The Washington herald., 1910-09-06

price sunicient to pay for the improve
ments. Primarily. the projects are and
must be for the improvement OF public
lands Incidentally where private land
is also within reach of the water sup
ply, the furnishing at cost or pront Of
this water to private owners by the gov
eminent is held by the Federal Court or
Appeals not to be usurpation OF power
But certainly this ought not 10 be
done except from surplus water, not
needed for government land. About thir-
~ projects have been set on foot. dis
tributed through the public land States
in accord with the statute, by which the
allotments from the reclamation fund
are required TO be as near as practicable
in proportion 10 the proceeds from the
sale Of the public lands in the respective
States The total sum already accumu-
lated in the reclamation fund is SCI, ,273,-
25S22. and of that AL but SC, 49,, ,955-s4 mas
been expended.
After discussing the achievements and
needs in respect 10 mineral lands forest
lands. coal lands in Alaska and the
United States. oil and gas lands. phos-
phate lands. general lands. and water
power sites. the President continued:
Land Withdrawals.
When President Roosevelt became
fully advised OF the necessity for the
change in our disposition OF public lands,
especially those containing coal oil. gas.
phosphate. or water-power sites. he be-
gan the exercise Of the power Of with
drawal by Executive order Of lands sub
ject by law to homestead and the other
methods OF entering for agricultural
lands.
The precedent he set in this matter was
followed by the present administration
Doubt had been expressed in some quar-
ters as to the power in the Executive 10
make such Withdrawals. The confusion
and injustice likely TO arise II the courts
were TO deny the power led me TO appeal
TO Congress TO give the resident
the express power. Congress has
complied. The law as passed does
not expressly validate or confirm
previous Withdrawals, and, therefore, as
soon as the new law was passed. I my
self confirmed all the Withdrawals which
had heretofore been made by both ad-
ministrations By making them over again
This power OF Withdrawal is a most use
ful one. and do not think II is likely 70
be abused
The government may impose any con-
ditions that II chooses in its lease OF
its own property. even though II may
have the same purpose and in effect ac-
complish just what the State would ac-
complish by the exercise OF It's SOW
ereignty. There are those (and the d.
rector Of the Geological Survey. Mr.
Smith, who has given a great deal OF at
tentiOn 10 this matter, IS one OF them
who insist that this matter OF transmitting
water power into electricity, which can
be conveyed al over the country and
across States lines. is a matter that ought
to be retained by the general government.
and that Il should avail itself OF the own
ersnip OF these power sites for the very
purpose Of co-ordinating in one general
plan the power generated from these gov
ernment-Owned sites
Federal and State Aims.
ION the other hand, Il is contended
that II would relieve a complicated sit
uation IL the control Of the water-power
site and the control OF the water were
vested in the same sovereignty and own
ership, viz the States. and then were
disposed OF for development 10 private
lesseeS under the restrictions needed 70
preserve the interests Of the public from
the extortions and abuses OF monopoly.
Therefore. bills have been introduced in
Congress providing that whenever the
State authorities deem a water power use
ful they may apply to the government
OF the United States for a grant 10 the
State OF the adjacent land for a water
power site and that this grant from the
Federal government 10 the State shall
contain a condition that the State shall
never part with the title to the water
power site or the water power. but shall
lease II only for a term Of years not ex-
ceeding fifty. with provisions in the lease
by which the rental and rates for which
the power Is furnished 10 the public
shall be readjusted at periods less than
the term OF the lease. say. every ten
years. The argument Is urged against
this disposition OF power sites that legis-
lators and state authorities are more sub
Ject to corporate influence and control
than would be the central government: in
reply II is claimed that readjustment of
the terms OF leasehold every ten years
would secure TO the public and the State
just and equitable terms.
Then It is said that the State authori-
ties are better able TO understand the
local need and what is a fair adjustment
in the particular locality than would be
the authorities at Washington. II has
been argued that after the Federal gov
ernment parts with title 20 a power site
it cannot control the action Of the State
in fulfilling the conditions Of the deed.
to which il is answered that in the
grant from the government there may be
easily inserted q condition specifying the
terms upon which the State may part
with the temporary control Of the water
power sites, and. indeed, the water
power, and providing for forfeiture OF
the title 10 the water-power sites in
case the condition is not performed, and
giving 70 the President in case Of such
violation of conditions, the power 10 de-
clare forfeiture and to direct proceedings
to restore the central government to the
ownership of the power sites, with all the
improvements thereon. and that these
conditions may be promptly enforced and
the land and plants forfeited 10 the gen
eral government by suit Of the United
States against the State, which is per-
missible under the Constitution.
In Favor of Either Plan.
II do not express an opinion upon the
controversy thus made or a preference
as to the two methods OF treating water
power sites. shall submit the matter
to Congress and urge that one or the
ofh0r Of the rUO Olano Ia e5oDtoa