Gunnison news-champion., 1908-12-11
oGJEcI TO SIAM nAnAcRnuI

V&jS~I ~ D1A18
Bsth Grand Junctior Nes. ans
Nonir0.- Press pssseUt sras,as wh,
\e~s-ChsmpsoIs suggestion Fl
stale saste@d II federal maBaeemen
oi sae reclamation and forestry ba
reaas would NO, t'e ~ Improvement
The former ssvs IN part:
Our democrst,c tr,eud. the
Gunnison News Champion.
which " ., present advocating
state coptro, of the ReclsRst,on
Service asd the Forestry Buveau
should thusb back few pages
In the poiss.cal history OF the
state II Colorado and read the
dreary chapt~r Of tAs states en-
deavor 10 bald the GSnn.son
tsnbel which Is uow beina sue
cessfally compls,ed by the fed
ersl government The hole in
the hill for which the state paid
f25,9p and which never re
suited IN any thing but an op-
portanIty for certain favored
contractors to make little essy
money still remains as . re
minder Of the inability Of the
state TO carry out = project Of
this vast nature. la Grand
function we also remembe how
1t wss proposed that the state
build the High Line canal and
how qu,ckly this dream WAS
dissipssed.
State governments are too
deeply involved in politics,
petty political brawls and two
by-four jsalousies to ever permit
them 10 successfully operate
works Of the character OF the
High Line or Gsnnison projects
The came illustration also forms
basic Of the only two arguments ths
Press brings forward in abost two
colsmns of overflowing bile, bscaus.
after five years the once derided po
sition Of the News-C Champion on th>
forest reserve matters has been en-.
dorssd by state leaders Of botf
parties. The editor Of the Pres,
should avoid forest reserve discus
sion until he gets over being sore al
its overwhelming repudiation snc
learns some actual details of it's op
eratioa. 1t is possible, of course
that Ike does not yet know what
struck him in the l.sl electioa il
Colorado, bat we will not Islander
his intelligence by such an assump
tion
News-Champion did not. however
bring up this matter in the spiri; o
partisan controversy and regrets tha
botk contemporaries have inter rjectec
that unnecessary fountain Of pre- u
dice
Is 1t true that the state could moi
have and could not now conduct the
reclamation projects? That feebl,
bat glorious start toward the Gun
nison tunnel fathered bv the lat,
Mead Hammond is instanced to tn,
contrary. 1T the state had not start
ed would there be any tunnel? Anc
is there then no difference betweer
a proposition where the state j,
obliged t. dole from Its slendel
purse Of taxation and one where it i,
backed bv unlimited funds secured il
selling the public lands of the com
mouwealth? When a tract OF lanc
is sold in the west that money, les,
certain charges of administration
goes into the reclamation fund. Ii
practice it is then, for instance. len
to the people of the Uncompahgr,
valley for ditch work to be repaiC
in yearly installments and again re
volvei into another irrigation pro
Ject As we ordinarily understand
government expenditures it has no
vet spent cent in Montrose, unless
for certain buildings or buildins
sites 1t does not intend to- |
Lends to the citizens there withou
interest the money secured from
sale ni our own public lands Ex
treiuels popnhstic, but wise in prin
ciple mn Ter certain conditions
l. the several states were granted
their own lands to sell as was Texas
whore would the lack OF funds com,
in end where is The parallel witt
the original Gunnison tunnel idea
Or friends will agree that il
rig and justice Colorado shoul,
nav ~ much returned in reclama
tior tarprI-es as its proportion o
the ,'r Of pablic domain adds t
the fud Yet at last accounts TIN
fun ras he'veen thirty and fort
mil - and Colorado land sales na,
pro- c-i nearly twice as much a
we 8 received. With state con
trol sch cc,umonweaith would b
trea fairly For two or thre