New-York tribune., 1910-09-06

| n,,rnose could be accomplished by conui
| lions in the lease granted by the soxetttn ~
| nnent TO its Iessees OF course. under Ihe
| Constitution the government couiu - - 20 at
and could not prohibit the exp9Ftdt..onnr "a
phosphate, but as proprietor ana o"ii' a. -
| he lands in which the phosphate Is Dc
nosfted it could impose conditions 9Poii ti til'
kind of sales. whether foreign OF I -
which the lessees might make OF the Piio9'
phate mined ,t,+ %
The tonnage represented by the phospnate
lands in government ownership - a. ~ ;,
great but the lesson has been learned ~
fhe case of such lands that have paSsseu
into private ownership in South CaroiIIa' a.
Florida and Tennessee that the phospiiird,co .
deDosits there are in no sense fnexnauSt ple.
Moreover il IS also we'll UNDERSTOOD una.
in the process of mining phosphate, as ~
has been pursued. much OF the lower sraIe Ell,
of phosphate rock, which will event9aIly
ALI ne needed. has been wasted beyond re-
coverv Such wasteful methods can easiIy
be prevented. SO far as the goVeriiine,,i ~
land Is concerned, by conditions lnserteu III
the leases.
Water Power Sites.
Prior TO March 4. 1902 there had been. on
the recommendation of the Reclamation
Sarvice Withdrawn from agricultural en-
try because they were regarded as useIul
for power sites which ought not 10 De
amonntng to about 100000 acres. The
withdrawals were hastily mace anu III I.
cluded great deal Of land that was as oI,6t n2l
ed to include the power sites on twenty :
nine rivers in nine states. Since that tlIne
3475.4 .442 acres have been restored Ior t,s,,
do not contain power sites: and mean tune
there have been newly withdrawn 1532' ~ ~
acres on vacant public land and 2llWa
acres on entered public land, or total or
I45S. .S99 acres These Withdrawals, made
from time TO time. cover all the power
sites Included I'm the first Withdrawals ana
many more on 135 rivers and in II states.
The disposition of these power sites IN
wolves one of the most difficult questloilS
presented in carrying out practical conseI.
yation. The Forest Service, under power
found in the statute, has leased nunoeE
of these power sites in forest reserves py
with respect to power sites that are hoI
located within forest reserves, and the rev
ocable system of leasing is, Of course, not
a satisfactory one for the purpose or IN
viting the apital needed to put In proper
plants for the transmutation of power
The statute of 1891 with its amendments
nerntts the Secretary Of the Interior 70
grant perpetual easements or rights OF way
from water sources over public lands Tor
the primary purpose OF irrigation and such
electrical current as may be incidentally
developed but no grant can be made under
this statute to concerns whose primary
purpose IS generating and handling cleo
trfcity The statute Of 1901 authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to issue revocaole
permits over the public lands to electrical
mower companies, but this statute IS Wo-
fIiIlv Inadequate because It does not au-
thoriZe the collection of charge or fx
term of years. Capital Is slow to invest
in an enterprise founded on permit revo-
cable a. Will.
Danger of Monopoly.
The subject is one that calls for new leg
islation. 1t has been thought that there
was danger of combination to obtain pos
session Of all the power sites and to unite
them under one control Whatever the
evidence of this, or lack OF it. a pTesent
We have had enough experience to know
that combination would be profitable, and
the control of a great number or power
sites would enable the holders or owners
70 raise the price of power at VIII W1thU
certain sections, and the temptation would
attract investors, and the DANGER
of monopoly would not be re- remote 6,o one. ne
However this may be, 1t IS the plain duty
of the government to see TO 1t that In the
utilization and development of all this I'M
mense amount of water power conditions
oily, and will prevent extort1onate charges,
which are the accompaniment Of monopoly.
accentuated by the relation OF the power
sites to the water, the fall and flow of
which create the power. In the states
where these sites are the riparian owner
does not control or own the power in the
water which flows past his land That
power Is under the control and within the
is that the first user is entitled to the en-
ioyment. Now, the possession of the bank
or water power site over which the water
is to be conveyed in order to make the
power useful gives to its owner an ad-
vantage and a certain kind of control over
the use of the water power, and It is pro
It's own lands should use this advantage
and lease lands for power sites to those
who would develop the power, and impose
to the reasonableness OF the rates at which
the power, when transmitted, IS TO be fur
nished to the public, and foTbtdding the
union of the particular power with a COM
binatfon of others made for the purpose
Of monopoly by forbidding assignment of
Inent Serious difficulties are anticipated
by some IN such an attempt the part
Of the general government, because OF the
control OF the state over the
water power in its natural condition. and
the mere proprietorship of the government
in the riparian lands. 1t is contended that
through its mere proprietary right in the
site the central government has no power
to attempt to exercise police Jurisdiction
a river owned and controlled by the state
shall be used. and that it is a violation
Of the states rights. 1 question the valid
ty of this objection The government may
It's lease of IT'S own property. even though
It may have the same purpose and in effect
complish by the exercise of it's sovereignty. 4
There are those (and the director of the
Survey, Mr.. Smith. who has
given great deal Of attention TO this mat
ter. IS one of them) who insist that this
matter of transmitting water power into
electricity. which can he conveyed all over
the country and across state lines. is a
matter that ought to be retained by the
general government. and. that IL should
avail itself of the ownership of these power
sites for the very purpose of co-ordinating
II one general plan the power generated |
rom these government owned sites.
Arguments for State Control.
On the other hand, it is contended that |
( would relieve a complicated situation |
f the cOrtroi Of the water power site and I
he control of the water were vested In |
he same sovereignty and Ownership-viz |
he staJeS-and then were disposed OF for
development TO private lessees under the
-estrictions needed to preserve the inter
astS OF the public from the extortions and !
abuses of monopoly. Therefore, bills have
been introduced in Congress providing that 4
whenever the state authorities deem a |
water power useful they may apply to the |
government of the United States for a |
grant to the state Of the adjacent land for .