The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1910-09-08

public land, or a total Of 1.456. $50 acres.
These Withdrawals made from time TO
time cover all the power sites included
in the first Withdrawals, and many more,
on 135 rivers and IN II states. The dispo-
sition of these power sites involves one
Of the most difficult questions presented
in carrying out practical conservation.
The statute Of 1891 with its amendments
permits the secretary Of the interior to
grant perpetual easements or rights OF
way from water sources over public
lands for the primary purpose of irriga-
ton and such electrical current as may
be incidentally developed, but no grant
can be made under this statute to con-
Germs whose primary purpose is Bener-
ating and handling electricity. The stat
ute of 1901 authorizes the secretary Of
the interior to issue revocable permits
over the public lands TO electrical power
companies. but this statute Is woefully in
adequate because It does not authorize
the collection OF charge or fix . term
of years. Capital Is slow to invest In an
enterprise founded on a permit revocable
at will.
It is the plain duty Of the government
to see to 1t that in the utilization and de-
velopment Of all this immense amount
of water power. conditions shall be i'm
posed that will prevent monopoly and
will prevent extortionate charges, which
are the accompaniment Of monopoly. The
difficulty of adjusting the matter IL Ae-
centuated by the relation OF the power
sites to the water, the fall and now Of
which create the power. In the states
where these sites are, the riparian own
er does not control or own the power In
the water which flows past his land.
That power Is under the control and with
in the grant Of the state. and generally
the rule is that the first water user II en-
titled 20 the enjoyment. Now, the pos
session 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 advantage and a certain
kind of control over the use OF the water
power. and 1t is proposed that the govern
ment in dealing with Its own lands should
use this advantage and lease lands for
power sites to those who would develop
the power, and impose conditions on the
leasehold with reference to the reason
ableness of the rates at which the power,
when transmitted, is to be furnished Ia
the public and forbidding tho union Of
the particular power with a combination
OF others made Tor the purpose of monop-
oily by forbidding assignment of the
lease save by consent OF the government,
Serious difficulties are anticipated by
some in such an attempt on the part Of
the general government because of the
sovereign control Of the state over the
water power in its natural condition, and
the mere proprietorship of the govern
ment in the riparian lands. It is con-
tended that through Its mere proprietary
right In the site, the central government
has no power to attempt to exercise po-
lice Jurisdiction with reference to how
the water power in a river owned and
controlled by the state shall be used. and
that 1t Is a violation of the states rights.
I question the validity Of this objection
The government may impose any condt-
tions that II chooses in its lease Of Its
own property, even though 1t may have
the same purpose, and In effect accom-
plish just what the state would accom-
plish by the exercise Of its sovereignty.
There are those land the director of the
geological survey. Mr.. Smith, who has
given a great deal Of attention TO this
matter, is one Of them) who insist that
this matter Of transmitting water power
into electricity, which can be conveyed
all over the country and across state
lines, Is matter that ought to be re-
tained by the general government, and
that it should avail itself of the owner
ship of these power sites for The very
purpose Of co-ordinating in one general
government owned sites.
Arguments Against Idea.
On the other hand, 1t is contended that
1t would relieve a complicated situation
II the control Of the water-power site
and the control of the water were vested
in the same sovereignty and ownership,
viz the states, and then were disposed
of for development to private lessees un-
der the restrictions needed to preserve
the interests of the public from the extor-
tions and abuses of monopoly. Therefore,
bills have been introduced in congress
providing that whenever the state au-
thorities deem a water power useful they
may apply to the government of the
United States for grant to the state
of the adjacent land for a water-power
site, and that this grant from the fed
eral government to the state shall con-
tain condition that the state shall
never part with the title to the water
power site or the water power, but shall
lease it only for term of years not ex-
ceeding fifty, with provisions in the
lease by which the rental and the rates
for which the power Is furnished to 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 1t Is claimed that a readjustment
of the terms of leasehold every ten years
would secure to the public and the state
just and equitable terms.
I do not express an opinion upon the
controversy thus made or a preference
as to the two methods Of treating water
power sites. l shall submit the matter to
congress and urge that one or the other
of the two plans be adopted.
1 have referred to the course of the Last
administration and of the present one in
making Withdrawals Of government lands
from entry under homestead and other
laws and of congress in removing all
doubt as to the validity of these with
drawals as a great step In the direction
of practical conservation. But 1t Is only
one of two necessary steps to effect what
should be our purpose. 1t has produced
a status quo and prevented waste and ir-
revocable disposition of the lands until
the method for their proper disposition
can be formulated. But 1t is of the ut
most Importance that such Withdrawals
should not be regarded as the final stel
in the course of conservation, and that
the idea should not be allowed to spread
that conservation Is the tying UP of the
natural resources of the government for
indefinite withholding from use and the
remission to remote generations to decide
what ought to be done with these means
of promoting present general human COM
fort and progress. For, If so, 1T is certain
to arouse the greatest opposition to con-
servation as a cause, and If it were a
correct expression of the purpose of con-
servationists it ought to arouse this op-
position. As I have said elsewhere. the
problem is how to save and how to util-
ize, how to conserve and still develop;
for no sane person can contend that it is
for the common good that natures bless
ings should be stored only for unborn
generations.
I beg of you, therefore, in your delib-
eraSons and in your informal discussions,
when men come forward to suggest evils
that the promotion of conservation is to
remedy, that you invite them to point
out the specific evils and the specific
remedies; that you invite them to come
down to details in order that their discus
yoou Anuu into Ohanala that shall ha