Norwich bulletin., 1910-12-07

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 grant of the state, and generally the rule is that the first user is entitled to the enjoyment. 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 it's owner an advantage and a cer- tain kind of control over the use of the water power, and it is proposed that the government 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 lease hold with reference to the reasonable ness of the rates at which the power when transmitted is to be furnished to the public and preventing the abuses of monopoly by forbidding as- signment of the lease save with con sent of the government.
 Serious difficulties are anticipated by some in such an attempt on the part OI ilit SScltClctI bSCchSC Oi the sovereign control of the state over the water power in it's natural conli- ton, and the mere proprietorship of the government in the riparian lands It is contended that through its mere proprietary right in the site the cen tral government has no power to at tempt to exercise police jurisdiction with reference to how the water pow CT in river owned and controlled by the state shall be used and that it is a violation of the states rights.
 I question the validity of this objec- tion. The government may impose any conditions that it chooses in its lease of its own property, even though it may have the same purpose and in ef- feet accomplish just what the state would accomplish by the exercise of its sovereignty. There are those (and the director of the geological survey, MT. Smith, who has given a great deal of attention to this matter, is one of then) who insist that this matter of transmitting water power into electric 1ty which can be conveyed all over the country and across state lines is q mat ter that ought to be retained by the general government and that it should avail itself of the ownership of these power sites for the very purpose of co-ordinating in one general plan the power generated from these govern ment owned sites.
 On the other hand, it is contended that it would relieve complicated sit AI- CT 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 under the restric- tions needed to preserve the interests of the public from the extortions and abuses of monopoly.
 Bills are pending tn congress provid- ing that whenever the state sgcfrorY- may appIy ro the government of the United States for a 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 a condition that the state shall
 
 power site or the water power, but shall lease it only for a term of years not exceeding fifty, with provisions in the lease by which the rental and the rates for which the power is furnished 50 the public shall be readjusted at periods less h1an 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 subject to corporate influence and con trol than would be the central govern ment. In reply it is claimed that q re- adjustment of the terms of leasehold every ten years would secure to the public and the state just and equita- bIe terms.
 In my judgment either of the plans proposed could be made to work sat isfactorily, and I submit the whole matter to congress with the recommen- dation that one or the other be prompt Iy adopted.
 l earnestly urge upon congress that at this session general conservation legislation of the character indicated be adopted At it's last session this congress took most useful and proper steps in the cause of conservation by allowing the executive through with drawais to suspend the action of the existing laws in respect to much of the public domain. l have not thought that the danger of disposing of coal lands in the United States under the present laws in large quantities was so great as to call for their withdrawal because under the present provisions it is reasonably certain that the gov ernment will receive the real value Of the land. But in respect to oil lands or phosphate lands and of gas lands in the United States and in respect to coal lands in Alaska I have exercised the full power of withdrawal with the hope that the action of congress would follow promptly and prevent that ty- ing up of the resources of the country in the western and less settled portion and in Alaska which means stagna- ton and retrogression
 Tine question of conservation is not a partisan one, and l sincerely hope that even in the short time of the pres ent session consideration may be given to those questions which have now