at all. I find here the reports of the majority and of the minority upon this water question, which I submit is one of the most vital questions before the people of this country today. Why do I say that? Because I know I come from the state where we have manufactured the trusts, and it fell to my lot to be chairman of the committee that framed the limited franchise law of New Jersey in 1905. What was the occasion of that limited franchise law which, when the facts were known to the people in our state and reflected in the New York journals and in the papers of our state, created a sentiment of public opinion that swept through our Legislature and nothing under the heavens could stop it. What were those facts?

Our good friend Pinchot has indicated the possibility of these facts as applied to the water power. In our state we found a condition where the beneficiaries of these special interests had become the Legislature; had enacted laws which enabled our municipalities to give away our franchises in perpetuity for our utilities; and what was the practical result? The practical result was, in our own community, that we had a little short street railway line of about nine miles in length running from the city of Newark into the country. These gentlemen owned the road, the bonds and the stock, that constituted the ownership of that road. They formed another company, under our generous corporation law. As a result thereof, they issued to themselves, on that nine miles of trolley line extending from Newark into the country, $6,400,000 of four per cent bonds and $15,000,000 of stock.

A VOICE-Where is your public utilities commission?

MR. FREDERICK W. KELSEY-The public utilities commission was not secured until afterwards, and cannot touch it today for the reason that it is a vested interest, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.

CHAIRMAN FOWLER-NO member of this Congress present has any right to interrupt the speaker. If any member desires to ask any question, that question should be put to the speaker through the Chairman. (Applause.)

MR. FREDERICK W. KELSEY-The utilities commission of New Jersey was not created untll these conditions were passed upon and until the bonds and securities issued under what I call this fraudulent proposition, were in the hands and past the reach of everybody and past the reach of the utilities commission. Mr. Pinchot has referred to the water power. That was a little transaction in our own community there. They issued those securities, and they have today a market value of $11,000,000. That was one thing. That was a condition and not a theory.

When these facts were made public, no man

dared stand up and deny them, and they never have been denied. When the facts became known through the action of our Water Committee, who simply went to Poor's Manual and some other authorities on railroads, just as you can go and find out whether Mr. Pinchot is right or wrong in the matter of the concentration of these water power rights, there was no answer. My suggestion to this Congress, Mr. Chairman, is to get there a little before instead of a little after the time. (Applause.)

My friend in the White House today is borne down by the important questions pending before the country at this time. Besides the question of what is to be done with our sister republic on the south, the President of these United States and our friends in the Capitol are today borne down by this question of what is to be done after this thing has gone on for years. We heard yesterday on the floor that in Alabama, where our friends are so earnestly protesting and raising technical questions until I thought every one who had the merit of the question in mind got almost out of patience, that 90 to 96 per cent of these great water power privileges are already in private control. While I am not an expert in the detail of this question, as Chairman also of the Committee which made. a study of our corporation laws of 1905, I want to say in all earnestness to this Convention that I do not believe it is good policy, that it is right for us to evade this question. (Applause.)

The Committee on Resolutions, I think, have reported as we would all have reported, namely, that when this Convention took this action yesterday, it virtually took out of the hands of the Committee on Resolutions, and I agree with the Chairman on that proposition as a parliamentary proposition before this meeting. But I want to say to you, and to you, and to you, and to every one within the sound of my voice that that does not take that question out of its practical application all over this country, nor out of the jurisdiction of this meeting to dispose of one or the other of those reports as in our good judgment we may deem best. I therefore stand first, last and all the time for Mr. Pinchot's resolution. (Applause.)

(Numerous cries of "Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.") CHAIRMAN FOWLER-Mr. Bryan, of Tennessee, has the

floor.

CONGRESSMAN BURNETT, of Alabama-Mr. Chairman, I want to offer an amendment before I am precluded.

CHAIRMAN FOWLER-You shall be heard, sir.

MR. M. T. BRYAN-Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Convention: I do not rise for the purpose of intensifying any feelings of hostility of any nature whatsoever. Upon yes

terday, as the chairman of the delegation from the state of Tennessee, it was my privilege to oppose certain measures which were proposed, which I thought then were wrong, and notwithstanding this Convention's action, am still of the same opinion.

But what I rise now particularly to say is this, that in the report whch was so extraordinary-three reports from the same committee, in that report which was debated so long yesterday and which was adopted, if I remember it and if I understand it, everything was and is embodied so that we are now threshing over old straw. The gentleman who offered this amendment prefaced his motion by saying that he did not wish to open up the question, and at the very same moment he opened it up most positively and most directly. What is the use of having such trouble? Why, Mr. Chairman, I dare say there is not a man, certainly not a lady in all this large convention, who will stand here for monopoly against freedom of use and the right of the citizens. I would never raise my voice in favor of uncontrolled monopoly. I do not care what kind of monopoly it is, whether it is a water monopoly or a railroad monopoly or a steamship monopoly, we are all opposed to monopolies. But why does this distinguished gentleman insist upon rubbing this thing in upon us, when he has already got an expression of this Convention? Is it his purpose to write in indelible characters upon it that this is the Pinchot Convention instead of a convention of the representatives of the people?

Mr. Chairman, understand me, I have followed to some extent, the work of that gentleman in the past, and in the main I have approved it, because he has stood, as I understood it, against monopoly. But when he stands here in this Convention for the purpose, as it seems to me, of alienating and dividing this convention, one section of the country from another, without any necessity for it, because we are all in favor of regulating the monopolies of all sorts, he is going just too far and I do not believe the representatives of the people will stand anything like that. This Convention in its very nature and organization, is capable of doing a great deal of good. Why shall we divide it? Why shall we go away and have protesting delegations from any section of it when there is no necessity for it? I do not expect really-in fact, I was taken by surprise by the amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Washington City. It is most impolitic. He is doing an injury to his cause. It seems to me, and he will pardon mebecause I have not the honor or pleasure of his distinguished acquaintance that if he had consulted me, which of course

was not to be expected, that the suggestion might have been made that would have obviated all this trouble, because I do not want to repeat myself-because we all are in favor of the regulation of monopolies of all kinds; but if the gentleman or any one representing his side of it will tell us how his policy which he has been advocating and advancing, has promoted the building or the creation of water power, we will be greatly benefited. He has been at the head of this movement and we are told what great increase of monopoly as against development there has been, and how does it happen that it has occurred under his administration if he stands for what he is contending for? MR. GIFFORD PINCHOT-May I answer that, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FOWLER-Does the gentleman yield to Mr. Pinchot?

MR. M. T. BRYAN-I yield to Mr. Pinchot, Mr. Chairman. MR. GIFFORD PINCHOT-I would like to say in reply that in the national forests, under a policy which was established during my administration of forest surveys, there are now seventyeight water power projects built, there are now thirty water power projects under construction, and there are now seventysix water power projects, with a total of over two million of effective horsepower constructed under the very plan that I am advocating. (Prolonged cheers and applause.)

MR. M. T. BRYAN-It is manifest that Mr. Pinchot has a good many friends in this convention, and I am pleased to know it. (Applause.) But my answer to his statement is this, that if they have succeeded so well under the law as it stands, is it not good and well to let well enough alone? If they have done so admirably, Mr. Pinchot, under your administration, then why do you want to change it?

MR. GIFFORD PINCHOT-I do not want to change it. I want to extend the same kind of administration to these parts of the country that have not now got it. (Prolonged cheers and applause.)

MR. M. T. BRYAN-And that brings on more talk. That opens up another question, which is here in your minority report, and I am glad of the suggestion that Mr. Pinchot makes. Let me read it. That is the meaning of why we from the west and south have excepted to this. Here is what you have signed, Mr. Pinchot, and here is the meaning of your statement just now.

CHAIRMAN FOWLER-The gentleman will direct his remarks to the Chairman of this meeting!

MR. M. T. BRYAN-You are exactly right, Mr. Chairman! With your permission, I will read what is in the Minority Report, submitted by Mr. Pinchot, dictated by Mr. Pinchot,

and which is Mr. Pinchot's report in connection with the statement he has just made. Here it is:

With the right reserved to the Government to regulate rates and service to the consumer, should the business be or become interstate or should the state or local authority fail to do so.

Here is what I really want to call particular attention to: Or should the state or local authority fail to do so.

There is the milk in the cocoanut. There is an absolute declaration wiping out state lines. If your state shall fail to do what he conceives or what those who believe in that conceive they should do, then the national government should take it in charge. I know there are many lawyers in this convention, and if any lawyer or if the distinguished gentleman himself will point to any paragraph or any line in the Federal Constitution that authorizes the Federal Government, where the State Government refuses to exercise any of its state rights, to interfere and regulate the matter involved, I will yield the question and vote for his proposition. Now, Mr. Chairman

CHAIRMAN FOWLER-The question is on the adoption of the amendment of Mr. Pinchot. It is possible that we do not fully comprehend what that amendment is. It has been suggested to me by the Chairman of the Committee on Resolutions that it would be well to have that amendment of Mr. Pinchot's re-read. With your permission, we will have it read now.

MR. M. T. BRYAN-Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be advisable to read it a little later. I think I understand what it is, and I am trying to address myself to that. I was replying just now to the remark made by Mr. Pinchot, which went to show, as I interpret what he has in the minority report, that its purpose is to authorize the Federal Government to exercise prerogatives that exclusively belong to the states in case the state does not exercise those prerogatives.

I have done now only to to say this: Certainly I thank you for your kind courtesy, Mr. Chairman, as well as the convention, composed of so many beautiful ladies and so many cultured gentlemen. I want to say this: We all know, because it is in the atmosphere, that from this great center, that from this nation's capital, these gentlemen engage largely in an altruistic work, with which I am in sympathy so far as they comply with the constitution of my country, which is above the other interests that may be involved; that they think the states are inert and refusing to perform their respective duties and therefore this national gov