Arizona republican., 1907-09-05

readily be supplied by the mutual &C., ton of the associates. There is sense of security of the future that never existed before. These things certainly justify the efforts that have been made for their accomplishment
 There may occur to many of you dif- faculties in the way of such an organi- za;ion in your particular state or ter ritory. arising from the limitation of vour corporation laws. Fortunately. in this instance at least. the general in- corporation laws of Arizona place ht- tie or no restriction upon us.
 It would seem desirable that in the several states and territories where ir- rigation projects may be, or are. un- ldertaken. a law specially providing for the organization of water users asso- ciations should be passed.
 I cannot refrain, Mir. President and gentlemen. from congratulating you. 1 the arid west and the whole country. on the Inauguration by the government of the policy relating to the reclama- | ton Of our arid lands outlined in the irrigation act. If there be anything in the act itself or in its administration. to criticize. it must be remembered that the subject of irrigation is a new one in this country. It's practice is contrary to the rules of the common | law: the conditions that make either necessary or desirable are anomalous
 to the great majority of our people who know only of those conditions of climate under which the necessary
 moisture for. the growing of crops Is supplied without any artificial inter
 vention by man. That part of the ter
 ritory of this great nation where irri- gation is necessary is still almost ter
 ra incognita to the greater part of our
 people. Its vast extent and its greater
 possibilities are not yet appreciated
 Attention is being devoted to 1t. and no greater factor in awakening inter
 est in 1t has appeared than the nation-
 al irrigation act.
 | We have heard from some sources lobjection to the policy of the govern
 ment constructing irrigation works. It ! is urged in some quarters that 1t in laugurates unfair competition between | the government on the one hand and lirrigation enterprises undertaken by
 private investors on the other. I con- fess I cannot understand this position.
 The government, as proprietor. has
 certainly the right to make its public lands of which it wishes to dispose to
 actual settlers. marketable. and if that
 can only be done by affording supply
 of water for them. it may unquestion- ably do that; and that can imply no improper competition. if it be compe-
 tition at all. In the case of lands in
 private ownership. the competition, if lit be competition. is between the peo- pie and the investors in private enter prises. As we have seen. the govern lment cannot and will not undertake the construction of these works where 1.-the lands are in private ownership ex- icept with their consent, by their agree ment. at their instance. and at their lcost.
 | The government as to them is mNe agency of the people. and not a com petitor in any just sense. The doc Urine that the people themselves may not construct and operate irrigation works for their own benefit, even though that might deprive a private enterprise of customers. is not one that will meet with any support or symI.a- thy. except possibly by the represen- tatives of those private interests and some who have been misled by their representations. The government is in
 no sense a competitor; it is the peo-
 pie who are the competitors with pri-
 vate interests who, with mismanage- ment, incompetency and often greed. have brought them into disrepute with
 the people. and who for the loss of an oppressive monopoly complain of com
 petition. The dispute. the controversy
 if there be any, and the competition. is
 between the people on the one side and
 the ineffective private enterprises on
 the other. I say ineffective. for. if the
 management of the private enterprise
 was effective. competent and satisfac-
 tory to the people. the people would
 not ask for the aid of the provisions of
 the irrigation act