Arizona republican., 1909-09-16

withdrawal of land needed to preserve those water power sites until con-
 gress could act. The order revealing withdrawals of
 million and half acres was made
 in April. Sufficient information was
 secured from the geological survey to
 permit of an order withdrawing the
 land upon which were water power sites in May, and this withdrawal cOv- cred about 300,00O acres instead of ], 1,500.000. The form of the new or der was such that it set aside all filings and entries made prior to Its going into effect, and as a matter of
 fact not one single filing has been ! attempted on any of the water power sites since the original order of with
 drawal in January, 1909.
 The story as to the 15,000 acres in
 Montana then presented by the gov ernor was reduced to 15S acres near the Missouri river in Montana, or four tracts of forty acres each, and it now turns out from examination of the rec ords that these filings were re-filings of entries made ten years before, that these filings were made in the 1lth J after the withdrawal of water power
 sites in Montana. and that the four tracts of forty acres each filed upon
 have no water power sites upon them
 at all.
 Tt further appears from the report of the director of the geological sur
 vey that the order of withdrawal of January. 1909. was hastily made by townships and by reference to made. quate maps that it included large areas not within miles of any river or stream. and that it failed to in clude any valuable water power sites
 in the immediate vicinity
 From the same source it is learned that under withdrawals made by
 your department from time to time
 beginning in May last. there are now withheld from settlement. awaiting the
 action of congress. 50 per cent more water power sites than under previous withdrawals. and that this has been effected by the withdrawal of only one-fifth of the amount of the land.
 Tn connection with the same charge. weight has been given the fact that v
 tracts made by the reclamation service with homesteaders and entry men by which certificates were issued to entrymen for work done and ma terial furnished. with a view of enlarg ing the reclamation projects. You brought up the question of the legality of such certificates in a cabinet meet ing and were directed to submit 1t to the attorney general. That officer has very properly. in my judgment. de- cided that it is at variance with the explicit prohibition in the reclamation law to issue such certificates; that laws fundamental mandate is that no project shall be entered upon until there is money enough in the reclama- tion fund to pay for the project or the part thereof contracted for The cer- tificate system is, in fact, a system for borrowing labor and material and making the government a debtor to intending settlers-a system that is inhibited by law and cannot but result ultimately in disaster.
 "Of course those who have accepted such certificates for labor and material in good faith ought to be recOmpensed. and I shall ask congress at the next session for special relief for them. Meantime. the work of reclamation should be carried on whenever funds are available with all the dispatch possible, and I am assured this is be- ing done. I hope that after you have made personal investigation of all the reclamation work and looked into it's finances you will be able to report to congress. showing exactly what has been done, what ought to be done and what additional legislation. if any, is needed and ought to be passed to further the great and important work.
 Another instance in your conduct which has been mentioned as indica tive of your purpose to block the gen. eral plan of conservation of natural resources was your refusal to carry out the contract made in the last ad between the secretary of the interior and the secretary of agri- culture, by which the interior depart ment delegated to the forestry bureau of the agricultural department the power and duty to conserve the forests on the Indian reservations and to eX pend under the control of the forestry bureau the money appropriated to be expended by the Indian bureau for such conservation of Indian forests. Your declination to carry out the con- tract was made necessary by a ruling of the comptroller, whose ruling is final and without appeal, even to the presi- dent, that such arrangement is a dele gation of responsibility and authority for expenditure of money which the by congress for the In- dian bureau did not authorize. While I agree that it would avoid wasteful duplication in organization to author ize the forestry bureau to take care of and develop the forests, because the forestry bureau is much better able with it's trained men to do the work with efficiency and economy. it is plainly necessary, in view of the comptroller's ruling. to secure the con- grassional sanction for such co-opera- tion. Meantime. your withdrawal from an authorized contract does not furnish the slightest basis for attribut- ing to you unfriendliness to proper forestration.
 Tn my judgment. he is the best friend of the policy of conservation ...ko ;as;Stc that every Step taken in