Belding banner. (Belding, Mich.) 1889-1918, 1916-04-19
OPPOSES SHIELDS
BILL NOW BEFORE
MEMBERS OF HOUSE
CLIFFORD PINCHOT EXPLAINS
WORKING OF BILL SHOULD
1T BECOME A LAW
April 10, 1916.

April lU, 1910.
Editor Banner,
Belding, Mich,
The iniquitous Shields bill, giving
away the water-powers on our navig-
able streams, about which | wrote you
on February Is, has been driven
through the Senate, but it has not
passed the House. There is still a
good chance not only to stop this raid
on public property, but to pass fair
and honest waterpower bill in its
place.
Everything j said about the Shields
bill in my letter to you was confirmed
in the debate. According to its own
supporters, this bill turns over to the
power interests waterpower equival-
ent to twice the mechanical power of
every kind now used in the United
States, or enough to meet the needs
of two hundred million people. This
it does in perpetuity, although pre-
tending to limit the grant to fifty
years. Small wonder there is pres
sure to get it through.
On March 21 a substitute for the
Shields bill was reported to the House
of Representatives. Unlike the
Shields bill, this House bill makes no
perpetual grant of public waterpower,
but wisely and in fact sets a limit of
fifty years. Nevertheless, it is not
yet good bill. For example, it gives
away the public waterpowers without
compensation. There is no reason
why the waterpower corporations
should not pay for what they get.
The rest of us do. The House Bill
should be amended accordingly.
If the House corrects it's own bill
and then passes it, the good bill from
the House and the bad bill from the
Senate will go to conference, and the
differences will be adjusted by the
conferees. The managers of the
waterpower campaign believe that a
majority of the conferees will be
friendly to them, and will report a
bill in their interest. They will then
try to rush the conference bill
through, probably in the confused
and crowded hours of the session.
Such a plan has often served the
special interests in the past, and it is
dangerous now.
During the debate on the Shields
bill, this course was openly advised.
There was under discussion an amend
ment giving preference to the appli-
cant for public waterpower who Of
fers the best terms to the public. One
of the supporters on the Shields bill,
Senator Nelson of Minnesota, after
referring to the amendment as "bad
and vicious" went on to say: ut is
something that we can eliminate in
conference. So We might let
it go in and then dispose-of it in con-
ference" Congressional Record of
March 8, 1916, page 4285)..
We can beat this plan only by let
ting the people understand the facts.
This the power interests have set out
to prevent by confusing the public
mind with interested statements and
personal attacks.
/ am asking for your help once
more to get the House to pass a good
bill, and then to stand by it, no mat
ter what the conferees may do. If
the House stands firm, the people will
win this fight. But the House needs
to know that the people are behind it.
Let me call your attention again
to the Ferris bill, good bill dealing
with waterpower on public lands and
National Forests, which has twice
passed the House. An undesirable
substitute, the Myers bill, now before
the Senate, gives the public water
powers away in perpetuity. Under it,
the power interests could occupy and /
exploit the Grand Canyon itself, the
greatest natural wonder on this con-
tinent.
The waterpower interests want ev-
erything or nothing. In the last eight
years they have killed eight water
power development bills that were
fair both to the corporations and to
the public. What the people need is
waterpower development on equitable
terms without further delay. They
can have what they want by letting
the House know it,
Sincerely yours,
Clifford Pinchot