The Palatka news. [volume] (Palatka, Fla.) 1905-1908, 1907-07-12
THE OTHER SIDE.

crat says: There are two sides
even to that report, one was made
public, the other was not, and it may
be that some day the other will
come" If the object of that report
was to hoodwink the people, it was
only partly successful. If to deceive
the legislature into passing the new
drainage act. il succeeded. AS the
Iimes-C Mon has shown, the report
does not bear close scrutiny very
( well. Times Union Short Talks"
AS the editor of the Palatka News
was a member of the legislative
committee appointed to inspect the
Everglades Drainage operations, it
may not be out of place for US to
give the other side" of the report,
as limited at by the True Democrat.
This committee was composed of
seven members, three of whom were
senators and four representatives.
Four of the committee were out
spoken advocates of the governors
drainage scheme, one was unde-
cided. and two were emphatically
opposed to it.
The committee report was pre-
pared by the majority members,
and in its original shape devoted
several pages of typewriter fools
soap to an Endorsement and advocacy
OF the governors scheme of drainage.
When the report was read to the
committee, Hon. Charles L. Knowles
of Key West and the editor of the
News made objection. They refused
TO sign the report unless that part
devoted to the advocacy land which,
in the event of its adoption would
have meant that the legislature of
Florida gave its APPROVAL Of the
whole Notwithstanding drainage
scheme, was stricken out. There
was debate, and several meetings of
the committee lasting through sew
eral days.
Finally the editor of the News
prepared a minority report. 1t was
not read to the committee, but at
the final meeting the majority
was told that unless the OBJ
jectionable matter was taken out of
its report the minority would sub
NIT report. In order to avoid di-
vision the majority members con-
scented.
The editor Of the News agrees with
the Times Union that the report
does not bear close scrutiny. 1t is a
disjointed and meaningless report,
except that it does bear witness to
the facts that the dredges are fine
machines, that the work is being
done we'll, and at minimum of cost
The minority report, after agree
ing with the majority as to the pure
ly business features of the work so
far accomplished and its cost, says:
But, Notwithstanding this, the
minority of your committee does not
deem it eXpedient or wise for the In
ternal Improvement Board to pro-
coed further with the Everglades
drainage scheme until it can be de-
termined that the ultimate end to be
achieved will result in benefits to the
people, which will justify the enor-
nous expenditure of money that will
be required for its accomplishment
This will depend, in our opinion, up
on two considerations: FIRST: At
present the question of ownership of
the submerged lands of the Ever
gIades is in controversy. The State
in IA well recognized policy, covering
number of years, has by its Legis-
lature made grants of the swamp and
overlooked lands to railroad cOmpau-
les. to encourage and aid them in the
construction of their lines of road.
This policy was acquiesed in by the
Trustees of the Internal Improve
ment Fund until the administration
of the years l9Ol-l904; and up to that
time, in the execution of the policy
declared by the Legislature in max
ing these grants, the Trustees had
actually conveyed to railroad COM
panies that had constructed their
roads, upon the faith of these grants,
many thousand acres of these lands.
But the Trustees of the admins ira
ton mentioned, cOnceiving that,
under the Acts of Congress by which
these lands had been granted to the
State for the declared purpose of
drainage and reclamation, a trust
had arisen, which could not be de-
feated by the Legislative grants to
railroads, refused to recognize these
grants, The position thus assumed
by the Trustees has resulted in seveZ
raj suits in the State and Federal .
Courts, brought By railroad COM
panies, and those claiming under
them, to assert the validity of the |
legislative grants. and to have these |
lands applied to their satisfaction. /
These suits are now pending, and the |.
ultimate result of the controversy .
cannot be predetermined But /
should the railroad companies be sue .
cessful, and the Trustees be directed /
to convey the lands to them in salts .
faction of these legislative grants. /
then the benefit derived from the |
would enure to the railroad compan-
les.
SECOND: If the litigation refer
red to should terminate favOrably TO
the Trustees. and the title of the
State to the lands thus be settled, it
would remain to be determined
whether or not the drainage scheme
is a feasible and practicable project,
and what would be the practical val
ue Of it to thepeople if accomplished.
The work has been entered upon and
up to this time without
definite ascertainment of these two
essential facts.
TO justify the expenditure requir-