views of us who hold to that position. If the other position be a correct one, then the Federal Government could tax Cincinnati and St. Louis and Louisville and every other city on the navigable streams of the country for every ounce of water or every kilowatt of power that they use of the water of the people of the country.

My fellowmen, whenever you lay down the rules that this gentleman asked shall be laid down, you will say that the Federal Government, the United States Government, the Congress of the United States, shall have the right to tax the farmer who uses the water of a navigable stream for the irrigation of his lands or for the watering of his stock. Are you ready to coincide with that doctrine? If you are, and if you vote for that, then you should go home to your people and say that you have voted for a principle subversive of home rule and of states rights in its very essentials. It is an absurdity and yet, my friends, it is a more reasonable argument to say that Congress can pass a law to make Louisville pay for the water that they use for industrial purposes, for potable purposes, than the other proposition, because when the City of Louisville uses it, it exhausts it in its consumption; and yet, my friends, when we allow the riparian owners to use the water which, like Tennyson's Brook, goes on and on forever, it is not exhausted in its use and it is not depleted by its use.

Answer that question, gentlemen. Answer that proposition if you can. When you have voted that the Congress, of which I am a member, has the right to put a revenue tax upon those who use that water, then you will have said that Congress has a right absolutely to say that the farmers along the borders of the streams have no right to use the water of that river without paying for it. There is a point beyond which we cannot go. If the City of St. Louis and City of Louisville were to consume so much of that water as to in any way interfere with navigation, then the injunction power of this government would come in and say, "Thus far shalt thou go and no farther." Gentlemen, that is the law. The Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of the state of Minnesota and many other of the states have announced the doctrine emphatically and positively, clean-cut and positive, that the only right the government has in the navigable waters is the right of navigation. When we interfere with that, then we invade the rights of Congress and the rights of the Federal Government; so long as we do not interfere with that, we have not invaded this.

This extreme conservation idea has been announced

and advocated by the gentleman here yesterday has gone so far that it is absolutely depriving a man who wants a home for his little family, so he may call them about him and say, "This is our home," of his right of settlement in the great public domain.

This wonderful stage here is a setting of "Ex-es,”-ExSecretary of War, Ex-Secretary of the Interior, and another ex-secretary of the Interior, and an ex-forester. Why? Because the people would have arisen in their might and have scorned the meeting we had yesterday of the "Ex-es" that so adorned this rostrum. It may be possible, my friends that the Pie brigade is here in such numbers as to vote down what is right, but, gentlemen, from that body we expect to appeal to the people of the country.

You may talk about corporations! Gentlemen, the Coosa River runs through my district, but not one of the dams, Mr. Chairman, that we tried to secure, and one of which we have secured, is there. I have not a cent of interest in it. My only interest, ladies and gentlemen, is the interest which I have in securing the navigation of the river upon whose banks I was born, and upon whose banks I expect my remains to be consigned when I am called to that home whence no traveler returns. (Applause.) MR. O. C. BARBER, of Ohio-Mr. Chairman !

CONGRESSMAN BURNETT-I am not through, Mr. Chairman! CHAIRMAN FOWLER-Let us have order, gentlemen!

MR. O. C. BARBER, of Ohio-Mr. Chairman, here is a man who has occupied more time than he is entitled to. The proposition before the house is a simple one and ought not to be dwelt upon at such length and in such detail as he is following. We are not all green nor awkward nor foolish. Mr. Pinchot, as I understand it from the resolution, made a point applying to interstate commerce, you may say, or interstate water. He had the right to offer the resolution, I believe. At any rate, it is of not such vast importance that two or three men, corporation lawyers principally—(loud applause)—can come here and monopolize the whole time of this convention. I therefore move, sir, that you do not allow any speakers on this subject to take up more than five minutes time, in order that we may facilitate our business. (Loud cries of "I second the motion! I second the motion !")

CHAIRMAN FOWLER (rapping vigorously for order, amidst great confusion)-The Congress will understand that it has in its own hands the power to stop the debate at any time it sees fit. Until such time the chair is in duty bound

to recognize any member of the Congress who desires to debate the question. Mr. Burnett has spoken somewhat at length. The chair has not attempted to interfere. The chair wished to be fair to all purposes. Mr. Burnett still has the floor, but if a point of order is made that his time is up or that he is taking up too much time, if a motion is made that the speakers hereafter shall be limited to a very few minutes, the chair will endeavor to hold the Congress and its members within those limits.

Mr. Burnett has the floor!

CONGRESSMAN BURNETT-The Chair has been exceedingly fair. I want to ask one thing; I want to answer one thing. The gentleman has talked about corporation lawyers. I am not one of them, Mr. Chairman. I am the representative of the people in the rural districts of northern Alabama. The gentleman did not raise any point or question when Mr. Pinchot was discussing his resolution at length, yet now when it seems that I am touching the great prime questions involved the galled jade winces as it always does.

(Great confusion among the delegates; cries of "Order, Order"; cries of "Mr. President! Mr. President!" vigorous rapping for order by the chair.)

CONGRESSMAN BURNETT (continuing)-In conclusion I want to say that I am glad to see the presence of this splendid bevy of intellectual women here this afternoon. I have been working in double harness for the last seven years, and the first thing I learned was when she said, "Go," he goeth, and when she says "Come," he cometh, and when she says, "Johnnie come and get the market basket," the market basket is got or else there is trouble. Some old bachelor has said that the Bible says that one woman can chase a dozen men-(great confusion and cries of "order, order! Mr. President!") I do not believe it is in the Bible, but it is just as true as the Bible, and I am perfectly happy to be a married man. (Continued confusion and cries of "Order! Order!" vigorous rapping for order by the Chairman.)

CHAIRMAN FOWLER-The gentleman is not in order!

CONGRESSMAN BURNETT-Am I out of order when I am complimenting the women of my country? God save the country!

MR. FRANCIS CUTTLE-A point of order, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FOWLER-State the point of order.

MR. FRANCIS CUTTLE-The gentleman is not talking to the question.

MR. W. R. FAIRLEY, of Alabama-Mr. Chairman !

CHAIRMAN FOWLER (rapping vigorously for order)-The chair will recognize the gentleman from Alabama!

MR. W. R. FAIRLEY, of Alabama-Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of this Convention, I did not intend to say a word, as I have been sitting and listening very interestedly, but as the last speaker, Congressman Burnett from Alabama, has thrown out a challenge and a threat that the man who does not vote according to the Alabama delegation should be obliterated in the State of Alabama, I want to tell the Congressman right now and here that I am going to vote for Mr. Pinchot's amendment! (Loud cheers and great confusion.)

CHAIRMAN FOWLER-The Chair wishes to call the attention of the Convention to this fact: Mr. Burnett has made an amendment to the amendment and his amendment was seconded. The gentleman will please confine his remarks as closely as possible to the amendment of Mr. Burnett.

MR. W. R. FAIRLEY-Mr. Chairman, I shall go back, with your consent, to what I said. Mr. Burnett, was permitted, in introducing this amendment to utter a threat as to what would take place if we did not vote according to his dictation to the Alabama delegation. I am here to repeat what I said before. I am not actually a member of the delegation, but I am here representing

MR. DUDLEY G. WOOTEN (interrupting)—Then what business have you in here?

MR. W. R. FAIRLEY-I am here representing 50,000 coal miners in the United States, members of the United Mine Workers of America, who are going to support Mr. Pinchot's amendment! (Loud cheers and prolonged applause.)

A DELEGATE-Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that those who are not delegates to this Convention and not recognized as such are not entitled to the privileges of the floor.

MR. W. R. FAIRLEY-Mr. Chairman, I am a delegate representing the United Mine Workers of America, and hold my certificates as such delegate. (Cheers and applause.)

(Here followed considerable discussion participated in by Mr. R. Horak of New York, Mr. George H. Maxwell, Mrs. Emmons Crocker and others.)

MR. GEORGE H. MAXWELL-Ladies and gentlemen: I am a delegate and as such have the right to speak, and I am going to talk five minutes to the point, which is in opposi

tion to the amendment submitted by Congressman Burnett of Alabama. (Applause.)

The reason why in my judgment, you cannot and should not adopt that amendment in this Convention, is that you cannot settle the question of the rights of the states and the nation respectively in the waters of the country in this convention or anywhere else by a generalization. We have been fighting over this question for twenty-five years in the west, and we finally succeeded in getting a bill through Congress, in which it was stated that the National Government should proceed in harmony with the rights and laws of the states, and that settled the question forever. So far as the United States Reclamation Act is concerned, it never had any more trouble.

The only way in the world that you will ever settle this question of where the rights of the states begin, and where the rights of the nation begin at either end, is by passing some such general measure as Newland's River Regulation Bill, which creates a Board with power to act. In other words, you have got to bring the states and nation together in such a way that the people of a nation, through their executive agency, and the people of the states, through their executive agencies, can sit down to a table and make an agreement as to what Uncle Sam is going to do and what the states are going to do. Whenever you have created that agency, my good friends, you will have settled this question of states rights, and never until then. The gentleman who preceded me spoke most eloquently of his interest in this matter being in the navigation of the rivers that flowed by his home. I want to say to you that I believe I have studied the question of the constitutional powers of the nation and the states as profoundly and deeply as any man living in this country today, and I am free to say that in my judgment, as a constitutional lawyer, the national government has control of the remotest sources of the streams or water-sheds where a drop of water flows that finally runs beneath the water born commerce of the United States on the great navigable rivers. I have stood on a ferry boat crossing the Mississippi Rivier at New Orleans when it was banked full to the levees on both sides, and the water that was running under the ferry boat came some of it from Canada, part of it from Montana, part of it from Minnesota, part of it from New York, part of it from Virginia, from Maryland; and Uncle Sam had the right to go back to the place where every identical drop of that water fell, and harness it and control it at the place