The Athena press. [volume] (Athena, Umatilla County, Or.) 18??-1942, 1910-07-15
ELLIS COULD TELL
Responsible lity at No Time Rested
Upon Oregon's or ANY Other
States Senators.

Complete refutation of the charge
that Oregon's senators are responsible
for the repeal of section of the fed
eral reclamation act, is made in a
statement over the signature of Sen
ator George E. Chamberlain to the
Portland Journal. Section 0 of the
reclamation act provided for the ex-
peuditure of money in constructing
irrigation works within the several
states benefited by that act, in ratio
to the proceeds arising from the sales
of public lands within suoh states, re-
speotively. Specifically, the major
portion of each states sales should
be returned to such state.
The act providing for tond issue
of $40. 100000 for tho completion of
existing irrigation projects, passed at
the recent session of congress, con-
tanned clause repeating section of
the original act. In this new act it
was also provided that the apportion-
ing Of reclamation funds should be
placed in the hands of the president,
whose advisors with respect to these
funds should be board of army en-
gineers. Hence, it might occur that
Oregon, after pouring into the reclam-
alton fund more money than any other
state, might get least of any in return.
or nothing at all, in the discretion"
of the officials charged with the ap
rortionment of funds.
The charge was made weeks ago by
the Oregonian's Washington CORES
pondent, and he has reiterated ii, that
Oregon's senator's were responsible for
the repeal of section 8, and the Ore
gonian has upon these charges based
repeated editorial taunts.
Senator Chamberlain's statement
in full follows:
Washington. D. O.. July 9.-The
Oregonian correspondent never calls
on the Oregon senators for any pur-
pose, and he prints alleged news affec.
ting tho interest of the state, frequent
ly false. with the opportunity to get
the truth by calling on either of us.
So, with reference to charging us
with responsibility for the repeal OF
section of the reclamation act, the
charge is false. The senate bill pro-
viding for $50, 100000 of certiicatei
passed the senate, but did not pass
| the house.. It looked as though it
would fail in the house, and Senator
Carter proposed it as an amendment
to House Bill No. 24070. The amend
ment was adopted by the senate and
was rejected Ey tie house. Neither
the senate bill nor the amendment
providing for $50, 900, 900 for the COM
pletion of reclamation projects had
any suggestion of repeating section 8
of the reclamation act. ....
Mondell's bill No. 1898, was in
troduced in the house January II. 1t
was reported to the house June II by
the ways and means committee, and,
as reported. contained the proposed
amendment for the repeal of section 0
of the reclamation act. The amend
ment is the last section Of the bill as
reported, as it originated in aud passed
the house. On June % the bill was
reported to the senate by Lodge, a
member of the finance committee.
When the bill came up for considera
tion it was not discussed, but Lodge
was asked what, if any. changes had
been made as to the form of the bill
as compared with the one which had
originally passed the senate and which
had been discussed at great length.
He stated that the bill which he had
reported was identical with the bill
which had passed the senate and
which was subsequently tackled as an
amendment to the withdrawal bill,
except that it reduced the amount of
bonds to twenty millions, end also
provided for approval of projects by a
board of army engineers (See Con-
gressional Record, page 9OS4, for what
occurred. / believe every western
senator. in the hurry of the closing
hours of the session, accepted Lodges
statement, which am sure was made