constitute good
investments, there is and can be no question.
Minnesota, as a distinctly progressive State and a recognized leader in
the Conservation movement, heartily welcomes this Congress with its
noted guests and speakers. We have the special honor of entertaining and
hearing the three truly great men who have contributed so much to the
actual achievements of the Conservation movement, and they are the three
most distinguished guests of this Congress, President Taft (applause and
the Chautauqua salute), Colonel Roosevelt (applause and cheers), and
James J. Hill. Minnesota appreciates this honor and will prove herself
worthy thereof. As her Chief Executive, I earnestly hope that the
deliberations of this Congress may bring results far beyond our hopes or
expectations. I am intensely interested in the Conservation of our
resources, and will use all my efforts in securing and enforcing the
best possible legislation, believing firmly that the Conservation
movement, as here outlined, will promote the general public welfare in a
far greater degree than any other, and that it is destined to mark the
twentieth century as an era of the greatest industrial achievement for
the benefit of all mankind. The people of Minnesota feel keenly their
duties and responsibilities with reference to their great heritage of
unsurpassed natural resources, and will continue as leaders in the only
movement that can insure the perpetuation of our country as the greatest
agricultural, industrial and commercial nation in the world. On their
behalf, I welcome you to the State. I thank you. (Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--It is now my pleasure to call upon his Honor, Mayor
Herbert E. Keller, who will welcome you on behalf of the great city of
Saint Paul. (Great applause and cheers)
Mayor KELLER--Mr President, Delegates to the Second National
Conservation Congress, and Guests: Upon me, as Chief Executive of the
city where this body will carry on its labors, the honor of welcoming
you devolves. It is a great privilege and pleasure to discharge this
duty, and yet my greeting can but inadequately convey to you the
appreciation felt by all Saint Paul at being selected as the scene of
this great Congress, whose deliberations mark the commencement of a new
epoch in the history of our country. (Applause)
The Conservation to and by ourselves as trustees, and the dedication and
perpetuation to our children and our children's children as
beneficiaries, of the tremendous natural resources of our country is a
duty and trust too sacred and too imperative to be disregarded or
lightly considered, once the situation stands revealed in its true
light. It is purely and simply a proposition of the greatest good for
the greatest number, and the sound judgment of a great people, with the
patriotism and unselfish devotion to duty of the founders of our country
ever before them, must and shall consider the greatest number to be the
countless millions of population to follow after us, and to whom must be
handed down a heritage not diminished or impoverished by us, the
temporary executors.
We may be likened to children turned loose in some vast Midas
treasurehouse and told to go where we would and take what we pleased. A
knock at the doors of Congress, a State legislature, or a city council,
gives the magical "Open Sesame!" And behold! the lavishing on some
private interest or individual of a great National or State property or
municipal right or franchise!
The Nation's bounty and generosity has been limitless, for the entire
previous history of the whole world provides no precedent for a guide.
But, fortunately, thoughtful minds began to work, awakened to what was
being done, and the result is the present all-pervasive sentiment and
determination to economize, to check improvidence and waste, and to
establish a policy whereby future generations, as well as the present,
may have equal opportunities to enjoy our natural benefits and
advantages; and Conservation is now more than a mere issue: it is an
assured, established, sane and universal desire to preserve and
perpetuate for ourselves and posterity the treasures of our country.
And so I bid you welcome to the city of Saint Paul. May your labors be
fruitful of great good. I know that your stay with us will be enjoyable.
Our city limits may be somewhat circumscribed for the immense crowds
here this week, but our hospitality and good wishes are as limitless as
the ocean. (Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--Fellow delegates, I am sure we all extend to his Honor,
Mayor Keller, a hearty vote of thanks for what he has done in preparing
for this Congress.
And now comes a privilege of which I am very proud--as a southern man
all my life--that of presenting to you the President of this great
Nation. (Great applause and cheers, the audience rising)
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
_Ladies and Gentlemen_: Before beginning my formal address, I should
like to extend to the President and the Managers of this Congress, to
Governor Eberhart, and to the Mayor of the city, my sincere and cordial
thanks for the opportunity to come here and address this magnificent
audience, and to reach the people of the United States on a subject of
the utmost interest to them and to every patriot. (Applause)
Conservation, as an economic and political term, has come to mean the
preservation of our natural resources for economical use, so as to
secure the greatest good to the greatest number.
In the development of this country, in the hardships of the pioneer, in
the energy of the settler, in the anxiety of the investor for quick
returns, there was very little time, opportunity, or desire to prevent
waste of those resources supplied by nature which could not be quickly
transmuted into money; while the investment of capital was so great a
desideratum that the people as a community exercised little or no care
to prevent the transfer of absolute ownership of many of the valuable
natural resources to private individuals, without retaining some kind of
control of their use. The impulse of the whole new community was to
encourage the coming of population, the increase of settlement, and the
opening up of business; and he who demurred in the slightest degree to
any step which promised additional development of the idle resources at
hand was regarded as a traitor to his neighbors and an obstructor to
public progress. But now that the communities have become old, now that
the flush of enthusiastic expansion has died away, now that the would-be
pioneers have come to realize that all the richest lands in the country
have been taken up, we have perceived the necessity for a change of
policy in the disposition of our natural resources so as to prevent the
continuance of the waste which has characterized our phenomenal growth
in the past. Today we desire to restrict and retain under public control
the acquisition and use by the capitalists of our natural resources.
The danger to the State and to the people at large from the waste and
dissipation of our national wealth is not one which quickly impresses
itself on the people of the older communities, because its most obvious
instances do not occur in their neighborhood, while in the newer part of
the country the sympathy with expansion and development is so strong
that the danger is scoffed at or ignored. Among scientific men and
thoughtful observers, however, the danger has always been present; but
it needed some one to bring home the crying need for a remedy of this
evil so as to impress itself on the public mind and lead to the
formation of public opinion and action by the representatives of the
people. Theodore Roosevelt (great and prolonged applause) took up the
task in the last two years of his second administration, and well did he
perform it. (Great and prolonged applause)
As President of the United States I have, as it were, inherited this
policy, and I rejoice in my heritage (great applause). I prize my high
opportunity to do all that an Executive can do to help a great people
to realize a great national ambition; for Conservation _is_ National. It
affects every man of us, every woman, every child. What I can do in the
cause I shall do, not as President of a party, but as President of the
whole people (enthusiastic applause and cheers). Conservation is not a
question of politics, or of factions, or of persons. It is a question
that affects the vital welfare of all of us--of our children and our
children's children. I urge that no good can come from meetings of this
sort unless we ascribe to those who take part in them, and who are
apparently striving worthily in the cause, all proper motives
(applause), and unless we judiciously consider every measure or method
proposed with a view to its effectiveness in achieving our common
purpose, and wholly without regard to who proposes it or who will claim
credit for its adoption (great applause). The problems are of very great
difficulty, and call for the calmest consideration and clearest
foresight. Many of the questions presented have phases that are new in
this country, and it is possible that in their solution we may have to
attempt first one way and then another. What I wish to emphasize,
however, is that a satisfactory conclusion can only be reached promptly
if we avoid acrimony, imputations of bad faith and political controversy
(cries of "Hear, hear," and great applause).
The public domain of the Government of the United States, including all
the cessions from those of the thirteen States that made cessions to the
United States, and including Alaska, amounts in all to about
1,800,000,000 acres. Of this there is left as purely Government property
outside of Alaska something like 700,000,000 acres. Of this the national
forest reserves in the United States proper embrace 144,000,000 acres.
The rest is largely mountain or arid country, offering some opportunity
for agriculture by dry farming and by reclamation, and containing metals
as well as coal, phosphates, oils, and natural gas. Then the Government
owns many tracts of land lying along the margins of streams that have
water-power, the use of which is necessary in the conversion of the
power into electricity and its transmission.
I shall divide my discussion under the heads of (1) agricultural lands;
(2) mineral lands--that is, lands containing metalliferous minerals; (3)
forest lands; (4) coal lands; (5) oil and gas lands; and (6) phosphate
lands. I feel that it will conduce to a better understanding of the
problems presented if I take up each class and describe, even at the
risk of tedium, _first_, what has been done by the last Administration
and the present one in respect to each kind of land; _second_, what laws
at present govern its disposition; _third_, what was done by the present
Congress in the matter; and _fourth_, the statutory changes proposed in
the interest of Conservation.
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Our land laws for the entry of agricultural lands are as follows:
The original Homestead Law, with the requirements of residence and
cultivation for five years, much more strictly enforced now than ever
before.
The Enlarged Homestead Act, applying to non-irrigable lands only,
requiring five years' residence and continuous cultivation of one-fourth
of the area.
The Desert-land Act, which requires on the part of the purchaser the
ownership of a water-right and thorough reclamation of the land by
irrigation, and the payment of $1.25 per acre.
The Donation or Carey Act, under which the State selects the land and
provides for its reclamation, and the title vests in the settler who
resides upon the land and cultivates it and pays the cost of the
reclamation.
The National Reclamation Homestead Law, requiring five years' residence
and cultivation by the settler on the land irrigated by the Government,
and payment by him to the Government of the cost of the reclamation.
There are other acts, but not of sufficient general importance to call
for mention unless it is the Stone and Timber Act, under which every
individual, once in his lifetime, may acquire 160 acres of land, if it
has valuable timber on it or valuable stone, by paying the price of not
less than $2.50 per acre, fixed after examination of the stone or timber
by a Government appraiser.
In times past, a great deal of fraud has been perpetrated in the
acquisition of lands under this Act, but it is now being much more
strictly enforced, and the entries made are so few in number that it
seems to serve no useful purpose and ought to be repealed. (Applause)
The present Congress passed a bill of great importance, severing the
ownership of coal by the Government in the ground from the surface and
permitting homestead entries upon the surface of the land, which, when
perfected, gives the settler the right to farm the surface, while the
coal beneath the surface is retained in ownership by the Government and
may be disposed of by it under other laws.
There is no crying need for radical reform in the methods of disposing
of what are really agricultural lands. The present laws have worked
well. The Enlarged Homestead Law has encouraged the successful farming
of lands in the semi-arid regions. Of course the teachings of the
Agricultural Department as to how these sub-arid lands may be treated
and the soil preserved for useful culture are of the very essence of
Conservation. Then the conservation of agricultural lands is shown in
the reclamation of arid lands by irrigation, and I should devote a few
words to what the Government has done and is doing in this regard.
By the Reclamation Act a fund has been created of the proceeds of the
public lands of the United States with which to construct works for
storing great bodies of water at proper altitudes from which, by a
suitable system of canals and ditches, the water is to be distributed
over the arid and sub-arid lands of the Government to be sold to
settlers at a price sufficient to pay for the improvements. Primarily
the projects are and must be for the improvement of public lands.
Incidentally, where private land is also within the reach of the water
supply, the furnishing at cost of operation of this water to private
owners by the Government is held by the federal Court of Appeals not to
be a usurpation of power; but certainly this ought not to be done except
from surplus water not needed for Government land. About thirty projects
have been set on foot, distributed through the public-land States, in
accordance with the Statute, by which allotments from the reclamation
fund are required to be, as nearly as practicable, in proportion to the
proceeds from the sale of the public lands in the respective States.
The total sum already accumulated in the reclamation fund is
$60,273,258.22, and of that all but $6,491,955.34 has been expended. It
became very clear to Congress at its last session, from the statements
made by experts, that these thirty projects could not be promptly
completed with the balance remaining on hand, or with the funds likely
to accrue in the near future. It was found, moreover, that there are
many settlers who have been led into taking up lands with the hope and
understanding of having water furnished in a short time, who are left in
a most distressing situation. I recommended to Congress that authority
be given to the Secretary of the Interior to issue bonds in anticipation
of the assured earnings by the projects, so that the projects, worthy
and feasible, might be promptly completed and the settlers might be
relieved from their present inconvenience and hardship (applause). In
authorizing the issue of these bonds, Congress limited the application
of their proceeds to those projects which a board of army engineers, to
be appointed by the President, should examine and determine to be
feasible and worthy of completion. The board has been appointed, and
soon will make its report.
Suggestions have been made that the United States ought to aid in the
drainage of swamp lands belonging to the States or private owners,
because, if drained, they would be exceedingly valuable for agriculture
and contribute to the general welfare by extending the area of
cultivation. I deprecate the agitation in favor of such legislation. It
is inviting the general Government into contribution from its treasury
toward enterprises that should be conducted either by private capital or
at the instance of the State (applause). In these days there is a
disposition to look too much to the Federal Government for everything
(applause). I am liberal in the construction of the Constitution with
reference to Federal power (applause); but I am firmly convinced that
the only safe course for us to pursue is to hold fast to the limitations
of the Constitution, and to regard as sacred the powers of the States
(great applause and cheers). We have made wonderful progress, and at
the same time have preserved with judicious exactness the restrictions
of the Constitution. There is an easy way in which the Constitution can
be violated by Congress without judicial inhibition, to-wit, by
appropriations from the National treasury for unconstitutional purposes.
It will be a sorry day for this country if the time ever comes when our
fundamental compact shall be habitually disregarded in this manner.
(Applause)
MINERAL LANDS
By mineral lands, I mean those lands bearing metals, or what are called
metalliferous minerals.
The rules of ownership and disposition of these lands were first fixed
by custom in the West, and then were embodied in the law, and they have
worked, on the whole, so fairly and well that I do not think it is wise
now to attempt to change or better them. The apex theory of tracing
title to a lode has led to much litigation and dispute, and ought not to
have become the law, but it is so fixed and understood now that the
benefit to be gained by a change is altogether outweighed by the
inconvenience that would attend the introduction of a new system. So
too, the proposition for the Government to lease such mineral lands and
deposits and to impose royalties might have been, in the beginning, a
good thing, but now that most of the mineral land has been otherwise
disposed of--I do not refer here to coal land or gas land or oil land or
phosphate land--it would hardly be worth while to assume the
embarrassments of a radical change.
FOREST LANDS
Nothing can be more important in the matter of Conservation than the
treatment of our forest lands. It was probably the ruthless destruction
of forests in the older States that first called attention to the
necessity for a halt in the waste of our resources. This was recognized
by Congress by an act authorizing the Executive to reserve from entry
and set aside public timber lands as National forests. Speaking
generally, there has been reserved of the existing forests about 70
percent of all the timber lands of the Government. Within these forests
(including 26,000,000 acres in two forests in Alaska) are 192,000,000
acres, of which 166,000,000 acres are in the United States proper and
include within their boundaries something like 22,000,000 acres that
belong to the States or to private individuals. We have, then, excluding
Alaskan forests, a total of about 144,000,000 acres of forests belonging
to the Government, which are being treated in accord with the principles
of scientific forestry. The law now prohibits the reservation of any
more forest lands in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Colorado and
Wyoming, except by act of Congress. I am informed by the Department of
Agriculture that the Government owns other tracts of timber lands in
these States which should be included in the forest reserves. I expect
to recommend to Congress that the limitation herein imposed shall be
repealed (applause). In the present forest reserves there are lands
which are not properly forest land, and which ought to be subject to
homestead entry. This has caused some local irritation. We are carefully
eliminating such lands from forest reserves or, where their elimination
is not practicable, listing them for entry under the forest homestead
act.
Congress ought to trust the Executive to use the power of reservation
only with respect to land covered by timber or which will be useful in
the plan of reforestation (applause). I am in favor of each branch of
the Government trusting the good faith of the other (applause). During
the present Administration, 6,250,000 acres of land, largely
non-timbered, have been excluded from forest reserves, and 3,500,000
acres of land, principally valuable for forest purposes, have been
included in forest reserves, making a reduction in forest reserves of
non-timbered land amounting to 2,750,000 acres. But had we had the
opportunity to include reserves in the forbidden States, the balance
would have been otherwise. The Bureau of Forestry since its creation has
initiated reforestation on 5,600 acres. A great deal of the forest land
is available for grazing. During the past year the grazing lessees
numbered 25,400, and they pastured upon the forest reserves 1,400,000
cattle, 84,540 horses, and 7,580,400 sheep, for which the Government
received $986,715--a decrease from the preceding year of $45,000, due to
the fact that no money was collected or received for grazing on the
non-timbered land eliminated from the forest reserve. Another source of
profit in the forestry is the receipts for timber sold. This year they
amounted to $1,043,000, an increase of $307,000 over the receipts of
last year. This increase is due to improvement in transportation to
market, and to the greater facility with which the timber can be
reached.
The Government timber in this country amounts to only one-fourth of all
the timber, the rest being in private ownership. Only three percent of
that which is in private ownership is looked after properly and treated
according to modern rules of forestry (applause). The usual destructive
waste and neglect continue in the remainder of the forests owned by
private persons and corporations. It is estimated that fire alone
destroys $50,000,000 worth of timber a year. The management of forests
not on public land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
If anything can be done by law it must be done by the State
legislatures. I believe that it is within their constitutional power to
require the enforcement of regulations, in the general public interest,
as to fire and other causes of waste in the management of forests owned
by private individuals and corporations. (Applause)
Exactly how far these regulations can go and remain consistent with the
rights of private ownership, it is not necessary to discuss; but I call
attention to the fact that a very important part of Conservation must
always fall upon the State legislatures, and that they would better be
up and doing if they would save the waste and denudation and destruction
through private greed or accidental fires that have made barren many
square miles of the older States. (Great applause)
I have shown sufficiently the conditions as to Federal forestry to
indicate that no further legislation is needed at the moment except an
increase in the fire protection to National forests and an act vesting
the Executive with full power to make forest reservations in every State
where Government land is timber-covered, or where the land is needed for
forestry purposes.
OTHER LAND WITHDRAWALS
When President Roosevelt became fully advised of the necessity for the
change in our disposition of public lands, especially those containing
coal, oil, gas, phosphates, or water-power sites, he began the exercise
of the power of withdrawal by Executive order of lands subject by law to
homestead and the other methods of entering for agricultural lands. The
precedent he set in this matter was followed by the present
Administration. Doubt had been expressed in some quarters as to the
power in the Executive to make such withdrawals. The confusion and
injustice likely to arise if the courts were to deny the power led me to
appeal to Congress to give the President the express power (applause).
Congress has complied. The law, as passed, does not expressly validate
or confirm previous withdrawals, and therefore, as soon as the new law
was passed, I, myself, confirmed all the withdrawals which had
theretofore been made by both Administrations by making them over again
(great applause). The power of withdrawal is a most useful one, and I do
not think it is likely to be abused.
COAL LANDS
The next subject, and one of the most important for our consideration,
is the disposition of the coal lands in the United States and in Alaska.
First, as to those in the United States.
At the beginning of this Administration there were classified coal lands
amounting to 5,476,000 acres, and there were withdrawn from entry for
purposes of classification 17,867,000 acres. Since that time there has
been withdrawn by my order from entry for classification 77,648,000
acres, making a total withdrawal of 95,515,000 acres (applause).
Meantime, of the acres thus withdrawn, 11,371,000 have been classified
and found not to contain coal, and have been restored to agricultural
entry, and 4,356,000 acres have been classified as coal lands; while
79,788,000 acres remain withdrawn from entry and await classification.
In addition, 336,000 acres have been classified as coal lands without
prior withdrawal, thus increasing the classified coal lands to
10,168,000 acres.
Under the laws providing for the disposition of coal lands in the United
States, the minimum price at which lands are permitted to be sold is $10
an acre; but the Secretary of the Interior has the power to fix a
maximum price and to sell at that price. By the first regulations
governing appraisal, approved April 8, 1907, the minimum was $10, as
provided by law, and the maximum was $100, and the highest price
actually placed upon any land sold was $75. Under the new regulations,
adopted April 10, 1909, the maximum price was increased to $300 except
in regions where there are large mines, where no maximum limit is fixed
and the price is determined by the estimated tons of coal to the acre.
The highest price fixed for any land under this regulation has been $608
per acre. The appraised value of the lands classified as coal lands and
valued under the new and old regulations is shown to be as follows:
4,303,000 acres valued under the old regulation at $77,000,000--an
average of $18 an acre--and 5,864,000 acres classified and valued under
the new regulation at $394,000,000, or a total of 10,168,000 acres
valued at $471,000,000. For the year ending March 31, 1909, 227 coal
entries were made, embracing an area of 35,000 acres, which sold for
$663,000; for the year ending March 31, 1910, there were 176 entries,
embracing an area of 23,000 acres, which sold for $608,000, and down to
August, 1910, there were but 17 entries, with an area of 1,720 acres
which sold for $33,900; making a disposition of coal lands in the last
two years of about 60,000 acres for $1,305,000.
The present Congress, as already said, has separated the surface of coal
lands either classified or withdrawn to be classified from the coal
beneath, so as to permit at all times homestead entries upon the surface
of lands useful for agriculture, and to reserve the ownership in the
coal to the Government.
The question which remains to be considered is whether the existing law
for the sale of the coal in the ground should continue in force or be
repealed and a new method of disposition adopted. Under the present law
the absolute title in the coal beneath the surface passes to the grantee
of the Government. The price fixed is upon an estimated amount of the
tons of coal per acre beneath the surface, and the prices are fixed so
that the earnings will only be a reasonable profit upon the amount paid
and the investment necessary. But, of course, this is more or less
guesswork, and the Government parts with the ownership of the coal in
the ground absolutely. Authorities in the Geological Survey estimate
that in the United States today there is a supply of about three
thousand billion tons of coal, and that of this one-third, or about one
thousand billion, are in the public domain. Of course, the other two
thousand billion are within private ownership and under no more control
as to the use or the prices at which the coal may be sold than any other
private property.
If the Government leases the coal lands and acts as any landlord would,
and imposes conditions in its leases like those which are now imposed by
the owners in fee of coal mines in the various coal regions of the East,
then it would retain over the disposition of the coal deposits a choice
as to the assignee of the lease, a power of resuming possession at the
end of the term of the lease, or of readjusting terms at fixed periods
of the lease, which might easily be framed to enable it to exercise a
limited but effective control in the disposition and sale of the coal to
the public (applause). It has been urged that the leasing system has
never been adopted in this country, and that its adoption would largely
interfere with the investment of capital and the proper development and
opening up of coal resources. I venture to differ entirely from this
view (applause). My investigations show that many owners of mining
property of this country do not mine it themselves, and do not invest
their money in the plants necessary for the mining, but they lease their
properties for a term of years varying from twenty to thirty and forty
years, under conditions requiring the erection of a proper plant and the
investment of a certain amount of money in the development of the mines,
and fixing a rental and a royalty, sometimes an absolute figure and
sometimes one proportioned to the market value of the coal. Under this
latter method the owner of a mine shares in the prosperity of his
lessees when coal is high and the profits good, and also shares to the
same extent in their disappointment when the price of coal falls.
I have looked with some care into a report made at the instance of
President Roosevelt upon the disposition of coal lands in Australia,
Tasmania, and New Zealand. These are peculiarly mining countries, and
their experience ought to be most valuable. In all these countries the
method for the disposition and opening of coal mines originally owned by
the Government is by granting a leasehold, and not by granting an
absolute title. The terms of the leases run all the way from twenty to
fifty years while the amount of land which may be leased to any
individual there is from 320 acres to 2,000 acres. It appears that a
full examination was made and the opinions of all the leading experts on
the subject were solicited and given, and that with one accord they
approved in all respects the leasing system (applause). Its success is
abundantly shown.
It is possible that at first considerable latitude will have to be given
to the Executive in drafting these forms of lease, but as soon as
experiment shall show which is the most workable and practicable, its
use should be provided for specifically by statute. The question as to
how great an area ought to be included in a lease to one individual or
corporation is not free from difficulty; but in view of the fact that
the Government retains control as owner, I think there might be some
liberality in the amount leased, and that 2,500 acres would not be too
great a maximum.
By the opportunity to register the terms upon which the coal shall be
held by the tenant, either at the end of each lease or at periods during
the term, the Government may secure the benefit of sharing in the
increased price of coal and the additional profit made by the tenant. By
imposing conditions in respect to the character of work to be done in
the mine, the Government may control the character of the development of
the mine and the treatment of employees with reference to safety
(applause). By denying the right to transfer the lease except by written
permission of Government authorities, it may withhold the needed consent
when it is proposed to transfer the leasehold to persons interested in
establishing a monopoly of coal production in any State or neighborhood
(applause).
As one-third of all the coal supply is held by the Government, it seems
wise that it should retain such control over the mining and the sale as
the relation of lessor to lessee furnishes. The change from the absolute
grant to the leasing system will involve a good deal of trouble in the
outset, and the training of experts in the matter of making proper
leases; but the change will be a good one and can be made. The change is
in the interest of Conservation, and I am glad to approve it. (Great
applause)
ALASKA COAL LANDS
The investigations of the Geological Survey show that the coal
properties in Alaska cover about 1,200 square miles, and that there are
known to be available about fifteen billion tons. This is, however, an
underestimate of the coal in Alaska, because further developments will
probably increase this amount many times; but we can say with
considerable certainty that there are two fields on the Pacific slope
which can be reached by railways at a reasonable cost from deep
water--in one case of about 50 miles and in the other case of about
150--which will afford certainly six billion tons of coal, more than
half of which is of a very high grade of bituminous and of anthracite.
It is estimated to be worth, in the ground, one-half cent a ton, which
makes its value per acre from $50 to $500. The coking-coal lands of
Pennsylvania are worth from $800 to $2,000 an acre, while other
Appalachian fields are worth from $10 to $386 an acre, and the fields in
the central States from $10 to $2,000 an acre, and in the Rocky
mountains from $10 to $500 an acre.
The demand for coal on the Pacific Coast is for about 4,500,000 tons a
year. It would encounter the competition of cheap fuel oil, of which the
equivalent of 12,000,000 tons of coal a year is used there. It is
estimated that the coal could be laid down at Seattle or San Francisco,
a high-grade bituminous at $4 a ton, and anthracite at $5 or $6 a ton.
The price of coal on the Pacific slope varies greatly from time to time
in the year and from year to year--from $4 to $12 a ton. With a regular
coal supply established, the expert of the Geological Survey, Mr Brooks,
who has made a report on the subject, does not think there would be an
excessive profit in the Alaska coal mining because the price at which
the coal could be sold would be considerably lowered by competition from
these fields and by the presence of crude fuel oil. The history of the
laws affecting the disposition of Alaska coal lands shows them to need
amendment badly. Speaking of them, Mr Brooks says:
The first act, passed June 6, 1900, simply extended to Alaska
the provisions of the coal lands in the United States. The law
was ineffective, for it provided that only subdivided lands
could be taken up and there were no land surveys in Alaska.
I do not like to criticise a coordinate branch of the
Government. The Executive makes mistakes, and so does Congress,
but I do not think it reflects greatly on the intense interest
that Congress had in Alaska and her development that they
should go to work and pass a law affecting the coal lands in
Alaska that didn't operate there at all [applause]. The matter
was rectified by the act of April 28, 1904, which permitted
unsurveyed lands to be entered and the surveys to be made at
the expense of the entrymen. Unfortunately the law provided
that only tracts of 160 acres could be taken up, and no
recognition was given to the fact that it was impracticable to
develop an isolated coal field requiring the expenditure of a
large amount of money by such small communities. Many claims
were staked, however, and surveys were made for patents. It was
recognized by everyone familiar with the conditions that after
patent was obtained these claims would be combined in tracts
large enough to assure successful mining operation. No one
experienced in mining would, of course, consider it feasible to
open a coal field on a basis of a single 160-acre tract. The
claims for the most part were handled in groups, for which one
agent represented the several different owners. Unfortunately a
strict interpretation of the statute raised the question
whether even a tacit understanding between claim-owners to
combine after patents had been obtained was not illegal.
Remedial legislation was sought and enacted in the statute of
May 28, 1908. This law permitted the consolidation of claims
staked previous to November 12, 1906, in tracts of 2,560 acres.
One clause of this law invalidated the title if any individual
or corporation at any time in the future owned any interest
whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in more than one tract. The
purpose of this clause was to prevent the monopolization of
coal fields. Its immediate effect was to discourage capital. It
was felt by many that this clause might lead to forfeiture of
title through the accidents of inheritance, or might even be
used by the unscrupulous in blackmail. It would appear that
land taken up under this law might at any time be forfeited to
the Government through the action of any individual, who,
innocently or otherwise, obtained interest in more than one
coal company. Such a title was felt to be too insecure to
warrant the large investments needed for mining development.
The net result of all this is that no titles to coal lands have
been passed.
On November 12, 1906, President Roosevelt issued an Executive order
withdrawing all coal lands from location and entry in Alaska. On May 16,
1907, he modified the order so as to permit valid locations made prior
to the withdrawal on November 12, 1906, to proceed to entry and patent.
Prior to that date some 900 claims had been filed, most of them said to
be illegal because either made fraudulently by dummy entrymen in the
interest of one individual or corporation, or because of agreements made
prior to location between the applicants to cooperate in developing the
lands. There are thirty-three claims for 160 acres each, known as the
"Cunningham claims," which are said to be valid on the ground that they
were made by an attorney for thirty-three different and bona fide
claimants who, as alleged, paid their money and took proper steps to
locate their entries and protect them. The representatives of the
Government, on the other hand, in the hearings before the Land Office
have attacked the validity of these Cunningham claims on the ground that
prior to their location there was an understanding between the claimants
to pool their claims after they had been perfected and unite them in one
company.
The trend of decision seems to show that such an agreement would
invalidate the claims, although under the subsequent law of May 28,
1908, the consolidation of such claims was permitted, _after_ location
and entry, in tracts of 2,560 acres. It would be, of course, improper
for me to intimate what the result of the issue as to the Cunningham and
other Alaska claims is likely to be, but it ought to be distinctly
understood that no private claims for Alaska coal lands have as yet been
allowed or perfected, and also that whatever the result as to pending
claims, the existing coal-land laws of Alaska are most unsatisfactory
and should be radically amended (applause). To begin with, the purchase
price of the land is a flat rate of $10 per acre, with no power to
increase it beyond that, although, as we have seen, the estimate of the
agent of the Geological Survey would carry up the maximum of value to
$500 an acre.
In my judgment it is essential to the proper development of Alaska that
these coal lands should be opened, and that the Pacific slope should be
given the benefit of the comparatively cheap coal of fine quality which
can be furnished at a reasonable price from these fields (great
applause); but the public, through the Government, ought certainly to
retain a wise control and interest in these coal deposits (applause),
and I think it may do so safely if Congress will authorize the granting
of leases, as already suggested for Government coal lands in the United
States, with provisions forbidding the transfer of the leases except
with the consent of the Government, thus preventing their acquisition by
a combination or monopoly, and upon limitations as to the area to be
included in any one lease to one individual, and at a certain moderate
rental, with royalties upon the coal mined proportioned to the market
value of the coal laid down either at Seattle or at San Francisco
(applause). Of course such leases should contain conditions requiring
the erection of proper plants, the proper development by modern mining
methods of the properties leased, and the use of every known and
practical means and device for saving the life of the miners.
The Government of the United States has much to answer for in not having
given proper attention to the Government of Alaska and the development
of her resources for the benefit of all the people of the country. I
would not force development at the expense of a present or future waste
of resources; but the problem as to the disposition of the coal lands
for present and future use can be wisely and safely settled in one
session if Congress gives it careful attention. (Great applause)
OIL AND GAS LANDS
In the last Administration there were withdrawn from agricultural entry
2,820,000 acres of supposed oil land in California, about 1,500,000
acres in Louisiana (of which only 6,500 acres were known to be vacant,
unappropriated land), 75,000 acres in Oregon, and 174,000 acres in
Wyoming, making a total of nearly 4,000,000 acres.
In September, 1909, I directed that all public oil lands, whether then
withdrawn or not, should be withheld from disposition pending
congressional action, for the reason that the existing placer mining
law, although made applicable to deposits of this character, is not
suitable to such lands, and for the further reason that it seemed
desirable to reserve certain fuel-oil deposits for the use of the
American Navy. Accordingly the form of all existing withdrawals was
changed, and new withdrawals, aggregating 2,750,000 acres, were made, in
Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Field
examinations during the year showed that of the original withdrawals,
2,170,000 acres were not valuable for oil, and they were restored for
agricultural entry. Meantime other withdrawals of public oil lands in
these States were made, so that on July 1, 1910, the outstanding
withdrawals then amounted to 4,550,000 acres.
The needed oil and gas law is essentially a leasing law. In their
natural occurrence oil and gas cannot be measured in terms of acres,
like coal, and it follows that exclusive title to these products can
normally be secured only after they reach the surface. Oil should be
disposed of as a commodity in terms of barrels of transportable product
rather than in acres of real estate (applause). This is, of course, the
reason for the practically universal adoption of the leasing system
wherever oil land is in private ownership. The Government thus would not
be entering on an experiment, but simply putting into effect a plan
successfully operated in private contracts. Why should not the
Government as a land-owner deal directly with the oil producer rather
than through the intervention of a middleman to whom the Government
gives title to the land? (Applause) The principal underlying feature of
such legislation should be the exercise of beneficial control rather
than the collection of revenue.
As not only the largest owner of oil lands, but as a prospective large
consumer of oil by reason of the increasing use of fuel-oil by the navy,
the Federal Government is directly concerned both in encouraging
rational development and at the same time insuring the longest possible
life to the oil supply. The royalty rates fixed by the Government should
neither exceed nor fall below the current rates. But much more important
than revenue is the enforcement of regulations to conserve the public
interest so that the inconvenience of the lessee shall specifically
safeguard oil fields against the penalties from careless drilling and of
production in excess of transportation facilities or of market
requirement.
One of the difficulties presented, especially in the California fields,
is that the Southern Pacific Railroad owns every other section of land
in the oil fields, and in those fields the oil seems to be in a common
reservoir, or series of reservoirs, communicating through the oil sands,
so that the excessive draining of oil at one well, or on the railroad
territory generally, would exhaust the oil in the Government land. Hence
it is important that if the Government is to have its share of the oil,
it should begin the opening and development of wells on its own
property. (Laughter and applause)
In view of the joint ownership which the Government and the adjoining
land-owners, like the Southern Pacific Railroad, have in the oil
reservoirs below the surface, it is a most interesting and intricate
question, difficult of solution, but one which ought to address itself
at once to the State law-makers, how far the State legislature might
impose appropriate restrictions to secure an equitable enjoyment of the
common reservoir, and to prevent waste and excessive drainage by the
various owners having access to this reservoir (applause). It has been
suggested, and I believe the suggestion to be a sound one, that permits
be issued to a prospector for oil, giving him the right to prospect for
two years over a certain tract of Government land for the discovery of
oil, the right to be evidenced by a license for which he pays a small
sum. When the oil is discovered, then he acquires title to a certain
tract, much in the same way as he would acquire title under a mining
law. Of course, if the system of leasing is adopted, then he would be
given the benefit of a lease upon terms like that above suggested. What
has been said in respect to oil applies also to Government gas lands.
Under the proposed oil legislation, especially where the Government oil
lands embrace an entire oil field, as in many cases, prospectors,
operators, consumers, and the public can be benefitted by the adoption
of the leasing system. The prospector can be protected in the very
expensive work that necessarily antedates discovery. The operator can be
protected against impairment of productiveness of the wells which he has
leased by reason of the control of drilling and pumping of other wells
too closely adjacent or by the prevention of imperfect methods as
employed by careless, ignorant or irresponsible operators in the same
field, which result in the admission of water to the oil sand; while, of
course, the consumer will profit by whatever benefits the prospector or
operator receives in reducing the first cost of the oil.
PHOSPHATE LAND
Phosphorus is one of the three essentials to plant growth, the other
elements being nitrogen and potash. Of these three, phosphorus is by all
odds the greatest element in nature. It is easily extracted in useful
form from the phosphate rock, and the United States contains the
greatest known deposits of this rock in the world. They are found in
Wyoming, Utah and Florida, as well as in South Carolina, Georgia and
Tennessee. The Government phosphate lands are confined to Wyoming, Utah
and Florida. Prior to March 4, 1909, there were four million acres
withdrawn from agricultural entry on the ground that the land covered
phosphate rock. Since that time 2,322,000 acres of the land thus
withdrawn was found not to contain phosphate in profitable quantities,
while 1,678,000 acres was classified properly as phosphate land. During
this Administration there has been withdrawn and classified 437,000
acres, so that today there is classified as phosphate rock land
2,115,000 acres.
The rock is most important in the composition of fertilizers to improve
the soil, and as the future is certain to create an enormous demand
throughout this country for fertilization, the value to the public of
such deposits as these can hardly be exaggerated. Certainly with respect
to these deposits a careful policy of Conservation should be followed.
Half of the phosphate of the rock that is mined in private fields in the
United States is now exported. As our farming methods grow better the
demand for the phosphate will become greater, and it must be arranged so
that the supply shall equal the needs of the country. It is uncertain
whether the placer or lode law applies to the Government phosphate rock.
There is, therefore, a necessity for some definite and well-considered
legislation on this subject, and in aid of such legislation all of the
Government lands known to contain valuable phosphate rock are now
withdrawn from entry.
A law that would provide a leasing system for the phosphate deposits,
together with a provision for the separation of the surface and mineral
rights as is already provided for in the case of coal, would seem to
meet the need of promoting the development of these deposits and their
utilization in the agricultural lands of the West. If it is thought
desirable to discourage the exportation of phosphate rock and the saving
of it for our own lands, this purpose could be accomplished by
conditions in the lease granted by the Government to its lessee. Of
course, under the Constitution the Government could not tax and could
not prohibit the exportation of phosphate, but as proprietor and owner
of the lands in which the phosphate is deposited it could impose
conditions upon the kind of sales, whether foreign or domestic, which
the lessee might make of the phosphate mined. (Applause)
The tonnage represented by the phosphate lands in Government ownership
is very great. But the lesson has been learned in the case of such lands
as have passed into private ownership in South Carolina, Florida and
Tennessee, that the phosphate deposits there are in no sense
inexhaustible. Moreover, it is also well understood that in the process
of mining phosphate, as it has been pursued, much of the lower grade of
phosphate rock which will eventually all be needed has been wasted
beyond recovery. Such wasteful methods can easily be prevented, so far
as the Government land is concerned, by conditions inserted in the
leases.
WATER-POWER SITES
Prior to March 4, 1909, there had been, on the recommendation of the
Reclamation Service, withdrawn from agricultural entry, because they
were regarded as useful for power sites which ought not to be disposed
of as agricultural lands, tracts amounting to about 4,000,000 acres. The
withdrawals were hastily made and included a great deal of land that was
not useful for power sites. They were intended to include the power
sites on twenty-nine rivers in nine States. Since that time 3,475,442
acres have been restored for settlement of the original 4,000,000,
because they do not contain power sites; and meantime there have been
newly withdrawn 1,245,892 acres on vacant public land and 211,007 acres
on entered public land, or a total of 1,456,899 acres. These withdrawals
made from time to time cover all the power sites included in the first
withdrawals, and many more, on 135 rivers and in 11 States. The
disposition of these power sites involves one of the most difficult
questions presented in carrying out practical Conservation.
The Forest Service, under a power found in the Statute, has leased a
number of these power sites in forest reserves by revocable leases, but
no such power exists with respect to power sites that are not located
within forest reserves; and the revocable system of leasing is, of
course, not a satisfactory one for the purpose of inviting the capital
needed to put in proper plants for the transmission of power.
The Statute of 1891, with its amendments, permits the Secretary of the
Interior to grant perpetual easements or rights-of-way from water
sources over public lands for the primary purpose of irrigation and such
electrical current as may be incidentally developed, but no grant can be
made under this Statute to concerns whose primary purpose is generating
and handling electricity. The Statute of 1901 authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to issue revocable permits over the public lands to
electrical power companies, but this Statute is woefully inadequate
because it does not authorize the collection of a charge or fix a term
of years. Capital is slow to invest in an enterprise founded upon a
permit revocable at will.
The subject is one that calls for new legislation. It has been thought
that there was danger of combination to obtain possession of all the
power sites and to unite them under one control. Whatever the evidence
of this, or lack of it, at present we have had enough experience to know
that combination would be profitable, and the control of a great number
of power sites would enable the holders or owners to raise the price of
power at will within certain sections; and the temptation would promptly
attract investors, and the danger of monopoly would not be a remote one.
However this may be, it is the plain duty of the Government to see to it
that in the utilization and development of all this immense amount of
water-power, conditions shall be imposed that will prevent monopoly, and
will prevent extortionate charges which are the accompaniment of
monopoly. The difficulty of adjusting the matter is accentuated by the
relation of the power sites to the water, the fall and flow of which
create the power.
In the States where these sites are, the riparian owner does not control
or own the power in the water which flows past his land. That power is
under the control and within the grant of the State, and generally the
rule is that the first user is entitled to the enjoyment. Now, the
possession of the bank or water-power site over which the water is to be
conveyed in order to make the power useful, gives to its owner an
advantage and a certain kind of control over the use of the water-power,
and it is proposed that the Government in dealing with its own lands
should use this advantage and lease lands for power sites to those who
would develop the power, and impose conditions on the leasehold with
reference to the reasonableness of the rates at which the power, when
transmuted, is to be furnished to the public, and forbidding the union
of the particular power with a combination of others made for the
purpose of monopoly by forbidding assignment of the lease save by
consent of the Government (applause). Serious difficulties are
anticipated by some in such an attempt on the part of the general
Government, because of the sovereign control of the State over the
water-power in its natural condition, and the mere proprietorship of the
Government in the riparian lands.
It is contended that through its mere proprietary right in the site the
central Government has no power to attempt to exercise police
jurisdiction with reference to how the water-power in a river owned and
controlled by the State shall be used, and that it is a violation of the
State's rights. I question the validity of this objection. The
Government may impose any conditions that it chooses in its lease of its
own property, even though it may have the same purpose and in effect
accomplish just what the State would accomplish by the exercise of its
sovereignty. That is shown frequently in leases of houses containing a
covenant against the use of the house for that which under the law of
the State is an unlawful use; and nevertheless, no one has ever
contended that that condition, though it be for the stricter enforcement
of the State law, is without the power of the lessor as a proprietor of
the land which he is leasing.
There are those (and the Director of the Geological Survey, Mr Smith,
who has given a great deal of attention to this matter, is one of them)
who insist that this matter of transmuting water-power into electricity
which can be conveyed all over the country and across State lines, is a
matter that ought to be retained by the general Government, and that it
should avail itself of the ownership of these power sites for the very
purpose of coordinating in one general plan the power generated from
these Government-owned sites. On the other hand, it is contended that it
would relieve a complicated situation if the control of the water-power
site and the control of the water were vested in the same sovereignty
and ownership, viz: the State, and then were disposed of for development
to private lessees under the restrictions needed to preserve the
interests of the public from the extortions and abuses of monopoly.
Therefore, bills have been introduced in Congress providing that
whenever the State authorities deem a water-power useful they may apply
to the Government of the United States for a grant to the State of the
adjacent land for a water-power site, and that this grant from the
Federal Government to the State shall contain a condition that the State
shall never part with the title to the water-power site or the
water-power, but shall lease it only for a term of years not exceeding
fifty, with provisions in the lease by which the rental and the rates
for which the power is furnished to the public shall be readjusted at
periods less than the term of the lease, say every ten years.
The argument is urged against this disposition of power sites that
legislators and State authorities are more subject to corporate
influence and control than would be the central Government. In reply it
is claimed that a readjustment of the terms of leasehold every ten years
would secure to the public and the State just and equitable terms. Then
it is said that the State authorities are better able to understand the
local need and what is a fair adjustment in the particular locality than
would be the authorities at Washington. It has been argued that after
the Federal Government parts with title to a power site it cannot
control the action of the State in fulfilling the conditions of the
deed, to which it is answered that in the grant from the Government
there may be easily inserted a condition specifying the terms upon which
the State may part with the temporary control of the water-power sites,
and, indeed, the water-power, and providing for a forfeiture of the
title to the water-power sites in case the condition is not performed;
and giving to the President, in case of such violation of conditions,
the power to declare forfeiture and to direct proceedings to restore to
the central Government the ownership of the power sites with all the
improvements thereon, and that these conditions may be promptly enforced
and the land and plants forfeited to the general Government by suit of
the United States against the State, which is permissible under the
Constitution (applause). And that by such a provision, _in terrorem_,
the edict of States and of the legislatures in respect to these lands
might be enforced through the general Government.
I do not express an opinion upon the controversy thus made or a
preference as to the two methods of treating water-power sites. I shall
submit the matter to Congress with all the arguments, and urge that one
or the other of the two plans be promptly adopted.
* * * * *
At the risk of wearying my audience I have attempted to state as
succinctly as may be the questions of Conservation as they apply to the
public domain of the Government, the conditions to which they apply, and
the proposed solution of them.
In the outset I alluded to the fact that Conservation had been made to
include a great deal more than what I have discussed here. Of course, as
I have referred only to the public domain of the Federal Government, I
have left untouched the wide field of Conservation with respect to which
a heavy responsibility rests upon the States and individuals as well.
But I think it of the utmost importance that after the public attention
has been roused to the necessity of a change in our general policy to
prevent waste and a selfish appropriation to private and corporate
purposes of what should be controlled for the public benefit, those who
urge Conservation shall feel the necessity of making clear how
Conservation can be practically carried out (applause), and shall
propose specific methods and legal provisions and regulations to remedy
actual adverse conditions (applause). I am bound to say that the time
has come for a halt in general rhapsodies over Conservation, making the
word mean every known good in the world (applause), for, after the
public attention has been roused, such appeals are of doubtful utility
and do not direct the public to the specific course that the people
should take, or have their legislators take, in order to promote the
cause of Conservation. The rousing of emotions on a subject like this,
which has only dim outlines in the minds of the people affected, after a
while ceases to be useful, and the whole movement will, if promoted on
these lines, die for want of practical direction and of demonstration to
the people that practical reforms are intended. (Applause)
I have referred to the course of the last Administration and of the
present one in making withdrawals of Government lands from entry under
homestead and other laws, and of Congress in removing all doubt as to
the validity of these withdrawals as a great step in the direction of
practical Conservation (applause). But this is only one of two necessary
steps to effect what should be our purpose. It has produced a status quo
and prevented waste and irrevocable disposition of the lands until the
method for their proper disposition can be formulated, but it is of the
utmost importance that such withdrawals should not be regarded as the
final step in the course of Conservation, and that the idea should not
be allowed to spread that Conservation is the tying up of the natural
resources of the Government for indefinite withholding from use, and the
remission to remote generations to decide what ought to be done with
these means of promoting present general human comfort and progress
(great applause). For, if so, it is certain to arouse the greatest
opposition to Conservation as a cause, and if it were a correct
expression of the purpose of conservationists it ought to arouse such
opposition. (Applause)
Real Conservation involves wise, non-wasteful use in the present
generation, with every possible means of preservation for succeeding
generations; and though the problem to secure this end may be difficult,
the burden is on the present generation promptly to solve it and not to
run away from it as cowards, lest in the attempt to meet it we may make
some mistakes (applause). As I have said elsewhere, the problem is how
to save and how to utilize, how to conserve and still develop; for no
sane person can contend that it is for the common good that Nature's
blessings should be stored only for unborn generations. (Applause)
I beg of you, therefore, in your deliberations and in your informal
discussions, when men come forward to suggest evils that the promotion
of Conservation is to remedy, that you invite them to point out the
specific evils and the specific remedies; that you invite them to come
down to details in order that their discussions may flow into channels
that shall be useful rather than into periods that shall be eloquent and
entertaining without shedding real light on the subject (prolonged
applause and cheers). The people should be shown exactly what is needed
in order that they may make their representatives in Congress and the
State legislatures do their intelligent bidding. (Great and prolonged
applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--The Congress is now adjourned to reassemble at 2 oclock
this afternoon.
_SECOND SESSION_
The Congress was called to order by President Baker at 3 oclock p.m.
President BAKER--It gives me a great deal of pleasure to announce that
Governor W. R. Stubbs, of Kansas, has kindly consented to preside at
this session. Ladies and Gentlemen, Governor Stubbs. (Applause)
Governor STUBBS--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am very grateful
for your liberal recognition. And I present to you a man who knows much
about the laws pertaining to land in the United States, one better
fitted to speak on this subject than any other, Senator Knute Nelson, of
Minnesota. I take great pleasure in introducing him. (Applause)
Senator NELSON--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I could not help
thinking this forenoon as I looked at the magnificent audience how every
delegate and visitor from abroad must conclude that in one respect
Conservation in Minnesota has been a success--Conservation of our
prosperous and growing humanity.
I am here to speak briefly of our public-land system, past and present,
in the hope that we may derive some lessons from the mistakes of the
past and have something to guide us in the future. I shall say little of
Conservation in general. My aim will be to draw attention to what I deem
of importance for the legislative branch of the Government to do in the
future, and I shall do so only in general terms, seeking--on account of
my position as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Lands--to
avoid all matters that will lead to controversy.
As those know who have had experience in public affairs, particularly in
legislation, all reforms are matters of compromise. Legislation is
largely experimental and those who are most progressive and advanced in
seeking reforms for the future often find themselves handicapped by
those who would make no change; and the result is oftentimes a
compromise in which the reformers get only half a loaf.
The natural resources of our country should be conserved by the
individual, by the State, and by the Federal Government. For each there
is an appropriate field. The farmer must conserve the resources of his
farm; the State the resources of its lands, its forests and its waters;
and the Federal Government the resources of its mines, its forests, and
its lands with all their appurtenances. When the several forces act in
harmony, beneficial results of a far-reaching and permanent value will
be attained for the preservation and utilization of our resources.
Practical and beneficial Conservation of natural resources on the part
of the Federal Government and the State should include and provide for
due and efficient utilization of the same for the benefit of the masses
of the people. The mere conservation and retention of ownership, the
mere securing of a larger price for the resource, may prove burdensome
rather than a benefit to the public. The ultimate question is not so
much how to hold and conserve as how to properly utilize our resources.
The mere holding, or the mere securing of a higher price seems to me to
be entirely futile (applause). The aim should not be so much to secure a
higher price for the Government as to secure lower price for the
consumer and to prevent monopoly (applause). Hence, in the disposal of a
resource, care should be taken to prevent combination and monopoly in
restraint of trade in respect to the same; and the right, as in the case
of railway rates, to regulate the price to the consumer should be
retained; in other words, care should be taken and provision should be
made that the consumer can obtain the product of the resource at a fair
and reasonable rate. To merely conserve and hold at a high price retards
development and enables those who have already secured a large share of
a resource to monopolize the market and to secure an exorbitant price
for the product of the resource. (Applause) The ultimate object of the
conservation of a resource should be to utilize it for the best
advantage of the consumer. True Conservation means beneficial use--means
utilization.
* * * * *
The close of the Revolutionary War found our country with an empty
treasury and a large public debt, but possessed of a large quantity of
valuable public lands northwest of the Ohio river and elsewhere, ceded
by Great Britain, supplemented by a cession from Virginia and some of
the older States, from which were afterward carved great States, though
the public domain was at that time regarded chiefly as an asset from
which the Government could obtain revenues for its wants and needs.
The first general land law of a public nature for the disposal of our
public lands was passed in 1796. This law, after prescribing a system of
surveying the public lands, substantially the same as has been since
adhered to, provided for the sale of the lands at public auction to the
highest bidder, partly for cash and partly on credit.
By the Act of 1800 the minimum price was fixed at $2 an acre, and land
not sold at public auction could be bought at private sale at that
price.
The Act of 1820 abolished sales on credit and fixed the minimum price at
$1.25 per acre, at which rate it has since remained. Lands offered at
public sale became known as "offered land," and if not sold at public
sale could be obtained at private sale or entry at the minimum price.
The result of this system was that, owing to the great scarcity of money
in the country at that time among the masses of the people, large blocks
of land were purchased by speculators and held by them indefinitely for
an excessive profit, and the masses of the people--the settlers, the
real home builders--had to purchase the land from these speculators
instead of securing it from the Government. The Government got but scant
return for its valuable public land. The chief profit was made by the
middlemen, those speculators who bought it up in large blocks; they
reaped a rich harvest. But in the midst of this system the settlers
pressed on to the frontier. They were without money, but they settled on
the public lands, squatted there without authority of law; and finally
the Government, to help these settlers, to relieve them and give them a
little breathing time, in 1841 passed what was known as the general
Preemption Law. Under this law the head of a family, a widow, or a
single person over twenty-one years of age who was a citizen or had
declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, could
secure 160 acres of public land by settling upon, improving and
cultivating it, and by paying for and entering the same within from one
to three years after settlement, the time of payment in each case
depending on whether the land was offered, unoffered, or unsurveyed.
This law (the Preemption Act of 1841) was clearly intended to help the
pioneers and the settlers, and it proved of great advantage to them; but
owing to the lax procedure that prevailed (under which a man could go on
a preemption claim, make a few limited and pro forma improvements, and
at the end of six months appear in the land office and prove up and have
his final entry made and ultimately get a patent), the Preemption Law
itself became a great instrument in the hands of speculators and land
grabbers, and in consequence Congress concluded to repeal the law.
The law allowing lands to be secured at private entry was repealed in
1889; the law allowing public sales was repealed in 1891, and the
Preemption Law was also repealed the same year. These laws were repealed
none too soon, because by that time they had got to be the instruments
by which those who were seeking valuable coal lands, timber lands, and
other lands would hire a lot of people to go and make preemption claims,
and then, as soon as they obtained title, secure the title, whereby
thousands and thousands of acres of the most valuable timber and mineral
lands, coal lands, and other lands passed into the hands of speculators
for little more than a dollar and a quarter an acre, and sometimes even
less, for there were various kinds of scrip issued--agricultural college
scrip and other scrip to which I will call attention later--put on the
market and sold. That scrip would be used instead of money in paying for
and entering land; and through it much valuable land passed into the
hands of speculators at a cost of even less than one dollar an acre. You
who have lived here have all observed that the low price at which the
lumbermen secured timber in those early days under the Preemption Law,
by cash entry, and under agricultural and other scrip, did not help much
to get cheaper lumber. The result was to enable owners of large bodies
of pine land to hold them indefinitely for the purpose of securing a
higher price for their stumpage.
In 1874 an Act was passed "To encourage the growth of timber on the
western prairies." The purpose of this Act was laudable and had it
resulted in supplying the prairies with timber the gift of the land
would have been amply compensated for. But in its practical operations
the law proved a failure. Only a comparatively few of the many claims
entered were ever successfully forested, or ever became real timber
land. A large share of them were merely taken and held by speculators
with no real purpose of complying with the law in respect to the
planting, culture, and care of timber. Claimants would secure these
claims, enter them under the timber-culture law, make the first entry,
and then hold them just as long as they could, waiting until some
land-seeker came around, when they would tell him, "I have a timber
claim here, and might relinquish it so you can take it as a homestead;
how much will you give me for my relinquishment?" And for a time under
this law there was a great speculation in the sale of what we call
timber relinquishments. No timber was raised. Speculators had held the
land for four or five, maybe six, years as a timber claim. Then when a
real settler came along, why, for a consideration of one, two, three,
four or five hundred dollars, or whatever the settler was able to pay,
the holder would relinquish his timber claim to the Government so that
the real land-seeker could secure the same under the Homestead Law, or
under the Preemption Law, while that was in force.
In 1862 an Act was passed giving to each State 30,000 acres of land for
every senator and representative in Congress for the purpose of
establishing and maintaining agricultural and mechanical colleges. In
States where there was a sufficient quantity of public lands the State
was required to select the land from the public lands in the State, but
in States where no such lands could be secured land scrip was issued in
place of the land. This resulted in placing an enormous amount of land
scrip on the market, which was sold by the State in many instances in
bulk to speculators at a greatly reduced price, netting the States from
fifty to one hundred cents per acre--perhaps the average did not exceed
seventy-five cents per acre. The scrip could be used in entering land or
in paying for land under the Preemption and Homestead Laws at the rate
of $1.25 an acre. So far as the States to which the scrip was issued
were concerned the grant was a wasteful one. It would have been much
wiser and better for the Government to have appropriated $1.25 per acre
in cash to the States instead of giving them the scrip, and reserving
the lands which could be entered with the scrip for actual settlers
under the Homestead Law. In addition to this college scrip, we have had
from time to time various kinds of other scrip, Chippewa half-breed
scrip, Sioux half-breed scrip, and Supreme Court scrip, and others that
I cannot at this moment recall. Most of this scrip, fortunately, is now
about exhausted; very little of it is still afloat and at large. There
was also what we called "soldiers' additional" scrip of which there was
a great deal; a soldier could take a homestead of 40 or 80 or 120 acres,
and if he had no more in his homestead entry, he could take the residue
and make up 160 acres anywhere on the public lands of the United States,
without residing on the land; and he could dispose of his interest by
power of attorney, by which speculators succeeded in getting that. And
the records of our soldiers' homes will show how land speculators have
been searching among the veterans for this kind of scrip. Why, I got a
letter some years ago from a gentleman in Missouri--I can't recall his
name--reminding me of the fact that I had had a homestead; and he told
me that I was entitled to forty acres more under my right, in addition
to the 120 acres, and that he was willing to buy the land of me. He had
hunted up the records, and found a man by my name, but unfortunately the
homestead and all the rest transpired and existed in Wisconsin.
In 1878 Congress passed the so-called Timber and Stone Act, originally
limited to four western States, but by the Act of 1892 extended to all
the public-land States. Under this law land unfit for cultivation and
chiefly valuable for timber and stone could be secured in tracts of 160
acres for each entry-man at a price of $2.50 per acre. Under the law the
purchaser is prohibited from buying the land on speculation or in the
interest of any one but himself. On its face this law seems fair,
harmless, and just, but in its practical operation it proved the means
of a good deal of fraudulent land speculation. In the first instance,
valuable agricultural land fit for agriculture was entered under the law
on the theory that it was only good for the timber or stone on it.
In the next place--and there was where the great iniquity
occurred--speculators would hire men and women in different parts of the
country to go and enter stone and timber claims, furnishing them money
through outside friends, and then as soon as they had secured title get
a transfer of the land to themselves by paying a bonus of one or two
hundred and in some cases up to five hundred and a thousand dollars.
Why, I remember how, in a city not a thousand miles away from Saint
Paul, one year some twenty-five or thirty school teachers entered stone
and timber claims in the State of Oregon! This law finally proved simply
a source of speculation to the men who were trying to secure large
bodies of timber; and under it a large share of the valuable timber
lands now in private holdings were secured. The law should have been
repealed immediately; but while the Senate passed a bill repealing it
some five or six years ago, the bill failed to pass in the House of
Representatives. Since then the Secretary of the Interior has come to
our relief to some extent. The Stone and Timber Act said that this land
could be sold at not less than $2.50 an acre; and up to 1908 the
Government had always treated that as the price, and never exacted any
more. In 1908 the Interior Department adopted the rule of appraising the
lands for the timber and stone on them and selling them at the appraised
value, and the result of that policy has been to stop speculation in
those kinds of lands. A very limited amount of timber and stone lands
have been entered since for now it does not pay big lumber operators or
land speculators to hire anybody to go and enter these lands because
under this rule they have to pay pretty nearly what the land is worth.
But while this administrative order has given us some relief, I am
clearly of the opinion that the law should be entirely repealed to the
end that we can make suitable provision for the disposal of our stone
and timber land under more appropriate legislation and at a fairer rate,
both to the purchaser and to the Government. (Applause)
In 1862 Congress passed the Homestead Law, with the general provisions
of which most of you are familiar. This law makes a gift of 160 acres to
each settler and home-builder who will occupy, improve, and cultivate
his claim for a period of five years. Of all our public land laws this
has, on the whole, been the most beneficent and productive of the best
results. Under its provisions hundreds of thousands of poor and
industrious men and women have carved out happy homes for themselves and
their children, relieved the pressure of labor in our large cities and
great industrial centers, and rapidly laid the foundation for and built
up great States in the middle and far West. Judged by results, it is
doubtful whether the Government ever received a better return for any of
its lands than it has received for these lands given as a free gift,
under the Homestead Law, to our farmers and settlers. A happy,
prosperous, and industrious rural population will ever prove to be the
sheet-anchor of our industrial, social and political well-being, and
will ever afford a solid foundation for the integrity and perpetuity of
American institutions. The Homestead Law, with all its blessings, had
one defect which has, to some extent, marred its usefulness. I refer to
the privilege of commutation--the privilege of proving up and paying for
the land at $1.25 per acre prior to the five-year period for final free
entry. Originally and for many years after the law was passed, the
privilege of commutation could be exercised after the lapse of six
months from date of entry. This period was extended to fourteen months
some years ago and this fourteen months' period is still the law. The
vice of allowing a homestead entry to be commuted as stated, consists in
opening the door to the speculator, who, in the space of fourteen months
can secure title to the land on scant and temporary improvements and
then move away and hold the land for merely speculative purposes,
leaving the surrounding settlers to enhance the value of his land by
their continuing and permanent improvements. When they have erected
dwellings, barns, school houses, and churches, and have laid out roads
and organized school districts, the petty speculator and commutator, who
has done nothing to build up the country, stands ready to sell his land
at a greatly enhanced price to an actual home-builder and settler. The
commutation privilege should not have been included in the law, and
should be repealed, in my opinion, as soon as practicable. None but
permanent and bona fide settlers should be permitted to secure land
under the Homestead Law.
In 1872 Congress enacted a law for the location, purchase, and entry of
land containing gold, silver, copper, and other precious metals,
commonly called the mining law of the United States, which became a part
of the Revised Statutes. Mining claims are of two classes: (1) lode or
quartz claims, and (2) placer claims. Both are initiated by discovery,
staking out on the ground, and filing notice of location. After these
preliminary steps have been taken, claims can be held indefinitely
without purchase as long as $100 worth of work is done each year on each
claim; and as a matter of fact, only a small proportion of mining
claims, especially placer claims, are ever purchased from the
Government. Placer claims are soon worked out and exhausted, while good
lode claims are workable and profitable for many years. There is a
difference in the size and in the price of lode and placer claims.
Placer claims are larger in area and can be purchased at $2.50 per acre,
while lode claims cost $5 an acre.
In 1873 Congress passed a law for the purchase and entry of coal lands,
which also became a part of the Revised Statutes. Under this law every
person above the age of twenty-one years, who is a citizen or has
declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, may
purchase and enter 160 acres of coal land; and an association of such
persons may purchase and enter 320 acres, and an association of not less
than four such persons, if they have first expended not less than $5,000
in working and improving a coal mine on the land, may purchase and enter
not to exceed 640 acres in one claim. The price in each case is not less
than $10 per acre where the land is situate more than fifteen miles from
a completed railroad and not less than $20 per acre if the land is
within fifteen miles of a completed railroad. Only one entry can be made
by the same person or association of persons; and no association or any
member of which shall have taken the benefit of the law either as an
individual or as a member of any other association, shall enter or hold
any other lands under the provisions of the law; and no member of any
association which shall have taken the benefit of the law shall enter or
hold any other land under the provisions of the law. A preference right
of entry for the period of one year is given to any person or
association that has opened and improved a coal mine on the public
lands. The provisions of the law as to the acquisition and holding of
more than one claim are clear and stringent, and have been applied and
enforced in the courts in several instances where great corporations
have sought, through dummies and otherwise, to acquire vast holdings of
coal lands. It is conceded, too, that the minimum price fixed by statute
is, in many instances, altogether too low and much below the real value.
In 1907 the Interior Department cured this defect by adopting the policy
of classifying and appraising the coal lands and selling them at the
appraised value, a value in most instances far in excess of the minimum
statutory price. This new policy is continued, and under it something
over 100,000 acres of coal lands have been entered. Further legislation
is urgently needed in respect to the disposal of our coal lands. If the
policy of selling the land is to be continued, not only should the
system of appraisal now in vogue be adhered to, but provision should be
made to protect the people--the consumers--against the monopolies and
combinations in restraint of trade and against unreasonable and
exorbitant prices. Many good men, however, who have given the subject
great consideration, favor a well-guarded system of leasing instead of
sale for coal lands. Their contention is that under a leasing system
more careful and less wasteful methods of mining will be pursued and
that better protection can be thereby secured for the miner, the
consumer, and the Government. I am not prepared to take issue with this
contention. A leasing system is clearly preferable where the surface of
the land is disposed of for agricultural purposes, for under such a
system the conflicting interests of the miner and the farmer can be best
adjusted, regulated, and controlled. Perhaps it would be wise to adopt
both sale and leasing systems, leaving it optional with the Government
to select the mode of disposal in any given case; for there may be cases
where the one method would be preferable to the other.
In 1900 Congress passed an act extending the coal-land laws to Alaska,
but the act proved of no value as only surveyed lands could be purchased
and entered under the general law, and there was no surveyed land in
Alaska, and no provision was made in the act for surveys. By the act of
April 28, 1904, the general coal-land laws were extended to Alaska in a
more effective and rational manner. Under this act any person or
association, qualified to make entry under the coal-land laws of the
United States, who opens and improves a coal mine on the unsurveyed
public lands in Alaska can locate the land on which such mine is found
by staking the same out on the ground, and by filing notice of location
in the recording district and in the land office of the district in
which the land is situate, within one year after staking out the claim.
After these preliminary steps are taken, the locator must cause a survey
and plat of the land to be made by a deputy United States surveyor, and
thereafter, within three years from date of the location notice he must
make application for a patent of the land, prove a compliance with the
law, and pay the price of only $10 per acre for the land. Aside from
these provisions all other provisions of the general coal-land law apply
to coal lands in Alaska. Under this law between eight and nine hundred
coal-land locations have been made, but of these only about thirty-three
cases (perhaps a few more) have passed to final entry at the local land
office. The time for making entry and securing patents on the other
locations has, in most, if not in all instances, lapsed, and they cannot
be relocated owing to the fact that by executive orders of November 12,
and 27 and December 17, 1906, and by a recent executive order of
President Taft, all coal lands in Alaska are withdrawn from location,
sale, and entry. This withdrawal was no doubt made in pursuance of
recent legislation by Congress and for the purpose of giving Congress an
opportunity to enact better coal-land laws for Alaska than those now in
force; and such legislation, to my mind, is clearly and urgently needed,
and I am in hopes that Congress will take steps at its next session to
enact suitable coal-land laws for Alaska in order that the people there
may have an opportunity to utilize the coal that is within their own
boundaries. (Applause)
By the Act of March 3, 1877, amended in 1891, provision was made for the
entry and reclamation by irrigation of desert or arid land in the
Pacific coast and mountain States and Territories. Under the original
act 640 acres could be entered in one claim, but since the act of 1891
was passed only 320 acres can be entered in one claim under this law.
Water for irrigating the land must be secured and the land must be
reclaimed and cultivated by means of such water for the period of four
years after the preliminary entry, and the price of $1.25 per acre must
be paid before patent can be secured for the land. This law has not
proved very effective or beneficial, especially on account of the
difficulty, in many instances, of securing the necessary water supply by
a single entryman. In many instances the conditions of the law have not
been complied with, and as a whole the law may be said to have to some
extent failed of its purpose.
In view of the comprehensive character of the general Reclamation Act of
1902, which makes due provision for securing a water supply and provides
for limited homesteads under a qualified homestead law, the desert law
referred to, could well be repealed. The Federal reclamation system is
more certain and effective than reclamation by individuals in isolated
cases.
Under the so-called Carey Act of 1894, desert and arid lands are granted
to certain States, in limited quantities, for reclamation and
cultivation by means of irrigation, this to be done under the auspices
and direction of the States to which the grants are made. This law has
in some respects proved more effective and of more value than the
general desert law, but it cannot be regarded as equal in value and
efficiency to the general Reclamation Act of 1902, and therefore it
seems to me it is not advisable to make any more grants of this nature
to any of the States.
No effective or systematic effort was made to preserve the forests on
the public domain until March 3, 1891, when an act was passed giving the
President the power to set apart and reserve, from time to time, public
lands for forestry purposes. This was supplemented by the act of June 4,
1897, providing for the administration and care of the land so reserved
and set apart, which lands are now termed National Forests of the United
States. Under this law nearly two hundred million acres of public lands
in various States and Territories, including Alaska, have been withdrawn
and set apart for forestry purposes and are now embraced, most of them,
in our National Forests and their administration and care has been
placed on a sound, workable, and safe basis through the initiation,
prudence, and wisdom of our great forester, Mr Pinchot (great and
prolonged applause), who has laid the foundation and is the father of
our forestry system. This legislation and administrative action came
none too soon. Had there been more delay, our timber lands would, long
before this, have passed into private ownership and there would have
been nothing left for the Government to conserve (applause). No land
legislation in recent times has been productive of such beneficent and
far-reaching blessings and results as our forestry legislation. While
occasionally there has been a little grumbling and friction on the part
of settlers and cattlemen as to the administration of the law in some of
its details, yet it can be fairly said, when it is borne in mind that it
is a new system, that there has been little, if any, valid ground for
serious criticism or complaint. The conduct of a few over-zealous forest
rangers and a few over-strenuous settlers and cattlemen ought not to
militate against the value and usefulness of the forestry system as a
whole and in its entirety. (Applause)
Under the act of March 3, 1891, as amended by the act of January 21,
1895, and May 11, 1898, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized,
under general regulations to be fixed by him, to grant, without exacting
compensation, permits for right-of-way on the public lands for canals
and reservoirs which may be used for furnishing water for domestic,
public, and other beneficial uses, and for the development of power.
Several valuable water-power sites have been secured under these laws as
well as under the homestead and timber and stone laws. To put a stop to
such practice the Interior Department, in the later part of 1908 and in
the early part of 1909, withdrew all power sites from every form of
disposal under our land laws and these sites have remained thus
withdrawn ever since, except during an interval of a few days or perhaps
a few weeks in the spring of 1909; and during that interval no power
sites were secured or disposed of. Most of these power sites are of
considerable value, and they ought not to be disposed of under any of
the existing land laws. Adequate provision should be made by law for the
utilization of these water-power sites to the end that the Government
may receive fair compensation for the same, and to the end that the
public may receive the beneficial use to be derived from the development
of any water-power in connection with such sites, at fair and reasonable
rates (applause). The problem under our dual system of Government, State
and Federal, is not free from embarrassment, as it is the opinion of men
versed in the law that while the general Government may own the power
site, with all the rights of a riparian owner, the water in the streams,
except for purposes of navigation, belongs to the State, and that the
State may allow its citizens to appropriate such water for their
beneficial use and thereby render the power site of no value; for
without a sufficient supply of water the power site will not be worthy
of improvement or development. It seems to me (though perhaps I may err)
that the problem of developing and utilizing water-power in such cases
can be properly solved only by the cooperation of the State and the
Federal Government (applause): the one owning the power site and the
other the water in the stream, it strikes me that cooperation is
essential and furnishes the only practical solution. And some plan
should be devised by which the Federal and State Governments could act
in harmony and in unison in such cases. Of course, when the State owns
both the water and the power site, the problem is of a less complex
character, and is one exclusively for the State to solve except as to
the question of navigation. And I may also add in this connection that
Congress, at its last session, passed a general law to regulate the
construction of dams across navigable waters, by which ample provision
is made for protecting the interest of the general Government in all
such cases.
Most of our remaining public lands, suitable for agricultural purposes,
are within the arid or semi-arid parts of the country. These lands can
be successfully farmed only by means of irrigation or by so-called dry
farming methods. To aid in developing and successfully farming these
lands, the Reclamation Act of 1892 was passed setting apart the proceeds
of the sales of public lands within the arid and semi-arid States for
the construction of dams, reservoirs, canals, and ditches for the
impounding and distribution of water. A considerable number of
irrigation projects have been entered upon under the act. A few of them
have been completed, but the majority of them are still in an incomplete
condition; and there being an insufficiency of funds available for their
speedy completion, Congress, at the last session, in order to expedite
the work on the incomplete projects, provided for a loan of twenty
million dollars, to be immediately available, and to be reimbursable
out of the future income of the reclamation fund (applause). This will
hasten the completion of the projects and will aid the homestead
settlers of whom there are many, to secure a supply of water on their
claims at an early day.
For the purpose of promoting the farming of arid or semi-arid lands by
dry-farming methods or otherwise, where no water supply for irrigation
is or can be found available, Congress, by the Act of February 19, 1909,
provided for enlarged homesteads of 320 acres of non-irrigable lands.
The theory on which such legislation was based was this, that such lands
to be farmed must be summer-fallowed, so that a crop could be raised
only every other year, and therefore a larger quantity of land was
needed, as only one-half of the cultivated land could be cropped each
year.
Investigations by the Geological Survey have shown that considerable
areas of public lands suitable for agricultural purposes are underlain
with more or less valuable beds of coal. Such lands, on account of their
mineral character, are not technically subject to entry under any other
than the coal-land laws of the United States. A considerable number of
homestead settlers had settled upon such lands and had made the
preliminary homestead entries of the same without any previous knowledge
of their mineral character. For the relief of such settlers Congress
passed the Act of March 3, 1909, which provides that such settlers may
enter and receive a patent for the surface of such land, reserving to
the general Government the coal underlying the same to be disposed of
under the coal-land laws of the United States. This was supplemented by
Congress at its last session by the Act of June 22, 1910, which permits
the entry of the surface of coal lands under the Homestead Law, the
Reclamation Law, the Desert Law, and the so-called Carey Law, reserving
to the Government the coal beds underlying such lands, to be disposed of
under the general coal-land laws in existence or to be passed in the
future, and authorizing the exploration of the same.
One of the most important of our late land laws and which will prove to
be the key to future reforms in our land system is the Act of June 25,
1910, passed at the last session of Congress. This act authorizes the
President, in his discretion, to withdraw from settlement, location,
sale, or entry any of the public lands of the United States and reserve
the same for water-power sites, irrigation, classification, or other
public purpose. There was some difference of opinion before the
enactment of this law as to the power of the President to make such
withdrawals in all cases. This act removes all doubt and controversy on
the subject and enables the President to examine, classify, and appraise
the lands and to reserve them for necessary and appropriate legislation
by Congress. Many of our lands and their appurtenances are of such a
character that they ought not to be disposed of under any of our
existing land laws. Good laws are needed for the disposal of our timber
and stone, our water-power sites, and our coal, oil, asphalt, and
phosphate lands. There was considerable opposition to the passage of
this act in both Houses of Congress, and at one time it seemed as though
it would not pass, and it would not have passed but for the active,
continued, and persistent help of President Taft (applause). He labored
for its passage, in season and out of season, to my certain knowledge,
and but for his help, I can say with all truthfulness that that
important law would never have passed (applause). And since its passage
the President has availed himself of it by making new withdrawals, and
rewithdrawing many lands which had been withdrawn before but in respect
to which some question was raised as to the validity of the withdrawal.
I have not called attention to the various grants of land that have been
made, first for wagon roads and canals, and afterward for railroads, nor
to the large grants of land that have been made to the several States
for educational and other purposes, for the reason that such grants are
not likely to be repeated in the future. Provision has already been
made, with ample land grants for the admission into the Union of our two
remaining Territories, Arizona and New Mexico; and it is not probable
that any grants of public lands, except for right-of-way, will be made
to any railroad in the future, especially the railroad grants, may seem
to have been prodigal and too lavish; but to the legislators of those
early days, who were anxious for the speedy settlement and development
of our great West, they seemed justified and called for. And it is
evident that, in consequence of these grants, the country was more
speedily settled and the settlers afforded transportation facilities at
a much earlier period than otherwise would have been done. The grants
made to the States, especially for educational purposes, have from every
point of view been fully justified, and have been, and will continue to
be, of great help in maintaining ample and liberal educational
facilities in the several States.
In conclusion: I have given you this brief summary and outline of our
public land laws, past and present, obsolete and subsisting, in order
that from a consideration of the same we may avoid the mistakes of the
past, and gather inspiration and instruction for our future guidance. In
view of the diminishing supply and rapidly increasing demand it behooves
us to husband, with discrimination and care, all our natural resources,
beginning as promptly as possible, and this work must be done by
legislation, by administration, and by individual effort. (Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman STUBBS--If there are any pessimistic citizens in the United
States they should hear the Senior Senator's story of the lavish
management of public affairs in the past, and the splendid change made
under that great leader--the greatest man on earth today--Theodore
Roosevelt (applause and cheers) and Gifford Pinchot (renewed applause).
I now take great pleasure in presenting to you a typical southern
gentleman, Governor Noel, of Mississippi (applause).
* * * * *
Governor NOEL--Mr Chairman, Brother Governors, Delegates, Ladies and
Gentlemen: Some months ago I received an invitation to attend this
Congress, which I promptly accepted; also an invitation to deliver an
address, which I immediately declined. Since entering the hall this
afternoon I have been informed of my selection for the first address on
my State--each Governor speaking for his State in succession--and my
State's views on questions pertaining to our natural resources.
Of course the greatest natural resource of every city and county, as of
State and Nation, is the productive energies of its people. Their
development, through proper training of mind and heart, should be the
chief aim of all people and of the Government. In those resources,
however, our interests are the same as those of all other parts of the
country, and they open too broad a field for me to enter.
When we take up the question of the natural resources pertaining to our
domain, Mississippi occupies a widely different attitude from that of
some States in the Northwest whose Governors are here to speak for them.
We are an agricultural people. Not a city in Mississippi will much, if
at all, exceed 30,000 inhabitants; more of its population and its
wealth, proportionately, than of any other State in the Union are
engaged in agriculture. We have no mines, no minerals except some clays
and stone, no oil, no gas, no coal. We acquired agricultural lands, and
our natural resources are from those lands as agricultural soil and
standing timber.
Before the question of Conservation was understood, or at least before
it had become of any force in State or Nation, both Mississippi and the
Federal Government had parted with their lands and with their forests.
Much to our regret now, it is a question of the past, and has to be
handled by individuals and by corporations, to whom our lands and timber
chiefly, almost entirely, belong. We are interested; we try to regulate
our resources in some measure, within the powers of the State
Government; but our interest is largely confined to our public lands. We
have no coal or metals, our streams are sluggish, and there are few
water-power sites. We have little beyond the surface values of the
timber and the soil. We are interested in coal because it is necessary
for our industries; we are interested in oil because we need it; we are
interested in all the elements of the soil spoken of this morning,
phosphorus and all the rest. We are greatly interested in all these
things notwithstanding the land which contains them happens to be in
other States. We have not lost interest in them on that account; and,
speaking for our State--which has stood for State rights as it
understood them, and stands for State rights still--our only way of
securing these rights we believe to be through the Federal Government
(applause); our only voice must be through Congress and the President,
and we do not care to surrender that to which the Government is now
properly entitled. If the choice goes to the State we know how it will
go, for past experience has taught that lesson well--local interests
will control, and the general good will be subordinated to personal
pride and local considerations. We have learned much and suffered much
in that line. The Government gave to us, as to others, the sixteenth
section of land in every township, one-thirty-sixth of the whole State.
We put it in the power of a majority of the householders and patrons of
schools in each township to vest the school lands by lease, thinking
that local interests, being circumscribed and vitally concerned in
education, would at least prevent spoliation of this magnificent
donation to the school children; but we were mistaken. In a great many
instances a few who were shrewd and sharp and designing used a law by
which a lease could be made from one year to ninety-nine years, and
until that law was repealed leased the lands for the largest possible
term.
We know that the smaller the area the greater the influence of
personages, and of local and private considerations. Therefore, as we
look on this question of the Conservation of our natural resources, it
is a question of rights, and how those rights can best be maintained and
perpetuated; the means, whether through State or Federal Government, is
but a minor consideration; and believing that our rights can best be
preserved and utilized, now and for all time to come, without waste and
without destruction, both for the present and in the future, we think it
can best be done under Federal supervision (applause). The only rights
we have in coal and oil and metals must be exercised through the Federal
Government.
We may not fully understand the water-power problem. It has been said to
be only a local issue anyway. We do not understand it that way. The
river which rolls by this city smiling, smooth, and clear, after it is
joined to the Missouri is muddy, deep, and uncertain; not only all of
your waters but all of the waters east of the Rocky Mountains roll past
our western boundary. While at some seasons the water is low, at others
it is over fifty feet higher, and more than one-sixth in value of the
land in our State is subject to overflow. Your waters, which through
proper forestation and proper handling by dams and other means would
give us a more equable flow throughout the year, come down upon us at a
time when we do not need them, and in a degree greatly in excess of any
possible need at any time, and we have to bear the sins of deforestation
and all of the other evils that come from the wholesale spoliation and
destruction of your forest lands (applause). We are vitally interested
in that question. We believe in forest reservations; we are sorry we
cannot furnish the basis for it in our own State, but so far as the
Government lands we have can be availed of for that purpose, we would be
more than glad to see the Government take hold of the matter and set our
people an example of how forests should be handled and preserved for the
present and for the future.
When it comes to water-power, to me, at least, and to many of us, the
question of conflict between State and Federal Governments, about which
so much has been said--especially with a view of eliminating the Federal
Government--we hardly understand that view of it. We trace our title
through the Federal Government (applause). As a lawyer of more than
thirty years' practice, whenever I have been given a question for
investigation pertaining to the title of land, the first thing I have
done was to examine the tract-books to see whether the Federal
Government had ever parted legally with its title. If it had not, the
question was ended; if it had, then we could proceed to deraign to those
properly entitled to it. So when the Federal Government owned the lands
and was the source of title, we do not understand how, even though the
lands may be within the State, its right as a land-owner is less on a
river bank than it is in the interior, or when the Federal Government,
as the owner of the lands, should not exercise riparian rights which any
other owner tracing title through it might exercise.
Now, we would like cooperation of the States, but we would like the
Federal Government to retain where it still possesses them those rights
of which the people could not be robbed through control of State
legislatures or local authorities (applause). You may say, What interest
have we, who are not a manufacturing people, in the mines and the
water-powers of other States? Why, we are all in a common country. State
lines may be changed; they are accidental; they are artificial; but the
national boundary is fixed. When we look for coal or iron, or commercial
or industrial products which we do not manufacture, we must look,
primarily, within the bounds of the United States. It is within the
power of the Government and beyond ours practically, through tariff
legislation, to exclude the minerals from outside. We have but one open
field, we have but one certain route to any natural or manufactured
product, and that is within the boundaries of the Union itself; and we
do not want, through monopolization of either coal or oil or
water-powers, to be hampered in the protection of the country as a whole
so that as consumers we shall have to bear the brunt of evils from which
the National Government, through the little influence we might have with
it, might protect us, and of which our State government, in the past at
least, has been very neglectful. Hence we stand for State rights and
Federal control in cooperation (applause). But if it is within the power
of the Federal Government, through leasing or otherwise, to retain
control of its mineral and coal lands and its water-power sites, to put
them beyond the possibility of handling by a State and its legislature,
to regulate corporations' rights so as to prevent monopolization, and at
the same time to prevent the Nation as a whole from being deprived of
any productive agency in our midst, we want the benefit of it.
(Applause)
Our patriotism on this score may be of that questionable type described
by Artemus Ward, who said that during the Civil War, when the stress was
great, he listened to a magnificent speech from an orator on the subject
of enlistment, and became so enthused that when the call for volunteers
came he, with others, went up to sign the roll; but when he observed
that the orator had not signed nor was likely to sign, because his
province was simply that of speaking while other's would be fighting,
his own ardor was somewhat cooled, and when he reflected that the
orator's eloquence had carried his hearers where he would not go
himself, it became cooler and cooler. Still, his patriotism did not
entirely vanish, for when his time came to sign the roll for enlistment,
he signed it with the name of his mother-in-law and offered her as a
sacrifice to his country (laughter). Yet we are not exactly in that
category, though we may seem to view the situation from a local
standpoint. But knowing of our own condition, knowing of the rights
which the Federal Government conferred upon the school children of our
State--the sixteenth section and other lands of which you heard in
Senator Nelson's address today,--and remembering how in a great many
instances, through local influences, legislative or otherwise, the
intended beneficiaries were largely deprived of the benefactions
intended for them we really think, What has gone is gone, except as a
lesson to us; and so far as we are concerned, we shall stand for the
right of the people as a whole for the enjoyment of its great resources
of coal, of oil, of water-power and other natural wealth, and we want to
be protected in such a way that no State or local influence shall be
able to take it from us forever (applause). That is our position on this
question.
In regard to the water-power question. A while ago I spoke of the
Mississippi rolling by; we have never been jealous of the Federal
Government's dealings with that river, not a bit (laughter). We are not
now. So far as we are concerned, we would be delighted if the Federal
Government would acquire the riparian rights, with all the
_liabilities_, from one end of the State to the other (laughter). The
county in which I live, that part of it in the Delta, as well as six or
seven other counties, have had to keep up, without Federal aid until
this year--and then only incidentally for the protection of navigation
against some caving banks--for five years more than 200 miles of levee,
and it has required an acreage tax of from three to five cents, an _ad
valorem_ tariff of about ten mills, and a cotton tax besides; and while
some of this is among the finest agricultural land in the world, it is
almost wrecked by the taxes on it. Missouri has fared better. Her levees
are not as extensive as ours; her people put them in good condition, and
the general government afterward took charge of them in the interest of
navigation; and if the Government will relieve us of the whole burden
from the waters which you send down upon us from the North and from east
of the Rocky Mountains, and will take the riparian rights from end to
end and preserve and use them for the benefit of the whole Nation, all
the people of our State will greatly rejoice (applause), and not a voice
will be raised on the question of State rights as to any use for the
people as a whole to which the Government may put those lands.
So, as we come to voice our wishes, our interests, our desires, they are
for cooperation of State and Federal Government, but of absolutely no
relinquishment on the part of the Federal Government either of its
water-power sites, its coal lands, its phosphate lands, or of any of
those other natural resources to which the people of the whole country
are looking for future development and prosperity (applause). We are
_in_ the country, we are a part of it; not merely a part of the
Government of the States but a part of the Government of the whole Union
(applause), and all that concerns the Union, or any part of it or any of
its people, affects us to a greater or less degree. And speaking for our
share and our part in the national destiny which invitingly presents
itself before us, we say that we stand for Conservation of natural
resources by all governmental agencies, State and Federal, which will
not only develop now but protect in the future for the proper use and
progressive benefit of the people of the whole country to whom they now
belong and from whom they should never depart. (Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman STUBBS--Ladies and Gentlemen: I am very glad indeed to
introduce to you as the speaker to follow our distinguished friend from
Mississippi, the only other democratic Governor in the Congress,
Governor Norris, of Montana. (Applause)
You will see whether the views of the southern democrat and the northern
democrat are the same after the two get through speaking. (Laughter)
* * * * *
Governor NORRIS--Mr Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen: A feeling has
prevailed in the West, or did a few days ago, to the effect that no
enlarged opportunities were going to be given to express ideas here
which were contrary to those held by the program committee of this
Congress (laughter). However, I am pleased to note that such is not to
be the case, and whether the conference of the Northwestern Governors at
Salt Lake City, recently held, has had anything to do with it or not I
don't know. Anyhow, we are thankful for small favors. If it had been
the intention and had been carried out, it would have been a mistake,
for the reason that the Conservation movement is national in scope, and
is a part of no section and no State alone. The Conservation
movement--in other words, the public conscience--received its awakening
some two years ago, and Theodore Roosevelt did the awakening (applause);
and I am pleased to note that the sentiment created by President
Roosevelt has ripened into practical action by President Taft (renewed
applause). I resent the insinuation that Montana and the Northwest, and
in fact the entire West, is opposed to Conservation; in fact, I insist
that the Northwest is the leader of the Conservation movement
(applause), and that the first practical act in Conservation was taken
by a western State, Montana (applause). I am proud of the fact that the
first Conservation commission, either State or National, was appointed
by me, in the State of Montana (applause). I am further proud of the
fact that the first Conservation law, comprehensive in extent, was,
under my recommendation, passed by the Legislature of Montana; and in
that respect we have led the National Government in the Conservation
movement (applause). Therefore, just for a moment, and not desiring to
be personal, permit me to state what we have done. And in every respect
we have kept step with the National Government and in the majority of
cases we have led the National Government, and you can come to us for a
lesson as to how to properly conserve the natural resources of the
country (applause).
The Legislature which assembled in Montana in 1900 enacted a law
conserving the resources possessed by us in our public lands, so
generously given us by the Government on our admission. That measure
provided for the disposition of the land to actual cultivators of the
soil, in 160-acre tracts where irrigated, in 320-acre tracts where it is
suitable for dry farming, and in 640-acre tracts where it was only
suitable for the raising of hay or for grazing purposes--that is, in the
high altitudes, in the mountains. So in that respect we have gone hand
in hand with the Government in the passage of the 320-acre homestead
act, applicable to entries where irrigation could not be had. In that
same law, passed in 1909, some eighteen months ago, Montana forever
reserved from sale, and in every patent on every acre of its lands that
might thereafter be issued retained the coal rights, and provided for
the leasing of those rights from time to time and for periods not
exceeding five years (applause). So today, when President Taft says he
hopes Congress will do the same with the Government coal lands, we say,
Mr President, we are with you and hope Congress will do this (applause),
and if you wish an illustration proving that the title to coal lands can
be retained and the coal rights leased from time to time, providing for
the right to mine the coal at not less than 12-1/2 cents per ton, come
to Montana and we will show you half a dozen coal leases with such
provision which have been in force for the last sixteen months
(applause). Have we lagged behind the National Government? Oh, no! In
fact, we have led the National Government in the matter of Conservation.
(Applause)
And as to the metalliferous ores of the mines--the same laws are
applicable to State lands that are applicable to Government lands. As to
the forests: in the making of those laws, I corresponded, and our
commission corresponded, and we made those laws with the consent of, and
they were afterward approved by, Mr Gifford Pinchot (applause). There is
but one provision which we made then differing from those of the
Government. We provided in that law, passed eighteen months ago, that
lands more suitable for agriculture than for reforestation should be
used for agricultural purposes and not for reforestation purposes.
President Taft described this morning how the Government had in the last
few months been doing the same thing, so it seems that, after awhile,
the Government will catch up to Montana in that respect (laughter and
applause).
Now, then, on the water-power question: That same commission is now
operating, and it is going to prepare suggestions for submission to the
next Montana Legislature with reference to adequate provisions for
conserving the waters of the State of Montana, and I have no doubt that
the recommendations of the commission will, at the next session, be
adopted. We would have done that two years ago except we cannot do all
these things at once; our session only lasted sixty days, while Congress
is in session all the time (laughter and applause). If we had even six
months instead of two years for it, we would have had those water
resources conserved long ago (laughter). Is Montana entitled to take a
place in the kindergarten class in the school of Conservation? And are
we who have conserved our resources to be distrusted as Governor Noel
says you must distrust the Legislature and the people of the State of
Mississippi? (Applause) I thank my God that I can trust the people of
Montana to protect their own! (Applause) And let me tell you one thing:
the whole can never be greater than the sum total of its parts, and the
Federal Government can never adequately preserve its resources until you
get at least a majority of the people in a majority of the States to so
agree, because it takes a majority for the Federal Congress or the
Federal Government to act (applause). You start at the wrong end. You
have got to start with the people of the State and build up.
Now, are we capable of passing legislation to preserve our water
resources? I think we are; and let me tell you some of our plans. In the
first place, the water and the land, during the territorial days of
each State, belonged to the Federal Government. When the State was
admitted, the lands were reserved by the federal Government, but the
waters flowing in the streams of the State passed into the control of
the State. You heard Senator Nelson, an able lawyer, refer this
afternoon to the fact that that was the law. Now, they tell us that you
cannot trust the States, you must trust the Federal Government; and yet
I listened for nearly an hour to one of the ablest presentations I ever
heard of how the Federal Government for a hundred years wasted its
resources with all the prodigality of a drunken sailor (applause). Trust
the Federal Government! Why, the Federal Government has been the
greatest sinner in that respect. I am glad the Federal Government has
awakened and is going to preserve its resources, but Montana, at least,
woke up a little before (applause). In this matter of the water-power:
The most valuable use that water can be put to, or, in other words, the
most valuable function that water can perform, is not the development of
electrical power; in the semi-arid States it is the applying of that
water to irrigation and the reclamation of the arid lands of the West
(applause). So bear that in mind.
In the State of Montana--and what is true in that State is true largely
in every other State in the West--not one-third of the arable lands that
can be irrigated have as yet been reclaimed; less than 2,000,000 acres
have been reclaimed in Montana, while there are 6,000,000, in fact there
are 10,000,000 acres that can be reclaimed. In other words, there are
from six to ten million acres yet to be reclaimed by use of the water
that flows in the streams of the State, and that is largely Government
land. So that when you talk about conserving the water for water-power
purposes, we say conserve it for reclamation purposes (applause); for
the reclamation of Government land, too (applause), that may make homes
for settlers who will come in and take it under the Homestead Act. There
is the reason why we say that the Federal Government must not by its
superior power step in and insist upon using the waters of the streams
of the West for power purposes, unless when it so does it makes
provision that the rights for irrigation purposes shall forever remain
inviolate; otherwise, what does it amount to, the building of a dam
across the stream? When the Government conveys the right to build a dam
across a stream, it means that the amount of water flowing over that dam
will determine the amount of power that may be developed; hence, when
that dam is built the Government, if it conveys anything of value, must
convey the right to the use of that water, and the right to the use of
that water flowing over that dam must accrue as of that date, and
forever thereafter the franchise-holder will have the right to demand as
a concession from the Federal Government that the same amount of water,
all the natural flow of that stream, must go over that dam forever. You
thereby absolutely prevent the diversion of any water on that stream
above that point for irrigation purposes. The use of water for
irrigation purposes does decrease the amount flowing in the stream. That
is the reason we object to the Federal Government coming in and taking
charge of our water-power and giving it out--we do not care so much
about the little income that may be received: that is the reason we are
insisting upon the rights of the State.
Now, remember this: In the first instance, there is no contention but
what the regulation of water for irrigating purposes is absolutely
vested in the State, and that the Federal Government cannot acquire that
right; hence a number of irrigators have already appropriated a part of
the flow of the stream. The Federal Government grants the right of
franchise for the building of a dam. Suppose we assume, for the sake of
argument, that it can grant the right to the remaining flow of a stream;
it not only thereby forever thereafter prohibits the use of that stream
above that point for further reclamation purposes, but the rights of
every irrigator, either before or after appropriation is made, comes in
conflict, or may come in conflict, with the Federal franchise-holder? In
other words, you transfer from the State courts and from the State forum
the right of every irrigator to use the waters of a stream to the seat
of power of the Federal Government at Washington. In other words, you
practically stop irrigation in the arid West when you insist upon having
that power (applause). Is that Conservation? True Conservation demands
that every acre of land shall be used for its highest purpose and be
made to serve its highest productive function (applause), whether in a
forest reserve or out of it. Therefore, in order to serve its highest
productive function in the West, water must be applied to the land.
Now, take the 6,000,000 acres of land that may be reclaimed in Montana.
If you do not insist upon the Federal Government taking charge of the
water-power and preventing its further reclamation, it means 6,000,000
acres of land reclaimed. It is fair to say that each year those
reclaimed lands will produce a total of $25--yea, and if I did not want
to be ultra-conservative, I would say $50--per acre; and at $25 per
acre, you have an annual income from those 6,000,000 acres of land of
$150,000,000. Isn't that worth thinking about? Isn't that a resource
worth conserving? Why, the 6,000,000 horse-power that might be developed
in Montana is not worth one tithe of that. You say, Give to the Federal
Government the right to the water-powers of the State and forever
prevent the further reclamation of our land? Why, you are asking of us
the most priceless gift that we have to convey--far more priceless than
our mines yielding $50,000,000 yearly, possibly the richest in the
world--because you ask us to surrender not $50,000,000 a year but the
opportunity to make $150,000,000 a year. Has the Federal Government this
right? We insist, as a matter of law, that the Federal Government has no
authority to grant any right to the use of water on any power site that
it may have. If the power site is situated along a stream, the title to
the power site rests in the Federal Government and it can grant the
right to erect a dam on that site, but the water that flows down the
stream by that power site belongs to the State, and unless the State
gives you the right to appropriate and take water you will develop no
power by a dam-site! (Applause)
Now, is the State ready to surrender any rights that it may have in the
waters of the stream to the Federal Government? The State of Montana is
not ready to so do, for the reasons I have given. The State of Montana
will insist upon every right it has. Let the Federal Government have
that which of right or in law belongs to it, but let the State keep that
which of right or in law belongs to it (applause). So sure am I that the
State has the right to use of its water that I think the next
Legislature of Montana will pass a law to regulate the use of water,
making its use for power forever subordinate to its use for irrigation
purposes, and then say to the Federal Government, You own your power
site, but you do not own the water; we own the water, but we do not own
the power site. Your site is worth nothing to you because it is valuable
only for power in connection with the use of water. We cannot develop
power on that site, but we can go a little farther down the stream and
divert that water for the irrigation of land, and it is valuable to us.
Now, that is what we mean by the rights of the State in and to the
waters of the State. You cannot trust the State? Why not? If you cannot
trust the people of Montana to conserve its resources, if you cannot
trust the State of Wyoming to conserve its resources, can we trust the
State of Maine, or the State of Florida to conserve them for us? What
reasons have we to assume that the people of the State of Massachusetts
or the State of Louisiana are more patriotic in that respect than are
our own people?
The creation of the forest reserves was the greatest act ever performed
in recent years. We would not have that act repealed. We have a double
purpose in supporting the forest conservation policies. You think of it
as valuable for the timber that it will grow. That timber is worth just
as much, and will shelter just as many people, in Montana as it will in
the Mississippi valley, but we desire it for a further purpose. The
forests of these mountains are Nature's reservoirs, builded there by an
Omnipotent Creator, and can better conserve the waters that fall in the
form of rain and snow than these artificial reservoirs that men may
build (applause). We want those waters. The water that comes from our
mountains and is conserved under those forests is the very life-blood of
the State of Montana. Would you take the water away and stop the
reclamation of the arid West? I know you would not; yet you would do so
did you not at the same time that you were saving the timber make a
provision that the rights to water for power purposes should forever be
subject to the rights for irrigation purposes.
Bear this in mind, also. The doctrine of riparian rights does not
prevail in the arid West; therefore the owning of the soil on each side
of the stream does not convey the right to have the water flow down that
stream undiminished in quantity or quality. In other words, the first
appropriator is the first in right. I think there has been a
misunderstanding as to the position of the West in this respect, as to
why we are insisting upon the rights of the State. We insist upon the
right of the State to control the waters of the State, not the
water-power particularly. There is a decided difference between the
waters and the water-power. The waters will irrigate land, the
water-power will develop electricity. Such is the position the West
takes. Will you not help us in that, and so help develop the land and
make it productive? Do you know it is your own salvation to do so? Ye
people of the populous East, where is the produce to come from to feed
the ever-increasing millions, unless it be from the reclamation of the
arid lands of the West? The time will soon be here, and it is not over
four years removed, when we will cease to be a wheat-exporting nation,
and in only a few years it must come that the children will cry for
bread, and the land must be made to produce it. Therefore we must
husband our resources and conserve our water for use for the purpose
which will permit the growing of something that will feed human beings;
and pine trees do not do it (applause). You of the Mississippi valley
who for years have wept great crocodile tears that your lands have been
cleared, suppose those lands had not been cleared, whence would come the
produce to feed the millions of today? So bear these things in mind that
when you come to conclusions you will take all these questions into
consideration. And I want to say to you that in the future, as in the
past, Montana will not lag in the Conservation movement, but will
continue to lead the Federal Government (applause).
* * * * *
A DELEGATE--Mr Chairman, are the propositions advanced by the Governors
to be discussed? I see no reference in the program to such discussion,
and ask for information.
Chairman STUBBS--The understanding of the Chair is that this afternoon
was turned over to the Governors. The intention is to give them an
opportunity to relieve their minds this afternoon (applause) and get the
way clear for the greatest man you will hear talk in thirty
years--Th
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/36031