Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-01-25

or the water pOpeW In the COnnectlcut
river, then Congress cannot legally legis-
late on the subject Of such control.
Resource Confscated.
go Because II the bill is not amended
as suggested. valuable natural resource
of the state of Connecticut is confiscated.
49, Because the state of Connecticut
owns the water and the bed of the Con-
necticut river and the federal government
having no proprietary interest in the wa
ter power of said river has no moral or
legal ground to demand compensation in
any FORM for the use of the water power
in said river.
~ Because the federal government has
no right to withhold the permit for the
building of the dam proposed by the
Connecticut River Company in the said
river. for the building of this proposed
dam and lock will not interfere with
point we quote President Taft when he,
as Secretary of War, In rendering his
decision on the Des PLANES river case.
says in part as follows:
But even if 1t had been a navigable
stream and even if the application had
been made, and properly made, to this
department. to say wether this would in
terfere with navigation, If the department
concluded it would not interfere with
navigation. then it is not within the pow
pressing such an opinion and granting
such permit, as far as the United States
is concerned. for the purpose of aiding
the state in controlling the water power
Deny Majority Opinion.
"A majority of the committee in their
report say: 1t appears to be a settled
question that the federal government may
impose a charge for the use of the sur
plus water not needed for navigation.
We. the minority, deny that this question
has been settled and we challenge the
majority to point to a single law on the
statute books or to a report of single
committee in Congress or to a single de-
cision of the Supreme Court which tends
to establish their contention. On the con-
trary, the principle has been denied from
the beginning of the government and that
denial has been upheld by the Supreme
Court deciding the question more than
sixty years ago and repeated at least
thirty times since.
1.-The principle invoked is a new de-
parture and is exceedingly dangerous. 1t
is an attempt. under the guise Of regu-
latifg commerce. to invade the settled
rights of the states for commercial pur-
poses.
1T is the principle which. if estab-
lished. will confiscate the natural re-
sources and property Of the states and
legal right or a moral right to do so.
The minority of your committee are con-
WINGED that the adoption of the principle
recommended by majority of your COM
mittee will bring on conflicts between
the states and the federal government.
Divided Responsibility.
ut would create divided RESPONSE
bility. causing two sovereign powers to
70 ,lofo fha
question at the same time and would
grant to the Secretary of War discre-
tionary powers never contemplated under
The Senate committee on commerce has
been widely split on the adoption of the
new principle. At a meeting at which
action was taken on the bill a majority
of those present voted for it and thus
the new principle bears the committee
approval. But the minority" report is
signed by eight members of the commit
tee and has the sympathy of a ninth;
and nine is a majority of the total men,
bership of the committee. Thus it is
claimed that the minority report is
supported by a majority of the COM
mittee.
Endorsed by Clifford Pinchot.
Strong Endorsement Of the federal
rental principle, embodied in the Connec-
ticut river bill. is given in statement
which Clifford Pinchot. president of the
National Conservation Association, is
sued this afternoon
Friends of conservation everywhere
will be glad to learn that the long dead
lock in water power development seems
likely to be broken" says Mr. Pinchot.
apparently optimistic that the Connect
cut river bill will pass in it's present
form. "Since PRESIDENT Roosevelt vetoed
the James river dam bill and laid down
the principle that power companies which
secure valuable grants from the federal
government must compensate the public
for what they get, certain would he water
power mOnopOlists have succeeded in
checking all progress in water power leg
islatio rather than have the rights of the
people fairly recognized.
THE danger to this bill is that the
friends of water power monopoly will pre-
vent It's passage. The votes of senator's
and representatives upon 1t should be
carefully scrutinized by their constituents
with that fact in mind"