« AnteriorContinuar »
ernment, from its capital, shall regulate these things. I only want to say that to these gentlemen and to these advocates, and I only want to remind them of that declaration of Chief Justice Chase in 1863, when the war even was on, when he said that this union is composed of indestructible states. I also want to remind you that Justice Harlan in a recent opinion, in the Kansas decision, reiterated that statement and that still more recently, just four years ago, Mr. Justice Lurton, speaking for the entire Supreme Court of this country, said that this is still and must remain an indestructible union of indestructible states. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. GIFFORD PINCHOT-Mr. Chairman, may I answer just one proposition? It is rather a matter of personal privilege. CHAIRMAN FowleR—Mr. Pinchot desires, upon a question of personal privilege, the opportunity to answer Mr. Bryan. The chair recognizes Mr. Pinchot. MR. GIFFORD PINCHOT-There is just one point, because I do not want to take your time, but I do want you not to misunderstand this question. I am just as anxious as Mr. Bryan that the states in their sphere should exercise exactly the same kind of jurisdiction over these water powers as the nation does in its sphere. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in this resolution that touches states rights in any way shape or manner. (Applause.) The reason I ask as a matter of personal privilege to answer Mr. Bryan now is because I refused to have that question dragged in where it does not exist. There is nothing here that has to do with state rights whatsoever. Now, Mr. Bryan having been assured of that and having assured us that he is in hearty sympathy with the sentiment expressed in this resolution, why should he not support it? (Numerous of cries of “Mr. President! Mr. President!”) CHAIRMAN FowleR (rapping vigorously for order)—As long as I am chairman of this meeting, the utmost fairness will be shown to all parties interested. There will be no monopoly on either side. There has been but one lady applied to the Chairman for opportunity to say something, and I know that every gentleman here will wait just a moment to hear from Mrs. Schuyler, of New York. MRs. LIVINGSTON Rowe SCHUYLER, of New York—Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, I read in the paper yesterday morning that this Congress had been packed by Mr. Pinchot. I came here determined to work against any man that would pack a Congress. But, I did not know then what Mr. Pinchot was doing. I have a creed and that creed consists of three distinct doctrines: Anti-suffrage, because I believe in the stability of the states; states rights, because I believe in a democratic form of government; tariff for revenue, because I believe every man should be protected alike. I think my belief in the first doctrine has been greatly enlarged by the attendance upon this Congress, because I can conceive now why women carry on such noisy congresses, after trying to imitate the man. (Laughter.)
I stand here, therefore, not as a representative of the women who desire to imitate the men, but the representative of that woman who illustrates the story of the little boy who was asked what were his father's last words? He said, “He didn't have any, for ma was there to the end.” (Laughter.) “Ma” has been here all this time, and “Ma” has never spoken before, but she is going to speak now, even if she does not have the last word. (Applause.)
The states I believe have the utmost right to pass laws which affect their citizens and their citizens only. The moment those laws affect the citizens of another state, then any community, as in the case of an individual, must yield to an arbitrator; there must be an arbitrator. No state of the Union, I believe, would attempt to monopolize the Mississippi River to the exclusion of all the other states on its borders, without being swamped. I ask you, what is more important than every man's rights in this country? The President of the United States never said a truer word than when he said the wealth of the country does not consist of the amount of money in the country, but in its distribution; not of a few enjoying it, but of its accessibility to the many. Therefore, I say the use of our resources, the usefulness of our resources, does not consist in their quantity, but in their accessibility to all. (Applause.)
(Various cries of “Mr. President! Mr. President!”)
CHAIRMAN FowleR—The Chair desires to say that until the chair is stopped by proper parliamentary procedure in recognizing the members of this congress, he will continue to recognize them. Mr. Leighton has obtained the attention of the chair several spaces back, and was promised the opportunity to speak. He now has the floor.
MR. M. O. LEIGHTON.—Mr. Chairman and members of this Convention, I want to say the right thing. I assure you it is going to be fairly hard, because my feelings are outraged to some extent by the presentation of this amendment. The majority of the Water Power Committee has gone away, and I am here alone to represent it. I want to tell you about the things which took place in the Water Power Committee which have such a bearing upon this matter. I know I am taking the unpopular side, and I know that I am breaking with a man whom I have followed and loved and assisted to the best of my ability for more than ten long years.
As I told you, I realize just what I am doing now, and I would not do this if I did not stand here as the representative of my four colleagues on the Committee. I want you to know just what happened.
The Committee was divided on several points. We had two reports before us, one being that which you know as the majority report, and one which you know as the minority report. There were many points of difference, but there were only three which kept us apart. One was the question of short term or indeterminate franchises; the other one was the question of compensation; and the third was this matter of monopoly.
In all fairness we thought that the introduction presented by the minority members was immoderate and unfair. We believed that the construction that was placed by the members of the minority on those figures was not justified.
For the past five or six years I have had a subordinate though more or less important part in tying up the power sites of the west, and if you want to know whether I did my part well or not. I want you to ask the water power men. They all testified that I seemed to have done my part so well that they have not been able to monopolize any water power sites, which I was sent to examine, and upon which I made reports. It was my official duty to meet a great many power men, and since I have left the service and hung out my shingle and tried to do a little business in the ordinary way, I have met more power men on an honorable business basis. I believe, and my colleagues in committee believed that there is no body of men in the United States who have done more effective work in the bringing about of public utilities regulation within the states than these same predatory water power interests. I know that is so. That is the unpopular side, and I am sorry to take it, but it is the true side, and you will see that I am justified, I hope, before long.
This cry about monopoly is justified or was justified. Mr. Pinchot yesterday afternoon made a speech on this platform which I admired from start to finish. Every word that he said, so far as I can remember, was absolutely true, and every word that he said in that speech is agreed to by every water power man in my acquaintance. He was saying something that was absolutely true, but there was no need for saying it. It was accepted. It would have been exactly the same if he had stated here before you that two and two make four, two and two make four. Everybody knows that that is right; every body knows that there is no mistake about that. Everybody that I have come across believes in the regulation of public water power.
I went further upon this committee, ladies and gentlemen, than any of my colleagues did, when I stood out for the proposition that not one square foot of government land or government privilege should be granted except to a public utility corporation controlled by public utility laws satisfactory to the government. But what was the trouble with it? I do not mind requiring that public water powers shall be properly regulated, but why rub it in 2 It is an accomplished fact I tell you, and what does it do? The water power industry today, as I assure you is in a state of stagnation. Mr. Pinchot gave some very profound looking figures, but when they are interpreted in the light of knowledge, such as I have and such as my colleagues have, and such as any man has who has been up against water power industry, they really mean little.
It occurred to me while he was reading those things that to show up the fact that undeveloped water power in monopolistic ownership had increased so much faster than developed power was a mighty poor argument for the integrity and usefulness of the present water power laws. All I ask is consideration of this matter. Let us not go off half-cocked. That is an inelegant expression, I know, but it expresses the situation.
The water power industry, as I have said, is in the doldrums, and you can, if you choose, prove it yourself. Investors who put their money into water power propositions are as suspicious as possible of the water power industry, and it is hard, it is difficult to raise the money. Every time a great convention of this kind, which has the public interests in its grasp, comes out and makes an intemperate statement, it sets the water power, the real water development, controlled and governed by the people, back just so much further. My colleagues went away with the tacit understanding that yesterday afternoon’s action settled the matter. ... Professor Swain took the first train and so did Mr. Hall and Mr. Webster; and now Mr. Stillwell is gone. (Laughter.) We came together on this proposition in a unanimous report, and we sat around the table and said, “Gentlemen, none of us like this, but it is the best we can do and we will stand back of it.” It was the tacit agreement made that so far as this committee was concerned we would stand back of it. I know what you are going to do. You are going to pass this resolution, and that is all right. (Applause.) I just want you to understand the position of the minority members of this Committee and I do not want you to pass this resolution believing that the majority of that committee approve the present application of the principles as set forth in that resolution.
CoNGRESSMAN BURNETT, of Alabama—Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I desire to offer an amendment, and as part of my argument, I will read the amendment that I wish to offer.
You will notice that the gentleman that offered the amendment has very astutely used the words “public ownership and public control” in order if possible to put in a hole the gentlemen who are willing to have state control of these public utilities. I propose to offer the following amendment:
Amend in the first line by striking out the words “public control” and inserting in lieu thereof “state control.” Strike out in said resolution the words “public ownership” and insert in lieu thereof the words “state control.” Strike out the words “public ownership” in lines two and three from the bottom, and insert in lieu thereof the words “state control.”
Ladies and gentlemen, that simply puts it up to you to determine whether or not you want the government a bureaucratic government here in Washington, to control these matters, or whether you are willing to have your state legislature at home do it. When Alabama comes to vote on this, I ask, if there is a dissenting vote from this, not only that the number of those votes shall be given, but the name of the man who dares vote against the right of his state to control these matters, that his name shall be made public.
That is what you all said, and the distinguished gentleman who offered it said he did not want any conflict in regard to it. My contention, Mr. Chairman, is that the only right that the Federal Government has in navigable streams is the right of navigation, and that the riparian owners own the right of the use of that water and the state the right of its control. There can be no mistake as to the