Williston graphic., 1904-04-14
[!ll3;lI!ly[I ly[Il';!|lG3
North Dakota's Just Claim.
|:1iISl3ssI3i1 Sl3i CO. p; g|5i|E|

North Dakota's Just Claim.
In replying to abitter and insxcus.
able criticism by the St. Paul Dispatch.
on North Dakota's irrigation claims,
the St. Paul Globe ssys:
IAN evening paper In this city makes
vicious and unwarrantsd ASSAULT upon
the people Of North Dakota on account
Of their demand for sueh . change Ia
the national irrigation act a. will permit
the funds collected under: it to bs' spent
In the states that contribute them. Al
the act stands, the proceeds OF public
land sales In the several states are
covered into the irrigation fund. and
this is avab|e for carrying out irrigation
projects wherever decided upon by the
federal authorities. There IL no con-
nection between tho origin Of the
money and the locality whore reservoirs
ore constructed and other Improvements
made. Al the meeting held In North
Dakota recently. It was urged that the
money should bs spent in the states
that contributed 1t. and = bill to that
effect is now before the senate.
This is what the contemporary referred
to calls remembering the policy with
locsl craft" It argues that the public
lands are federal and not state property:
that money deriyed from their sales goes
into the federal aud not the state
treasury; that irrigation is . national
matter; and that this demand in which
the people Of North Dakota are prac-
sically unanimous. and which is second
Cd not only by their representatives At
Washington but by the national irriaa.
ton authorities as we'll, 10 ''seand alous
graft.''
The people Of North Dakota are not
open to any such accusation either in
theory or in fact. Legally, the public
lands In the several states do belong to
the United States Rovernmsnt, but there
has been shameful inequality in dealing
With the different states in this respect.
When the older states Of tho Union
were admitted, they received from the
federal government = free gift Of al
public lands within their boundaries,
and these were afterwards disposed Of
ttheir pleasure for state purposes. At
later period the federal government
asserted it's control over tho public
lands; but upon the admission Of state
such large grants were made to it to be
held in trust for internal improv ements
and the like that it amounted to q gift
in the major pa.t II not the whole of the
public lands. The newest states got
nothing. When they were admitted,
the government retained oil it's holding
except the customary grant for eduos-
ton. and these states have been de-
frsuded in comparison with their older
sisters.
If We start, therefore, to argue on
principles of equity tho funds derived
from lands sales in the states of the
Northwest should properly 10 to the
state themselves instead Of to the fed.
eral government. The claim Of North
Dakota is thus Historically proper and
fair. Practically. it is very forceful.
Under the irrigation act fund of some
$l5. .000, 900 has already been accumulst.
ed. Tho states that have contributed
most to this are North Dakota and
Oregon. From it they are Ia derive no
present and little prospective benefit.
Instead of that, the projects 6rst to be
carried out arc located in Nevada,
where 81 O00. 900 are to BE- spent on one
reservoir. and where there are enough
people in the whole state to make city
Of the foru,h class; and in Arizona, where
the acoruing benefits are like wise Who'll.
ly prospective. It 10 not unreasonable
that the people of communitiss whore
an irrigation fund could BE- used to great
public advantage and whose public
lands are supplying the money for isri-
cation projects should demand some
share in it's benefits"