The border vidette., 1928-06-23

mission. We had two long con.
ferences in Denver which were
participated in by representa-.
tives of all of the seven states in
the basin. There we strove
prayerfully, honestly and dill.
gently to find solution which
would be satisfactory to all Of
the other states in the basin and
at the same time conserve to
Arizona the rights in the river
which she undoub ubtedly possesses
In an endeavor to reach q com.
promise the Arizona Commission
agreed to accept q proposition
suggested by the Governors of
Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and
New Mexico. and which was &C.
ceptable to the state of Nevada.
But the California represents.
tives declined and refused to &C.
cept the proposed compromise.
California demanded more water
than she is, entitled to receive,
and would make no concessions
concerning the power that will
be developed on the river. In
fact her representatives refused
to vote upon the power question
which declared for states rights
and state ownership of the re.
sources of the Colorado River,
as against naturalization of the
stream.
When the conference failed to
agree additional negotiations
were carried on with California
and Nevada at San Francisco.
but the conferees of Arizona
could not accept the California
policies and proposals.
s. When congress convened in
December, I advised the Cover.
nors of the upper basin that the
efforts of Arizona would be used
to defeat the Swing-Johnson
bill, and further that we could
not be expected to arrive at an
agreement as long as the Bould.
er Canyon bill was being press.
ed for passage by California.
| made two trips to Washing.
ton, first to appear before the
Senate Committee to- voice my
opposition to the bill. Later I
returned, in the latter part OF
the session and did all I could to
persuade members OF the House
and the Senate. especially the
Democratic members, to oppose
the Swing-Johnson bill because
of it's transgression of good
ethics and it's violation OF the
rights of the states, which are
vital and fundamental principles
of our government.
While I was in Washington I
read and heard much of the &C.
tivities of the so called power
trust lobby. / made q demand
upon the Federal Trade Commis.
sion that while they we're in
vestigating the so called public
utility lobby that they also in.
vestigate the lobby which was
supporting the Boulder Dam,
which included the Hearst news.
papers, the Scripps- Howard,
newspapers, the Los Angeles
Times and numerous other news.
papers and magazines.
The Federal Trade Commits.
sion advised me that their in.
vestigation was limited solely to
private power companies, and
that they we're not authorized
under the resolution to investi.
gate the lobby in favor of the
Boulder Dam.
10 spite of vigorous research
and strenuous efforts to do 80,
the Federal Trade Commission,
the Hearst newspapers and pro.
ponents of the Boulder Dam
legislation, were unable to find
any act or omission on the part
of the representatives of Ari.
zona. which was open and sub.
ject to criticism. ! felt confident
that if the Federal Trade Com.
mission would require of the
Boulder Canyon lobby that they
bring in their books and papers
and files and open them up for
public examination on the same
basis that the files of the private
power companies had been ,ex.
p!ored, that it would be found
that they lobby supporting the
Boulder Dam was one of the
most perniclous influences which
has entered American public life
in a generation. However, no
authority existed for the Federal
Trade Commission to investigate