Imágenes de páginas

power. It finds that when the Government decides to improve a stream, the incidental water power that is created may be used by the Government or sold or leased without making compensation to the abutting owner or the owner of the bed of the stream; in brief, that National control is paramount, and that the use of water power as an incident follows the use for navigation. That settles a controversy which has long been pending, and settles it, I believe, in a way that is right and in accordance with the public interest. (Applause.) A great deal of discussion has occurred in regard to the subject of compensation to the Government. In principle, compensation is right. A very large share of the water power developed is on public lands or public lands must be used for transmission lines. Those lands belong to the Government. The water power is very closely associated with the forests, where an extensive patrol is maintained to prevent fire. It involves the use of Government lands. Again, in the improvement of navigable rivers, every one concedes now that you can require the building of a lock and dam, and it is not merely an extension of this principle to say that compensation for the improvement of the river may be required in addition. At the same time, I do not understand that those who advocate compensation expect that it shall create any serious burden upon industries. Indeed, in the lists I have found of charges fixed by the Interior and other departments, the Forestry Department, I have been surprised that the rates are so small. In its practical application, what would be a result of these charges? Prevention of extortionate rates, and on the other hand no obstacle to the orderly development of water power in the country. The Interior Department has recently granted a franchise to the Imperial Power Manufacturing Company in the state of Washington, with a view to developing 112,000 horsepower. The strictest reservations are made. Beginning in 1923 or afterwards, compensation must be paid. The rates may be regulated by the Government. Not more than 50 per cent of the power generated may be sold to any one consumer or used by the permittee. Provision is made for the taking over of this water power at the instance of the Government for the use of municipal and other corporations. I rejoice to note that this week there has been opened for use, just below Chattanooga, an installation for water power for which a bill was passed in the year 1904. Those who had to do with the framing of that legislation may take honest pride in its success, because it was the first step in the way of conservation of water power. The bill provided that the permittees or grantees under the license should build the dam and masonry of the lock and the Government should furnish the lock gates and machinery. Other concessions were made. About 65,000 horsepower will be developed, being a great addition to the industrial facilities of that locality; and notwithstanding the fact that completion has been much delayed and the cost increased over the original estimate, it is sure to be a profitable enterprise. One thing which should attract our attention is the application of power for trans-continental railways. It is estimated there is ample power readily available in the Northwest to supply all the railways in an area bounded on the east by a line drawn north and south through the center of Montana, and east and west along the south line of the state of Colorado, including that northwesterly section to the Pacific coast. That involves half a dozen railway systems and a saving of expense for fuel of $40,000,000 a year.

We are only at the beginning of this. Let us by all possible means strive to harmonize difficulties, making concessions in the non-essentials, but in the great principles which look to the future, which look to the common weal and to equality of opportunity in this country, let us stand steadfastly by certain great principles. (Applause.)

MR. HENRY L. STIMSON—Mr. President, I understand there are a number of speakers who have been invited or signified their desire to address the Convention on the subject of water power this morning, and in order to focus and concentrate what may be said, and in order that this Congress may have before it something concrete, I move you, sir, that the rules of the Convention be suspended in order that the unanimous report of the Water Power Committee may be adopted, and that that motion may be the subject of the addresses here or may be before the Congress during these addresses as their possible subject. MR. JAMEs R. GARFIELD, of Ohio–Mr. Chairman, I secon the motion made by Mr. Stimson. . CHAIRMAN FISHER—As I understand the rules of the Convention, they are that no general resolutions can be adopted by the Convention without reference to the Committee on Resolutions. I assume that this motion, while not in terms a general resolution, is nevertheless of the same character. I also understand Secretary Stimson's motion is to suspend the rules for this purpose? MR. HENRY L. STIMSON.—It is, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN FISHER—You have heard the motion. Are there any remarks? MR. DUDLEY G. WooteN, of Washington—Mr. Chairman, if I understand the President's attitude, the reports of these committees received here yesterday afternoon have gone to the Committee on Resolutions, but as I judge the purpose of the motion of the gentleman from New York, it is to put some subject before the house for discussion. If it be simply his purpose to give us a motion to discuss here which is, as I understand it, a motion to adopt the unanimous recommendations reported by the majority of the Water Power Committee, I have no objection to the motion.

CHAIRMAN FISHER—That is the motion, as I understand it.

MR. HENRY L. STIMSoN–I think the gentleman understands it correctly. MR. DUDLEY G. WooteN–It is your intention that it shall open all discussion at this time? CHAIRMAN FISHER—The first question is whether we shall suspend the rules and adopt the report. MR. DUDLEY G. WooteN–This is a debatable motion, is it not 2 CHAIRMAN FISHER—Perhaps it will be better to put the motion in two parts, to divide it. Shall we suspend the rules for the purpose of considering the unanimous report? If we adopt that motion, then we can adopt the report. Otherwise, we are going to adopt two questions, first whether we shall suspend the rules, and, second, the question whether we shall adopt the unanimous report. Is there any objection to a division of the question in that way ? (After a pause:) If not, those in favor of suspending the rules for this purpose will signify it by saying “aye.” (The ayes responded.) Those opposed, “no.” (The noes responded.) The motion is carried. MR. DUDLEY G. WooteN—Mr. Chairman, are we going to be allowed to discuss this motion? CHAIRMAN FISHER—I asked if there was any objection. MR. DUDLEY G. WOOTEN–I do not know whether there was any objection, but I did want to discuss the question. CHAIRMAN FISHER—I asked distinctly whether there was any objection to dividing the question and you made no remark. MRs. LIVINGSTON Rowe SCHUYLER, of New York—Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. CHAIRMAN FISHER—State your point of order. MRs. LIVINGSTON Rowe Sch UYLER—A motion to suspend the rules is not debatable. CHAIRMAN FISHER—The motion is carried so far as the first part of it is concerned. The proceeding now reverts to the proposal to adopt the unanimous report of the Committee. As I understand it, there are before the Convention three reports, a majority report, which was read yesterday afternoon, a unanimous report, which was also read yesterday afternoon, and a minority report, which was postponed until this morning, to be read by Mr. Pinchot, who postponed that matter on account of the lateness of the hour. I think it is quite clear that before we proceed further we should hear the minority report, so we may have the entire subject-matter before us. The Chair recognizes Mr. Pinchot. (Prolonged applause.) MR. DUDLEY G. WooteN–Mr. Chairman, the Convention is unnecessarily disturbing itself in order to prevent our side of the question being heard. CHAIRMAN FISHER—Do you raise a point of order or have you anything to say? MR. DUDLEY G. WooteN–The minority report was printed and distributed here yesterday afternoon and referred to the Committee on Resolutions, and is now under consideration by a sub-committee of the Committee on Resolutions. CHAIRMAN FISHER—The Chair ruled the report of the minority was not referred to the Committee on Resolutions, but on the contrary was expressly reserved for presentation this morning by Mr. Pinchot, that reservation being made yesterday afternoon in distinct terms. (Applause.) The Chair recognizes Mr. Pinchot. MR. GIFFORD PINCHOT-Mr. Chairman and members of the Congress: The report of the minority of the Committee on Water Power is comparatively short and therefore will detain you but a few moments.


I. Concentration and Development.

The central fact in the water power situation of today is concentration of control. Ten groups of power interests control 65 per cent of all the developed water power in the United States. Some of these groups are still further related through interlocking directors between the groups themselves. The reality of these groups is established by interlocking officers and directorates and by ownership of stock, which are the tests of relationship adopted and applied by the U. S. Bureau of Corporations.

But the rapid growth of concentration and control is even more striking than the amount of it. Two years ago the ten greatest groups of water power interests controlled in round numbers 3,270,000 horsepower developed and undeveloped. Today the ten greatest groups control 6,270,000 horsepower. Thus the amount of concentration has nearly doubled in two Wears.

The central need as to water power in the United States is development on terms fair both to the public and to the power interests. But the passage of water powers into private control may imply development or it may not. Has water power control or water power development been the chief object of the power interests? The following figures appear to answer the question:

The water powers which are held undeveloped by the ten greatest groups are larger by about one-third than the developed water powers controlled by them. But still more striking is the increase in the last two years of controlled powers held undeveloped compared with developed water powers.

In 1911 the ten greatest groups had developed and under construction 1,821,000 horsepower; and in 1913 they had 2,711,000, an increase of 890,000 horsepower. In 1911, the ten greatest interests held undeveloped 1,450,000 horsepower, which had risen to 3,500,000 horsepower in 1913, an increase of 2,050,000 undeveloped horsepower.

These figures show that in the last two years the great power interests have increased their control of power held undeveloped more than twice as fast as they have increased their control of developed power.

The same preference of the water power interests for concentrated control rather than for development may be shown in another way.

In 1908 the total developed water power in the United States was in round numbers 5,400,000 horsepower and in 1913 it is 7,000,000, an increase of about 33 per cent for the five year period. In 1908 the thirteen greatest groups of interests controlled a total of 1,800,000 horsepower developed and undeveloped, while in 1913 a smaller number, ten, of the greatest groups control a total of 6,300,000 horsepower developed and undeveloped, an increase of 240 per cent. Thus concentration in ownership of water power in the United States has increased in the last five years about seven times faster than power development.

It must not be forgotten that the common operation of several water powers, by equalizing the load at different times, by reducing the danger of complete breakdown, and in other ways, has legitimate and real public advantages. If the concentration of control were intended merely to realize these advantages, there would be no such increase in the control of undeveloped powers as is actually taking place. Common operation of adjacent water powers has, however, very little relation, if any, to a monopolistic concentration of control, such as the foregoing figures show is being brought about in the United

« AnteriorContinuar »