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. pleasure in introducing him. (Applause)

I take great

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 middle