Ladysmith news-budget. [volume] (Ladysmith, Rusk County, Wis.) 1907-1927, 1911-12-01
HOLDsWATERPOWER
CONTROL ILLEGAL
MINNEAPOLIS LAWYER ARGUES
FOR RIGHT OF STATE AND
PRIVATE OWNERS.
CONTROL OVER NAVIGATION ONLY
On Privately Owned Streams Claims
the Government Has Jurisdic-
ton Only Over Land
1t Owns.

Washington, Nov. 29.-That it is
the purpose of the national water
ways commission to go directly to the
heart Of all issues involving the re-
spective rights of the federal govern
ment, the states and private land
owners, in the waterpoWers Of the
country and their control, is shown
being given these subjects by the
commission, and the arguments being
presented before the body.
Attorney Rome G. Brown of Min
neapolis appeared before the commits
sion and made an extended oral ar
gument on the limitations of federal
control of Waterpowers. At the con-
clusion of Mr.. Browns argument he
was requested by the commission to
lie a brief, setting forth the specific
legal points he made. The commits
sion is expected to devote consider
able time this winter to a considera-
ton Of these and other questions per-
tanning to international improvements.
Representative Stevens of Mime
sofa, member of the commission, ar
rived. He will take part in the de-
alterations of the body for couple
of weeks, when he goes to Panama
as a member of the interstate COM
merce commission to investigate the
work on the canal.
In presenting his argument Attor-
ney Brown stated that he represent
ed certain water power industries on
the Niagara and st. Lawrence rivers
in New York and elsewhere in that
state and also waterpOWer interests
in Minnesota and other western
states. His argument was particular
ly directed to the question of federal
control of waterpowers appurtenant
to riparian land Mr.. Brown drew
the distinction between the authority
for federal control of waterpoWer ap-
purtenant to land which has passed
to private ownership, and those
which have not passed
Private Ownership.
He said the water power owners
do not question the right of the gov
eminent TO conserve natural resources
appurtenant to land which the gov
eminent owns, that if the government
has a legal right it might be a proper
policy, to pass the land to private
ownership, and reserve some rights
to the government or to the state. The
situation, however, is entirely differ
ent with regard to WaterpoWerS ap-
purtenant to lands which have long
since passed to private ownership, by
unqualified grants from the govern
ment. Ia such cases, the beneficial
use of the water power belongs to the
riparian land. The government re-
tains the power of control to the eX-
tent only that such control is neces-
sary for the purpose of navigation.
Legislation an Example.
The drastic legislation by the last
Wisconsin legislature was cited as an
example of attempted confiscation of
private property rights under the
guise of conservation. Neither should
the government attempt by indirec-
ton to accomplish that which would
not be legal by direct action. Amy re-
strictions, conditions, or regulations
imposed upon the development of wa
ter powers in navigable streams
should be limited to such as are rea-
sonably necessary to the proper pro-
lection of navigation.