Imágenes de páginas

arid States of America is the great evil of permitting men to make merchandise of the melting snow and the singing brook (applause). I stand here to say that no man can possibly be good enough to own the water which another man must use in order to live (applause). It may be that private enterprise can be employed in the form of a construction company to build the reservoir and the means of distribution; but in that case, after our people have paid for the work, and paid for it once and twice and three times, then the Nation should answer our prayer, “Let my people go.” We should have joint ownership of land and water. Today we have a magnificent construction company at work in the seventeen States and Territories of arid America; the name of it is “The United States of America, Unlimited.” (Applause) That construction company turns the work over to the people at actual cost, with ten annual payments, and without one dollar of interest (Applause). If the National Government can do that with irrigation, it can do so just as wisely with power; and if it doesn't seem wise for the National Government to do it as a matter of public enterprise, then give us a form of construction company; but in the end, in the day of our children and our children's children and our remote descendants, in the name of God and in the name of humanity, let the people own the water which is essential to their existence. (Applause) Just one word further. I stand here to endorse what has just been said by one of the few real men whom California ever had the good fortune to put into her Governor's chair (great applause). California is not for State rights; that doctrine was trampled to death fifty years ago under the feet of a million armed men. Yesterday it raised its head and stretched out its weird arms seeking to grasp the remnant of the natural resources and turn them over to exploitation by private monopoly. But that will not be permitted. I am here, my friends, to say to you, as Governor Pardee has said, that in this great controversy —the most momentous which has arisen in this country since the close of the Civil War—California and the Pacific slope, and I believe all the splendid States of the Rocky mountain region, stand with that fine young American statesman who during the past few months has thrilled this nation in his fight to save the resources of the people to all the people for the benefit of all the people; that young man who said at Denver the other day that it is more important to help the small man make a living than to help the big man make a profit; that man, who has sounded the highest notes since Lincoln, who has declared that he is in favor of Government by men for human welfare and against Government by money for profit—we stand first, last, and all the time with Gifford Pinchot. (Great applause)

Colonel J. H. DAVIDSON (Delegate-at-large from Minnesota)—Mr Chairman: I noticed scattered through the program of this great Congress the words “General Discussion.” We have not limited the time to be occupied by speakers. I now move you, sir, that under the head of “General Discussion” a delegate shall be entitled to occupy only five minutes, and shall not speak a second time on the same question. Chairman CoNDRA—The rule adopted today fully covers the point, though it has not been put in effect this afternoon. We have two days, perhaps three, for full discussion, and the time will be limited under the rules which will govern tomorrow. The last speaker on the formal program is one who has been greatly interested in this movement and closely associated with Mr Pinchot. I have pleasure in introducing Mr Walter L. Fisher, a VicePresident of this Congress and of the National Conservation Association and President of the Conservation League of America. Mr FISHER—Mr Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen: I would not take any of your time this afternoon were it not that I, too, have felt the appeal of President Taft for concrete and practical suggestions as to how to solve some of the more difficult of the problems of constructive statesmanship presented in the Conservation movement. The particular point on which I wish to make a suggestion is the relation of the States and the Federal Government to the question of water-power grants. This question, it seems to me, has been allowed to assume a phase entirely unjustified by the facts. There is, in my judgment, not only no necessary conflict between the interests of the State and the Nation, but there is every incentive for practical cooperation between State and Nation on this matter (applause); and in my opinion the question can never be rightly settled until there is just that cooperation. (Renewed applause) The Federal Government is the natural agency to which we must look for many of the things which are essential to a solution. There are two phases of the problem, one involving a question of law and the other a question of public policy. As to the strict legal right, it must be apparent that on any stream where the Federal Government owns the riparian property, or on any stream which is navigable in fact or in law, the consent of the Federal Government is absolutely necessary as a pre-requisite to the construction of any water-power works. For myself, I believe that the power conferred by the Constitution upon the Federal Government with relation to interstate commerce absolutely carries the power to make such conditions in any permit to erect a structure in a navigable stream as the Federal Government may believe it wise policy to insert. The power to make or to withhold the permit, under all the decisions of the courts which have in any way touched that question, implies the power to impose conditions to the permit. There are, I know, those who disagree as to this proposition; but even they will agree on the broader question of public policy which underlies the whole subject. When the Federal Government under

takes the improvement of a navigable stream, it rarely if ever happens that it does not thereby either create water-power or increase potential water-power already existing. It is evident, therefore, that those riparian owners who own existing water-power grants are directly benefitted by the improvement in the navigable water. Whenever the Federal Government protects the headwaters and the water-shed on which the stream depends, it is conferring a direct benefit upon the owners of water-power property along the line; and so with all the other improvements. You have heard the eloquent Ex-Governor of Louisiana explain what the interest of that State is in the intervention of the Federal Government in the regulation of the Mississippi river. There are few places throughout this country where the owners of water-power grants and those who are interested in all the other uses of flowing water have not appealed to the Federal Government for financial aid or for assistance not financial which that Government alone can effectively render. It must be apparent that in rendering that assistance the Federal Government creates property of value, or enlarges the money value of property already existing. No hardship, then, is done if the owners of this property are required to contribute to the original cost. Not only so, but there can be no justice in the proposition which requires the taxpayers of the United States as a body to pay the cost of the improvement or the protection of any stream when as a matter of fact the people who own the property immediately along the stream will get, in direct money value, a larger benefit than the cost of the improvement. There are many reasons besides these why the Federal Government must, in the very nature of things, be the effective agency to do many of the things which the States can never effectively do, no matter if the whole subject were turned over to them this afternoon. On the other hand, I wish to call attention to the fact, which I believe to be established by experience, that whenever a local community is once aroused to an intelligent appreciation of its interests and its rights, that local community will better and more effectively regulate local service and local rates than any more remote governmental agency whatever. Herein lies the advantage of local home rule. Now, I am not talking about railroad rates connected with interstate commerce, or about other things which affect more than the local community, but about those things which affect merely particular localities. If a waterpower company starts in alongside of a great industrial community and that community is built up so that its industries depend on it, that community itself, once thoroughly aroused and intelligently educated upon the question, will far more effectively regulate those rates in the interests of the public, while at the same time dealing fairly with the corporate or private interests involved, than would the State or the Federal Government. That seems to me a broad, practical proposition which experience has justified. Now, let us apply the principle to the water-power situation. And my whole purpose in speaking is merely to call the attention of this Congress to a method of treating this question, which will, in my opinion, meet both situations. It is not a novel suggestion; in one of the very last of the water-power grants made by Secretary Garfield, the essential provisions of it were at least hinted at and a preliminary provision made. In my humble opinion, the Federal Government should control the water-power grants on streams that are navigable or where the Government itself controls the riparian property. It should make grants for definite periods of time and should provide for compensation. That compensation as a broad, general rule should be applied to the improvement and protection of the stream and the watershed from which the water-power has been derived, or to other streams and watersheds of like character, for all uses of the water, whether for . irrigation on the one hand or for water-power on the other. There should be periodical readjustments of the rate of compensation. In the beginning, and especially in an experimental enterprise, the rate of compensation should be exceedingly low. There should be, as President Taft himself said here in his speech, a readjustment of the rate, say every ten years; and the person or the corporation invited to invest money should be given proper protection in that readjustment. Capitalist and industrial pioneer should be treated not only fairly but liberally, that vigorous development may result. On the other hand, such a grant should contain this provision, or be subject to this fundamental legal limitation, that the grantee, by acceptance of the grant, acquiesces and will acquiesce in any reasonable regulation of the service and of the rates which may be charged the public that may be provided by the State or by any delegated agency of the State. In that way, the thing in which the local community (the State, its municipalities or minor communities) has the greatest interest will be amply protected and left free to act in its own interest. Now, what will be the result practically At the end of the first ten-year period the question of readjusting the compensation will arise. If the local government has not adequately protected private interests, if it has not regulated the rates so that the people are obtaining power upon fair terms and the corporation restrained from making extortionate profits, all the Federal Government will have to do will be simply to increase the compensation. If, on the other hand, the fundamental question is being taken care of and the community in which the water-power is generated and distributed is receiving it at fair terms, the compensation can be left where it is or only slightly increased, depending entirely on the situation. And this has another side? The Federal Government may possibly at times not be looking after some public interests in particular localities as well as it should, for these same Federal officials who are elected by the method suggested by our friend from Louisiana are the men who are going to control a large part of the regulation of the rates by the Federal Government; so anyone who believes that the delegation of this question to either Federal or State authority is a final solution is equally mistaken in either case. But the method which I suggest will work automatically, because if either State or Nation is alive to the people's interests they will be protected either by the imposition of proper compensation or by the appropriate reduction of the rates. (Applause)

Chairman CoNDRA–Fellow-Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: In taking note of the remarkable representation from all over the country in this Congress, we should not forget that our President, Mr. Bernard N. Baker, is from Baltimore, right on the Atlantic coast and in a southern State; and I desire to say, with a great deal of satisfaction, that a large part of the success of this Congress is due to his unflagging efforts. (Applause) We shall close our formal program for the day with a brief address by Colonel James H. Davidson, whom I now have the pleasure of introducing. Colonel DAVIDSON.—Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I shall only detain you a few minutes to make some suggestions which seem to me pertinent. Many delegates in this Congress seem to have it fixed in their minds that Federal control would settle the questions before us, and other delegates, from the Far West, seem to claim that the States should control absolutely; and to my surprise and great pleasure, I find that the representatives of southern States, like Louisiana and Mississippi, are favoring Federal control. I say to you, Mr. Chairman and Delegates to this Congress, that this question is large enough and broad enough to enlist all the statesmanship in the Federal Government and in all the States composing the Union (applause). Reference has been made to that great struggle of nearly fifty years ago, in which I took part for nearly five years from private soldier to brigade commander as a full colonel (being one of but five who advanced in rank from private soldier to a full colonelcy); and I cannot stand up and ask as an American for State rights as against the Federal Government (applause). But it seems to me, Gentlemen, that there is enough for each and all of us to do; and if we, as States, neglect the duties that devolve upon us under the police powers, which all the States have, of regulating internal affairs, including these manufacturing corporations and monopolies, we are weak and are not making full use of the great privileges conferred upon us. I was interested very much in the discussion by Ex-Governor Pardee; and he pointed out a fact which indicates to my mind that Federal control alone is not sufficient. He says that 6,000,000 acres of

« AnteriorContinuar »