The Florence tribune., 1899-10-21

Missouri. .......-., --.......-.4, ,49o,Slo Ohio. .... ..s...2 .25. .e6o Oregon. ....-..|.s.#...........3 3l5, i6i
 These were the beneficiary 1tases, and they ara al. perhaps with single exception, better able financially to reclaim these lands by means of the levy system than any of the states OF territories are bY means of the canal and reservoir system. And yet, through the whole space of fifty years. nota single one Of these. states has ever made single record of prime sue cess by the reclamation Of any of those lands that had to be reclaimed. Wisconsin has, perhaps, done more to- ward it, in one way and another, t. an all of the rest combined.
 Thirdlv. aa further reason why this session theory to the states and ter ritories must necessarily 7 eueQanter obstacles which cannot be oEsreome, and therefore finally fail asa state project, that is the reclamation of the lands by any legislative rlan, is be- cause all of tbe principal streams of any great magnitude lying above these millions of acres of land, and from which the greatest irrigation schemes must necessarily flow for the reelama- tion of the greatest bodies, have their source in Wyoming, ColoPaeso and New Mexico. States, we know, are SOW ereign and have sovereign control of all things belonging to them within their bounderies. They would, there fore, necessarily have the sovereign right of control of the water within their iurisdietional limit. and would, therefore, be powerful enough to defy the law of prior appropriation as app piled to individuals. They might divert the headwaters of those streams and lessen the use, aud destroy the competency of the needed amount of those states and territories lying below them. We submit, that to simply state these great barriers lying in the way of unanimity of interest is to make fast the argument on this point. Therefore, for these reasons alone, if for no. other, (and there are many otheFsl, the theory maintained by those advocating the session to the states should be destroyed.
 We pass now to the theory that the government should take the matter in hand, and present what we believe tn be unaswerable reasons for 1t. First :: The lands belong to the government mainly, and age valueless ss they are, bat are most vala4 ole when reclaimed and when reclaimed would be most profitable to the citizen. and self sustaining and remaneratiye to the { government as welt That the govern menu could make 1t 50 Is seil eyldent. Secondly. It is historic fact that from time immemorial every snch scheme, every where, in every govern ment and in every cline where the government itself undertook the re- clanation of their arid lands, prime and crowning success. was the result, Take Egypt, for instance. Fbat little government reclaimed it's lands-mads the subject national enterprise, and centuries ago by that effort and means gained the name and title of ths granery of the world.
 Again, go to British India, the land of famine of former days, where starva. tion was the great ghost of coming death because of the shortage in tht production of the. soill There ths general government, controlling it as . national project, reclaimed about 26. 100000 of acres, waich was done ir latter years. The effect of it was ts stop Starvation, stop famine, and ir place of famine, starvation and deati 10000, 1000 of it's people are plentiful,