, 1902-05-27

-
abuses averted.
The argument for public reservoir.
Is not therefore that private capita
can not afford to build them. because
recent experience has hown that many
Of these works can be made highly
profitable, but that they should be re
garded a. = public utility Just as We re
gard bridges across streams Oh public
roads. There is no question that toll
bridges on many highways would pay
and there is equally no question tina,
while they would be profitable to their
owners they would be a nuisance tc
every one else. That, it is believed
would be the experience with many
private reservoirs located ia summing
streams.
The construction on large rivers. by
the government, Of costly diversion
dams and main canals is justified by
the fact that the United States owns
large tracts Of land now practically
worthless but which could be- made
habitable and productive by this out
lay. II ownership carries with it re,
sponsibility, then 1t Is the duty as well
as to the interest OF the government to
SO administer this property as to make
II provide the largest possible oppor
tunities for those seeking homes on
IN ro,hIfo ANrNnfu To oop that thn
government shall take the attitude Of
an alien landlord who makes no i'm,
provements and pays no taxes is not
an enlightened conception Of its duty
nor is it just to the arid states.
Neither individuals o corporations
will undertake these works unless
there is a prospect of a profit common,
surate with the risk. II this profit is
realized. 1t will put the cost Of these
lands beyond the means Of poor men
who are the ones to be looked after in
the disposal Of the public domain. On
ly the well-to-do can buy land which
costs from SIS to $25 an acre for a wa
ter supply and about as much more to
build the laterals. provide a house and
prepare to live. The government can
better afford to do this work than car
private enterprises because the gov
eminent derives ar indirect return
which private enterprises can not
share. Every acre Of land reclaimed
adds to the taxable wealth Of the coun-
try. it adds to the greatness and
strength Of the nation. These bene-
nts will be unending and will increase
with time. They are worth the outlay
required.
1t is proper that the nation should
build these works, because some Of
them will be located in one state
while the water will be used In another
state. 1t will be a much simpler ar.
rangement to have this work done by
the federal government than for the
states to reach an agreement. Some
Of the states are too poor to utilize
their resources. some are prevented
by constitutional restrictions. The
federal government a ecu the
needed n IRON the sales OF public
lands. and build these works without
any burden to taxpayers. east or west.
The states have no such
They can not even tax the public lands
which in some states comprise more
80 pei cent Of the total area.
There are also some vexed questions
relating to the respective spheres OF
state and national authority yer the
control Of streams used in irrigation.
Each state now controls the division
OF water within its borders and Is like
ly to continue to do so. but there is
need that this control shall be mor
effective in order that controversies
may be averted and the rights OF &C
tual users of streams made secur
In order to do this. 1t must be known
what Is to be the field Of control of
the nation and what of the state.
We are beginning to realize that the
of laws to govern the control
and use Of water are among our most
vital and perplexing problems. Many
vV INN nAVlQQnIQ TIVpf6 IrfIRAHnr2