tion of some law, but the saving of the heritage of all the people in the interest of all the people. Forces have been set in motion which cannot now be stayed. Unquestionably the contest will be bitter. With the enormous issue at stake, victory will not be complete until every possible effort of private interests to absorb the rich prizes has been exhausted.

It is particularly fortunate that the battlefields are generally situated in sections where youth and hope predominate, and where there is still left unappropriated many of these natural resources. We of the West can contend, not only for a principle, but for actual results as well.

Who is it that needs be told that our natural resources are of enormous value? Who needs to be reminded that these resources can be conserved or can be wasted? Our forests, our water courses, our lands, our fisheries, can be made a blessing that will endure, or they can be so abused and wasted as to cause misery and want instead of plenty in the future.

Conservation reduced to its last analysis means a use, which while providing for our present needs, does not exhaust the source of supply. It is the antithesis of waste. It means moreover, not only that in the use of our natural resources due heed should be given to future want, but that the welfare of the people as a whole should be considered, rather than the enrichment of the few.

The people generally do not realize the direct concern they have in the conservation of these resources. They do not fully grasp their interest in or their responsibility towards them. If they did, the question would be quickly solved. I long for the power to awaken them to the fact that they have this interest, that they have the right to be heard, and that a solemn duty rests upon them to conserve and protect this magnificent public endowment.

Who could describe in fitting terms our splendid moun

tains, our mighty water ways, our glorious plains and valleys. A kindly Providence has showered blessings upon this nation. In this section we have been thrice blessed. Our forests are unequalled in magnitude and quality; water powers await development; on every hand streams course through our lands. Minerals of all kinds await the miners' pick and shovel. Our rivers can easily be made navigable, and many of our harbors are inland seas. Food fishes we still have in abundance, and millions of acres of good land await the settler. We have a rich soil, a pleasant climate and natural resources of all kinds; and while in the past their very abundance has made us profligate of our patrimony, we are yet in a position to conserve them to a considerable extent. It is undeniable that on every hand there has been wanton waste, together with a steady growth towards monopoly in ownership. Until of late there has been but slight conception either of this enormous waste and monopolization or heed given to the consequences. A common heritage has been dissipated with a lavish hand. Those who protested were given but little heed or attention, but the people are awakening, and the battle is now on for the preservation of the rights of the public in and to the public wealth. It is now conceded on every hand that something must be done, some way found to prevent the waste of the past, to make the best use of our resources for the present, and to conserve them for the future.

It is therefore of first importance to understand our relationship towards these public resources. Are they ours to do with as we please, to use or waste as we see fit? Or are they ours only to use to the best advantage, and with the least waste, and is it our duty to pass them on unimpaired, improved if possible, for those who are to follow us? We have no conception of eternity or perpetuity; only an omniscient Being has that. Yet we have become so accustomed

to the idea of an uncontrollable ownership of our State and natural resources that even our agents in council chamber and legislative hall grant in perpetuity rights belonging to the people as a whole with as little concern as that felt in the most ordinary parliamentary proceeding. With our limited vision and knowledge, with our right only that of temporary use, the most valuable public franchises, privileges, and properties are granted through all eternity without the slightest question of our moral or legal right to thus bind unborn generations. If the fundamental principle that in dealing with public rights or property we are handling a trust estate is once understood and accepted many of our difficulties will disappear. When any attempt is made to correct evils resulting from this misconception of power or misconduct of our representatives, straightway there is drafted for service the time-serving and ancient defender of every wrong, our well-known friend-Vested Rights. No matter what the basis of this right, whether the bloody sword of the conqueror or the grafting aldermanic hero of a Broadway steal, "vested rights" is there, claiming protection for "vested interests." No matter if the man who, for a consideration robs the people, is clothed in stripes as a convict, the vote he cast is strong enough to grant to the beneficiary, and to his successors in interest, the ownership of or the right to use for ever and exclusively, and often without control, streets or other valuable rights or property belonging to the public. I never did; I never will accept such a doctrine. No agent of the people has any such power, nor have the people themselves, to bind future generations who will have their own problems to solve and their own lives to live.

Vested rights-what are vested rights? Too often continued wrongs; wrongs endured so long that they have through a friction of the law become transformed into legal

rights. I take the position that the conservation movement is, consciously or unconsciously, based upon the conception that we occupy the position of trustee of our public resources. If I am right in this, and actions are based upon this principle, one can readily understand we should be much more careful in our dealings with these resources than when we feel they are our own to do with as we please. It is self-evident that this world was not made for us alone. Before our day countless millions have inherited it and gone. After us, so long as the world endures, countless millions will come and go. Could it have been intended that during our temporary occupancy we should have had such a complete control of God's gifts to man that we by our ipse dixit, our legislative will, could determine for all time how these blessings might be used or enjoyed, or in whose hands shall be placed power to say by whom and at what price they shall be had?

A striking illustration of what I mean and a question that is uppermost today, is the right, or perhaps I should say, the policy of granting water powers in perpetuity. I presume the courts at the present time would uphold the power of the Legislature to grant a title to these rights with the attribute of eternal life. Of course, if it could grant one it could grant all. If today it were proposed in this State to grant under a blanket law all of its water powers to one man or to one corporation, public opinion would drive dishonored from the State every participant in the act. Yet, as a matter of fact, substantially every legislature in every State in the Union, excepting the State of Oregon, can today grant to one man and to his heirs or assigns for ever every water power over which the State has jurisdiction. Moreover, investigations have disclosed that it is a fact that there exists today a scheme by which, unless restrained in some way, substantially all of the water powers of this country

will be concentrated in the hands of a few men. Such a monopoly as this, if it comes to full fruition, will overshadow all others in importance and power.

Without discussing the legal phases of the right of a legislature to make such grants, or analyzing closely underlying principles, it seems to me, from the standpoint of right and wrong, from the standpoint of good morals and public welfare that no such right ought to exist, and certainly no such power should be exercised by representatives of the people.

It is urged by some that this right should not be limited as to time so long as the water is beneficially used. Many arguments are advanced in its favor, the chief one being that the large powers requiring heavy expenditures cannot be made profitable in a limited time; that development will be retarded; that the users will get the benefit, and that the State will receive additional taxes. Getting down to first principles, the question might be asked-why should the State grant a perpetual franchise to anyone? Eternity is so long a time that no one can comprehend It. Where the terms of a contract are not understood by the parties, this in itself should be reason enough not to enter into it. It is conceded these rights belong to the people of the State as a whole. We are but trustees for a brief period of this estate. While the legislature may have the power to make these grants, is it right it should exercise this power? Will anyone undertake today to say that we can forecast the future so certainly that no mistake will be made? The vice of the argument lies in the fact that if a mistake is made it is irremediable. The rights attach and the estate is gone for ever. Waive the question of principle that is involved and assume that the State adopts a law that such rights shall not be granted in perpetuity, who is harmed? If it develops that the law is not on right lines, it can be corrected at any