President Taft described this morning how the Government had in the last few months been doing the same thing, so it seems that, after awhile, the Government will catch up to Montana in that respect (laughter and applause).

Now, then, on the water-power question: That same commission is now operating, and it is going to prepare suggestions for submission to the next Montana Legislature with reference to adequate provisions for conserving the waters of the State of Montana, and I have no doubt that the recommendations of the commission will, at the next session, be adopted. We would have done that two years ago except we cannot do all these things at once; our session only lasted sixty days, while Congress is in session all the time (laughter and applause). If we had even six months instead of two years for it, we would have had those water resources conserved long ago (laughter). Is Montana ent.i.tled to take a place in the kindergarten cla.s.s in the school of Conservation? And are we who have conserved our resources to be distrusted as Governor Noel says you must distrust the Legislature and the people of the State of Mississippi? (Applause) I thank my G.o.d that I can trust the people of Montana to protect their own! (Applause) And let me tell you one thing: the whole can never be greater than the sum total of its parts, and the Federal Government can never adequately preserve its resources until you get at least a majority of the people in a majority of the States to so agree, because it takes a majority for the Federal Congress or the Federal Government to act (applause). You start at the wrong end. You have got to start with the people of the State and build up.

Now, are we capable of pa.s.sing legislation to preserve our water resources? I think we are; and let me tell you some of our plans. In the first place, the water and the land, during the territorial days of each State, belonged to the Federal Government. When the State was admitted, the lands were reserved by the federal Government, but the waters flowing in the streams of the State pa.s.sed into the control of the State. You heard Senator Nelson, an able lawyer, refer this afternoon to the fact that that was the law. Now, they tell us that you cannot trust the States, you must trust the Federal Government; and yet I listened for nearly an hour to one of the ablest presentations I ever heard of how the Federal Government for a hundred years wasted its resources with all the prodigality of a drunken sailor (applause). Trust the Federal Government! Why, the Federal Government has been the greatest sinner in that respect. I am glad the Federal Government has awakened and is going to preserve its resources, but Montana, at least, woke up a little before (applause). In this matter of the water-power: The most valuable use that water can be put to, or, in other words, the most valuable function that water can perform, is not the development of electrical power; in the semi-arid States it is the applying of that water to irrigation and the reclamation of the arid lands of the West (applause). So bear that in mind.

In the State of Montana--and what is true in that State is true largely in every other State in the West--not one-third of the arable lands that can be irrigated have as yet been reclaimed; less than 2,000,000 acres have been reclaimed in Montana, while there are 6,000,000, in fact there are 10,000,000 acres that can be reclaimed. In other words, there are from six to ten million acres yet to be reclaimed by use of the water that flows in the streams of the State, and that is largely Government land. So that when you talk about conserving the water for water-power purposes, we say conserve it for reclamation purposes (applause); for the reclamation of Government land, too (applause), that may make homes for settlers who will come in and take it under the Homestead Act. There is the reason why we say that the Federal Government must not by its superior power step in and insist upon using the waters of the streams of the West for power purposes, unless when it so does it makes provision that the rights for irrigation purposes shall forever remain inviolate; otherwise, what does it amount to, the building of a dam across the stream? When the Government conveys the right to build a dam across a stream, it means that the amount of water flowing over that dam will determine the amount of power that may be developed; hence, when that dam is built the Government, if it conveys anything of value, must convey the right to the use of that water, and the right to the use of that water flowing over that dam must accrue as of that date, and forever thereafter the franchise-holder will have the right to demand as a concession from the Federal Government that the same amount of water, all the natural flow of that stream, must go over that dam forever. You thereby absolutely prevent the diversion of any water on that stream above that point for irrigation purposes. The use of water for irrigation purposes does decrease the amount flowing in the stream. That is the reason we object to the Federal Government coming in and taking charge of our water-power and giving it out--we do not care so much about the little income that may be received: that is the reason we are insisting upon the rights of the State.

Now, remember this: In the first instance, there is no contention but what the regulation of water for irrigating purposes is absolutely vested in the State, and that the Federal Government cannot acquire that right; hence a number of irrigators have already appropriated a part of the flow of the stream. The Federal Government grants the right of franchise for the building of a dam. Suppose we a.s.sume, for the sake of argument, that it can grant the right to the remaining flow of a stream; it not only thereby forever thereafter prohibits the use of that stream above that point for further reclamation purposes, but the rights of every irrigator, either before or after appropriation is made, comes in conflict, or may come in conflict, with the Federal franchise-holder? In other words, you transfer from the State courts and from the State forum the right of every irrigator to use the waters of a stream to the seat of power of the Federal Government at Washington. In other words, you practically stop irrigation in the arid West when you insist upon having that power (applause). Is that Conservation? True Conservation demands that every acre of land shall be used for its highest purpose and be made to serve its highest productive function (applause), whether in a forest reserve or out of it. Therefore, in order to serve its highest productive function in the West, water must be applied to the land.

Now, take the 6,000,000 acres of land that may be reclaimed in Montana.

If you do not insist upon the Federal Government taking charge of the water-power and preventing its further reclamation, it means 6,000,000 acres of land reclaimed. It is fair to say that each year those reclaimed lands will produce a total of $25--yea, and if I did not want to be ultra-conservative, I would say $50--per acre; and at $25 per acre, you have an annual income from those 6,000,000 acres of land of $150,000,000. Isn't that worth thinking about? Isn't that a resource worth conserving? Why, the 6,000,000 horse-power that might be developed in Montana is not worth one t.i.the of that. You say, Give to the Federal Government the right to the water-powers of the State and forever prevent the further reclamation of our land? Why, you are asking of us the most priceless gift that we have to convey--far more priceless than our mines yielding $50,000,000 yearly, possibly the richest in the world--because you ask us to surrender not $50,000,000 a year but the opportunity to make $150,000,000 a year. Has the Federal Government this right? We insist, as a matter of law, that the Federal Government has no authority to grant any right to the use of water on any power site that it may have. If the power site is situated along a stream, the t.i.tle to the power site rests in the Federal Government and it can grant the right to erect a dam on that site, but the water that flows down the stream by that power site belongs to the State, and unless the State gives you the right to appropriate and take water you will develop no power by a dam-site! (Applause)

Now, is the State ready to surrender any rights that it may have in the waters of the stream to the Federal Government? The State of Montana is not ready to so do, for the reasons I have given. The State of Montana will insist upon every right it has. Let the Federal Government have that which of right or in law belongs to it, but let the State keep that which of right or in law belongs to it (applause). So sure am I that the State has the right to use of its water that I think the next Legislature of Montana will pa.s.s a law to regulate the use of water, making its use for power forever subordinate to its use for irrigation purposes, and then say to the Federal Government, You own your power site, but you do not own the water; we own the water, but we do not own the power site. Your site is worth nothing to you because it is valuable only for power in connection with the use of water. We cannot develop power on that site, but we can go a little farther down the stream and divert that water for the irrigation of land, and it is valuable to us.

Now, that is what we mean by the rights of the State in and to the waters of the State. You cannot trust the State? Why not? If you cannot trust the people of Montana to conserve its resources, if you cannot trust the State of Wyoming to conserve its resources, can we trust the State of Maine, or the State of Florida to conserve them for us? What reasons have we to a.s.sume that the people of the State of Ma.s.sachusetts or the State of Louisiana are more patriotic in that respect than are our own people?

The creation of the forest reserves was the greatest act ever performed in recent years. We would not have that act repealed. We have a double purpose in supporting the forest conservation policies. You think of it as valuable for the timber that it will grow. That timber is worth just as much, and will shelter just as many people, in Montana as it will in the Mississippi valley, but we desire it for a further purpose. The forests of these mountains are Nature's reservoirs, builded there by an Omnipotent Creator, and can better conserve the waters that fall in the form of rain and snow than these artificial reservoirs that men may build (applause). We want those waters. The water that comes from our mountains and is conserved under those forests is the very life-blood of the State of Montana. Would you take the water away and stop the reclamation of the arid West? I know you would not; yet you would do so did you not at the same time that you were saving the timber make a provision that the rights to water for power purposes should forever be subject to the rights for irrigation purposes.

Bear this in mind, also. The doctrine of riparian rights does not prevail in the arid West; therefore the owning of the soil on each side of the stream does not convey the right to have the water flow down that stream undiminished in quant.i.ty or quality. In other words, the first appropriator is the first in right. I think there has been a misunderstanding as to the position of the West in this respect, as to why we are insisting upon the rights of the State. We insist upon the right of the State to control the waters of the State, not the water-power particularly. There is a decided difference between the waters and the water-power. The waters will irrigate land, the water-power will develop electricity. Such is the position the West takes. Will you not help us in that, and so help develop the land and make it productive? Do you know it is your own salvation to do so? Ye people of the populous East, where is the produce to come from to feed the ever-increasing millions, unless it be from the reclamation of the arid lands of the West? The time will soon be here, and it is not over four years removed, when we will cease to be a wheat-exporting nation, and in only a few years it must come that the children will cry for bread, and the land must be made to produce it. Therefore we must husband our resources and conserve our water for use for the purpose which will permit the growing of something that will feed human beings; and pine trees do not do it (applause). You of the Mississippi valley who for years have wept great crocodile tears that your lands have been cleared, suppose those lands had not been cleared, whence would come the produce to feed the millions of today? So bear these things in mind that when you come to conclusions you will take all these questions into consideration. And I want to say to you that in the future, as in the past, Montana will not lag in the Conservation movement, but will continue to lead the Federal Government (applause).

A DELEGATE--Mr Chairman, are the propositions advanced by the Governors to be discussed? I see no reference in the program to such discussion, and ask for information.

Chairman STUBBS--The understanding of the Chair is that this afternoon was turned over to the Governors. The intention is to give them an opportunity to relieve their minds this afternoon (applause) and get the way clear for the greatest man you will hear talk in thirty years--Theodore Roosevelt (applause). We are clearing out the brush and getting ready for the real thing that you will have tomorrow. (Laughter and applause)

You can readily see that they have too much water in the South and not quite enough water in the Northwest, judging by the views of the last two speakers.

I now have the pleasure of introducing one of the greatest Governors in the United States, and of one of the greatest States in the Union, Governor Deneen, of Illinois (applause).

Governor DENEEN--Fellow Delegates, and Ladies and Gentlemen: The Governors here have been somewhat confused regarding this program. I was invited by my good friend Governor Eberhart, of this State, to prepare a speech. I have it concealed about my person like a deadly weapon, and I have been wondering whether I dare read it; for if I do, those who follow me will, I fear, have no audience to address, while if I do not follow the text already given to the printer there will be the traditional print-shop "devil" to pay; but I have concluded to talk rather than read, and I hope that my good friends the reporters will publish what I should have said rather than what I shall say. I will follow the example of a very distinguished statesman in our State, who on a great occasion handed his speech to the reporters and said, "Now, having given my speech to the reporters, I shall proceed to ramble;" and so he did. (Laughter)

It is a pleasure to follow the two distinguished gentlemen who have preceded me, the Governor of Mississippi and the Governor of Montana. It is a pleasure to note how the conditions have reversed the att.i.tude of their States regarding State rights (laughter and applause). I am interested in both States. A year or more ago I purchased a farm in Montana where the three rivers join to form the Missouri river, and I discovered after the spring freshets that I now have a farm scattered all the way from Montana to Mississippi (laughter). I am interested in all the States because of that, because I now own property in all. But I cannot quite agree with my distinguished predecessor about the Legislature--we, too, have a legislature (laughter), and whatever value it may have had at one time it is not considered at par at present.

(Laughter and applause)

We have a water-power proposition, too, strange to say, even in the flat, level, horizontal State of Illinois. Some time ago when the Government was considering the matter of the Lakes-to-Gulf Waterway, our State supplemented the investigation of the Government in considering the by-products of that great channel which was to be built (and I hope will be built), and we proceeded on the theory announced by the President this morning; instead of going from agitation to legislation, we considered it better to go on this theory: investigation, then agitation, and later legislation. So our State appointed a very distinguished commission to investigate some of the by-products that would accrue to Illinois by reason of the Lakes-to-Gulf deep waterway.

We soon found we had several questions. First, the matter of reclamation. We have the problem they have in Mississippi, of too much water for too much time out of the year; an even 5,000 square miles of our State is under water too much of the time--an area larger than the State of Connecticut or the island of Porto Rico. We worked out a plan by which, as an incident to the great waterway, we expect to reclaim land which has been estimated to be of the value of $150,000,000 to the State.

Then we found that in part of that waterway (in 62-1/2 miles of it from Lockport to Utica) there is a fall of 106 feet, and that water-power can be created to the amount of about 130,000 horsepower, worth about $2,500,000 or $2,750,000 a year to begin with, and our engineers estimated that by availing ourselves of that power we would be able to contribute to the Government the entire expense of the waterway between Lockport and Utica, and could afford to expend $20,000,000 in doing so by reason of the by-product that would come to us; and that we would be able, if the Legislature did as it should do, and the Governor did as he should do, and the commission to be appointed would do as it should do--to repay that vast expense in fourteen years as a minimum period, and that in fact we could loan our credit and have the water-power pay for the bonds as they matured. The question was submitted to the people, and after an exhaustive discussion they approved the plan by the largest majority ever registered on any issue in Illinois or in any State in the Union, a majority of nearly 500,000 (I believe it was 497,345 to be exact). Then we presented it to our Legislature. Now, this is the point.

When we presented it to our Legislature, what do you think has happened?

Why, nothing happened. (Sensation) We have talked, and talked, and talked, but we haven't acted. We have had several sessions, regular and irregular (laughter), on this subject, general and special, but we have failed to act. After the failure of the regular session to act, on December 14 last I called an extra session to determine the State's part in this water-power and waterway subject. It adjourned on March 2 following (I want you to keep these dates in mind because they are significant); the Legislature was in a deadlock--I am not blaming the republicans for this, although Illinois is a republican State, and I am not blaming the democrats; the fact is that a band of republicans and a band of democrats joined to repudiate the pledges of both parties, and they did it, effectually did it. They adjourned on March 2; on April 29 following (this year) a little corporation with a huge name was formed in our State--the Illinois Valley Gas, Light & Electric Power Company, I believe is the name--you are nearly compelled to take a vacation to p.r.o.nounce the name all at once--with a capital stock of only $1000; a huge name for small capital. Then, on May 12 following--thirteen days later--the organizers of the corporation met, and decided they had made a mistake in capitalizing at $1000; so they made the capital accord with the dignity and length of the name and increased it from $1000 to $6,250,000. Since that time they have acquired fifty-year franchises in the following cities: Joliet, Morris, Seneca, Ottawa, Wilmington, Streator, Dwight, Odell, Gardner, Pontiac, Plainview, Yorkville, Coal City, and Bridgewood. Now that has been doing a good deal of work in a warm, humid atmosphere, such as we have in the summer time in Illinois (laughter). They have not only done that, but they have also acquired the other corporations that have had to do with the developing of water-power in Illinois; and not only that, but they have reached out and acquired certain riparian rights necessary to develop fully the power at Ma.r.s.eilles. Now, what will happen? Our sanitary district of Chicago has already expended $53,000,000 on this channel, and will expend $20,000,000 more in its full development, and our State will spend $20,000,000 on its part. In other words, Illinois will contribute $100,000,000 to this Lakes-to-Gulf Deep Waterway, and a corporation which has not expended one dollar to create this power comes along and puts a toll-gate across it and collects the toll. Bear in mind that none of this power is created by the surface or drainage water of the State; all of it is created by diverting the waters of Lake Michigan to the Illinois and the Mississippi. What would be thought, for instance, if our State should expend $100,000,000 in building a road from Chicago to Saint Louis and then some one who had not expended a dollar would throw a toll-gate across it and collect a toll of every person and vehicle that pa.s.sed, and then when he tried to buy our own road back, charge us $100,000,000 for it? That would be going some, even in these days of "frenzied finance," wouldn't it? Yet that is exactly what they are doing with the water-power situation in our State. For several reasons (fancied or otherwise; it doesn't take much of a reason to occasion debate) there is a strong effort being made to prevent the State from acting, and our State is in the situation (and Chicago will be in the same situation soon) where we will be compelled, in order to acquire the riparian rights, to condemn them at their market value, and you can see, from the array of towns I read you, that the market value is steadily increasing (I collected their names about two weeks ago, and had not time this morning to wire inquiring whether it was up to date, but give you the list as an indication).

The point I want to make is that our State is a good deal like other States: we are neither abnormally good nor abnormally bad--just an average. Sometimes we are attending to things in such a way that we would prefer to have no metropolitan newspapers to circulate and mislead us; at other times we do things in a grand style in that great State, and we are then very glad that we have such means of disseminating knowledge about what is being done.

In regard to the Conservation movement: I sympathize very strongly with my good friends here from the West. It has been a delightful pleasure to meet them on a number of occasions, on the waterway trip down the Mississippi from Saint Louis to Memphis, then at New Orleans, and again at Washington, where we were all together at the Conservation Conference in Washington called by Theodore Roosevelt. I believe that the Government should not interfere to prevent the full development of the States. A long time ago it was said that he was a benefactor who made two blades of gra.s.s grow where only one had grown before, and the man who can put two acres in cultivation where only one was cultivated before is certainly a friend of mankind. So I think we want all the acres put in cultivation by irrigation or dry farming. But the general Government owns certain things: it owns coal lands, oil lands, gas lands, phosphate lands, and forest lands. We heard the President say this morning that the Government owns about a third of the forests that we must have in the north in order to allow the Mississippi to have enough water. The Government owns about a third of the coal, and if I recall correctly, about a third of the phosphate lands, which will become more and more necessary as we develop our agricultural resources.

Now the Federal Government should not permit itself to be put in a position where these great natural resources could be wasted (great applause); it ought to be in a position to develop the States by irrigation, and in all possible ways, but it should not permit itself to be put in the position where a Legislature of a State would take from it power to control some of the very necessities of advanced civilization (applause). They can have a crop of corn every year, they can turn on and off water-power every year, and the rains will come again; if by lack of attention the forests are burned or removed, they can be grown again; but the great Creator provided there should be just one crop of coal for all time, and provided, so far as we know now, that there would be just a certain amount of phosphate lands, and they are for all time and all men. These crops are not growing in Montana just now, they are not growing in other States; and because they were meant for us all, this great continental Republic ought to be able to conserve them so they shall not be abused. We all have the right to use them now, and the Government, in my judgment, should see that there is no possibility of abuse.

It seems very likely that, so far as water is concerned, the State and the Nation will have to cooperate and work together (applause). The State may own the water in Montana because the streams are not navigable, and I a.s.sume this is so in Wyoming and Idaho and the other mountain States. The Government at present owns much of the land. The Federal Government may not say to the State, "You cannot use the water because you cannot get in my backyard," and the State may not say, "Water is valueless without the use of the land that is situated adjoining;" so they will have to work together, and they should work together. That is the way it ought to be, and that is the way it will be; and I believe that we here in the West, and in the East and in the South, who have had our States developed by a vast expenditure of these natural resources and vast waste, will have patience and consideration for the views of these men who are somewhat fearful lest we do not permit them to develop their own resources. I believe the Nation will permit them not only to develop the resources, but will encourage them in that development (applause).

Now, just a word about Illinois: I have told you so many bad things about our State that it is not proper to cease speaking without saying some good things. I was delighted with the statements made by Governor Norris about Montana. It is a proud record. It has set a good example to the Government. Our State has done something, too (laughter). Our State, a long time ago, before we heard of this Conservation movement, had at least six or eight commissions out doing this very work. We have an agricultural experiment station that has explored every foot of our land, I may say, in a phenomenal way; the fact is we are laying off our State in ten-acre plats, and the University of Illinois is surveying each ten acres and making a record indicating the kind of soil, later to give advice as to the development of each ten acres; and the gentleman under whose supervision that is done is a Delegate to this Congress and likely to address you. He is a specialist on soil. And we have had a geological commission that has taken stock of all of our minerals, and although we are a prairie State we are the third in the Union in our mineral output. We are not only locating and taking stock of our coal but showing how to mine it, how to send it by freight, how to store it, and how to burn it--for nine-tenths of its energy is wasted before you get it to the place where you should apply it. We have made a survey of our rivers, studying the fishery question; Illinois river is the second in its output of food products in the United States, being only exceeded by Columbia river in the remote West; it has more than doubled in the last eight years. We have a commission on floriculture and horticulture; and we have an internal improvement commission that is studying every stream in our State and giving the information to our counties and districts for the purpose of forming drainage districts so that the land may be drained and more of it cultivated. In every department--water, soil, minerals--our State has made a most careful investigation, so that we feel we have a complete stock of our resources; we believe, too, in their development, and we are developing them. All the departments of our State work are going along as they should, and our resources are being well conserved.

I have dwelt on a disagreeable feature only because I believe that the example of Illinois should be beneficial elsewhere. We are having trouble in attending to our public utilities, as other States will.

Illinois will have expended a hundred million dollars in the making of a water-course that creates water-power, and you are all familiar with the disgraceful story as to how the State has tried to cope with that water-power monopoly through its Legislature and conserve to us what we created ourselves. It is likely that we shall be compelled to see certain corporations or private individuals sowing where they didn't reap, and levying a toll upon a vast expenditure of money made by our commonwealth; and other States may profit by our experience. (Applause)

Chairman STUBBS--I am very glad indeed to have the opportunity of introducing Governor Hay, of the great State of Washington (applause).

Governor HAY--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I desire to take this opportunity to thank the good citizens of Saint Paul for seeing to it that the Western States were given representation at this Congress (applause). It was not, and never was, the intention of the managers of this Conservation Congress to allow those who differed with them in opinion to be heard at this meeting, as I know by long correspondence myself with the management. In reading the numerous papers published here in the East relative to the "wild and woolly western men" and their ideas on Conservation, I said to my wife, before leaving home, "It looks to me that I am going down to Saint Paul to get the most glorious spanking a white man ever got." My wife said, "Go down and take it"

(laughter). But since arriving here, I am pleased to say that I have found innumerable people who look upon this Conservation question exactly the same way as do the majority of the people of the Pacific Coast.

All that is needed to solve the problem of conserving our natural resources is common sense and the application of the square deal (applause). It is because of a departure from these two essential elements in the consideration of Conservation, that an unsound, unjust, and impracticable policy has been advanced in this country. Common sense has given place to humbug and fairness to intolerance. Instead of calm, dispa.s.sionate, logical discussion of the subject, we hear and read on every hand exaggerated statements, misrepresentation, false accusation, dire prophecy, and pa.s.sionate appeals to prejudice, avarice, and lawlessness. This has given rise to a wholly perverted notion of true Conservation, and has brought about a condition hurtful to the West, and one that, if persisted in, is bound to prove injurious to the Nation.

The only sane and sensible kind of Conservation is that which permits the fullest and freest development of our natural resources under provisions that will perpetuate those resources that can be renewed, and that will obtain the greatest economic good from those that cannot be replaced. But to many of us of the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain States, Conservation, as practiced, means to tie up and not to utilize.

It signifies to us the letting of our waters run unfettered to the sea for fear some one might develop their power and turn their energy to the benefit of mankind in this generation. To us it means the locking up of our vast forests that they may go to decay or become the prey of the fire king. It means that, to please some bureaucrat, the people of our section are held up to allow the timber trust to secure a profit of a few extra millions each year. It means that our vast coal areas must go undeveloped, and that we be compelled to spend our money with foreign mine owners for fuel, importing the coal at no small expense for the item of transportation alone. It means that the State of Washington is robbed of the use of 500,000 acres of land that the Federal Government granted to it for educational purposes at the time it was admitted to the Union. Conservation as practiced in the past developed into a vast profit-making scheme for certain southern land grant railroads, which under it were given scrip in place of worthless desert land included in forest reservations, treeless since time began and bound to remain treeless to the end of time. And we have seen this scrip brought north and placed upon our timber lands that will cruise from 5,000,000 to 50,000,000 feet per section, and are worth from $20 to $100 per acre.

This brand of Conservation means to us that 27-1/4% of the total area of the State of Washington paid a paltry $16,000 into the public coffers in 1909. It means we are called upon to expend large sums each year for policing these Federal reserves, which contribute practically nothing to the cost of State government, while at each session our State Legislature is compelled to appropriate large sums to build roads through Federal reserves. Last year we appropriated $205,000 for this purpose. To us, Conservation means that settlers within forest reserves who have taken up homesteads in good faith are hara.s.sed, browbeaten, and often forced to abandon their claims and lose the fruits of the labor of years. As an ill.u.s.tration of this, permit me to read a letter I received recently from a fellow citizen of mine who, by the way, is a prominent logger, and while a very wealthy man and a large timber owner, is one of that kind of men who came up from the bottom; he started in at day's wages in the State of Washington a little over thirty years ago. This is what he says:

Speaking for myself and from a selfish standpoint, the present Conservation by our National Government suits me fine, but in the interests of the poor settlers who make our country, a change should be made. Four-fifths of these settlers come out here from Eastern States and endeavor to take up homesteads, but they are so hara.s.sed and driven from their homesteads through technicalities and forest rangers under orders that are absolutely foreign to the best interests of our country and the settler, that instead of making good citizens the Conservation laws have made anarchists, and if the thing is kept up, everything that will burn I expect to see burned within the next ten years. You cannot drive a man from his home, with a wife and from one to six children, penniless and hungry and the children in rags, while the land that would support them lies idle and wild just to gratify the theory of some man who may be honest but who is ignorant of the conditions of the frontier. I will name a case of a man I met in Aberdeen, who told me that he tramped forty miles three times to make proof on his claim.

He had lived with his family on his homestead for seven years and endeavored to make proof, coming out with witnesses and spending money he needed for his family, only to be told the last time he came out that his hearing was indefinitely postponed. This man came out a good, loyal, American citizen; went back a fire-eater. I know another case on the head of Nooksack river where a man endeavored to take up a homestead on meadow land, and after he made application it was set aside for forest rangers' quarters No. 1. He then tried to take a second homestead and it was set aside for Forest Ranger No. 2; he then endeavored to take a third, and that was set aside for Forest Ranger No. 3. The land is fertile beyond description, but there is nothing living on it, and it is supporting no one.

On the head waters of Skagit river there are tracts of land that will support from three to four hundred homesteads. This is purely meadow land with brush and worthless scrub timber, like all our western Washington meadows. Any five acres of this land will sustain a family in comfort. This land is held in the forest reserve, absolutely worthless so far as sustaining people is concerned, or paying taxes to the State. If our State is to give up one-third of its taxable property and carry on its government with two-thirds, she has very little interest, if any, in that portion of the State reserved by Conservation, and naturally will not aid in the preservation of the same as she would were the revenue from these resources to become the revenue of the State. Up on Quinault river, ten years ago, there was a flourishing settlement with every prospect for opening up the country. Since this Conservation law has been in force, many of these settlers have left their homesteads, others have been driven off and gone to British Columbia. The United States Government does not build a road into the settlement, and the people are too poor to build out. Take it up in the Northern Peninsula (the greater portion covered by forest reserve), the land would sustain hundreds of thousands of comfortable and independent homes; but today it is a howling wilderness, and the meadow land is as wild as it was a hundred years ago. The people are too poor to build roads in and across the forest reserve, and the Government does not.

I sincerely hope and trust that the people of the East who are not acquainted with the conditions in the State of Washington will permit this State to control and conduct her own Conservation, both water, timber, coal and oil, if necessary, to the best interests of the State and Nation. We have a State that has upwards of ten million horse-power in our waterfalls going to waste every minute. With proper State laws this could be utilized, and so protected that monopoly could not control it. We have millions of tons of cheap anthracite and bituminous coal on our coast. Still, the people of Alaska are buying British Columbia coal and shipping it up to themselves two thousand miles, while the coal is sticking out of the mountain-sides of Alaska and cannot be touched. We are shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of Maryland coal to our navy on the Pacific Coast, in foreign ships, while we, of the State of Washington, are prohibited from shipping our cheap lumber to our own people on the Atlantic Coast, and are compelled, if we ship at all, to ship it by rail to New York and the thickly settled portions of the East at a freight rate that is prohibitive. The only people receiving the benefit of our lower grades of lumber and cheap prices are the Chinese and j.a.panese.

If we were permitted to ship our lumber in foreign vessels from Washington to New York or other ports on the Atlantic Coast, we could give them lumber that they all need and that we would be glad to sell at a very reasonable figure. It is the fool laws that are oppressing the people, both of the East and the West, and many of them have been made in the interest of monopoly and many through ignorance.

The West is not here to fight Conservation, for, properly directed, it is one of the greatest movements inaugurated in this country since the abolishment of slavery. Our former President inst.i.tuted many reform movements that, properly directed, mean happiness and prosperity for our people; and of all the movements started by him, in my opinion none means more to the financial welfare of ourselves and our children than Conservation, as vouched for by President Roosevelt (applause). The complaint we have is not against the principle of Conservation, but against the prost.i.tution of that great movement to the impractical ends of certain men out of sympathy with our inst.i.tutions. They would disregard the rights of the people of the Western States to regulate affairs within their borders; they would r.e.t.a.r.d development of the younger States; they would compel the citizens of the Western States to contribute annually large sums of money to the timber, coal and power companies operating in those sections. While these bureaucrats claim to be working in the interest of the people, they could not better serve the Special Interests if they were employed by them. In the past they laid unusual burdens upon the Western States, and have ruthlessly crushed and brushed aside the honest homesteader who did not have funds to fight or carry his case to the highest court. They are attempting to bottle up and make useless the natural resources of our Western States, and have our local affairs administered through an irresponsible bureau located 3,000 miles away. All the people of the West ask is a chance with the older communities and an honest shuffle--a square deal above the table--and a show to develop our resources and build up prosperous communities made up of innumerable happy homes. I believe the people of the West are as good citizens, and are just as true and loyal to the interests of the Nation as are the citizens of any other locality. As States we do not like to be looked upon as provinces or colonial possessions to be exploited for the benefit of the other sections of this Nation. I have faith enough in the fairness of the citizens of the other sections of this Nation to believe that they do not covet or desire to rob us of what rightfully belongs to us. We believe the profit arising from the development or exploitation of the natural resources of each State should be applied to the benefit of and to the cost of government of that State.

Let me get this fact set in your minds: 95-1/2% of the national reserves are located within the eleven Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain States, and 27-1/4% of the total area of the State I have the honor to represent is taken up by forest reserves, an area in which could be placed the States of Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, and the District of Columbia, with room enough to spare to accommodate another Rhode Island. The extreme Conservationist argues that the people of the Western States are not competent or qualified to manage the natural resources within their borders and that a guardian in the shape of a Federal bureau should be appointed to handle them for us. This is a gratuitous insult to the intelligence and integrity of the people of the West. Almost the worst kind of government that can be placed upon a people is a bureaucracy. Let me call your attention to the fact that practically all of the land, mineral, coal, timber, and power-site steals perpetrated upon the people were made when these t.i.tles were vested in the Federal Government.

Now, let us deal a little with common-sense Conservation: The people of the State of Washington started a practical system of Conservation long before Conservation became a national issue. The Governor of Montana has said that Montana was the first State in the Union to practice Conservation. Evidently the Governor of Montana is not up on the laws of the State of Washington or he wouldn't have made that statement (laughter). One of the great natural a.s.sets of our State is our fisheries. Because of over-fishing it became evident to our people some years ago that, unless proper steps were taken, our fishing industry would be ruined. Laws were pa.s.sed regulating the taking of fish, and numerous hatcheries were established throughout the State. We are now putting more salmon fry into salt water than is the Federal Government, and today the State of Washington stands first in the Union in the value of the products of its fisheries, all because our people a few years ago started a practical system of Conservation. The expense of enforcing our laws regulating fisheries and the cost of maintaining and operating hatcheries is a.s.sessed against that industry. We cannot bring ourselves to consent to turn over the management of this industry to the Federal Government. In fact, so opposed are the fisher-folk of Puget Sound to Federal control of the fishing industry, which is threatened because of the proposed treaty with Great Britain, that they are fighting the ratification of the treaty by the United States Senate.

Let us now take up the question of the national forest reserves as administered in the western States. I doubt that there is a thinking man who does not love the trees, the deep woods and vast forests of our land; but a tree, like everything else that grows, has its youth, its maturity, its old age and death. A tree not used at maturity decays, falls, and becomes a fire-trap and is a serious menace to standing timber. I believe that when a tree reaches its maturity it should be used and not allowed to go to decay (applause). Failure to make use of our natural resources which are going to waste is the ant.i.thesis of Conservation. I believe that all non-forested lands adapted for agricultural purposes should be opened to settlement and homesteaders allowed to file upon them. Within the national forest reserves are vast areas with not a stick of timber on them, and on which timber can never be made to grow profitably. These tracts should be thrown open to settlement. It is people we want in the West, not game preserves (applause); it is happy, prosperous communities, not idle wastes. I would not advise the acceptance of homestead filings upon timbered areas until after the timber is removed and it is found the land is suitable for agriculture. If it is valuable only for timber raising, then the land should be turned over to the State for reforestation. It is the duty of the State to all the States to start a system of reforestation.

At the last session of our Legislature, an appropriation was made to start a survey and have maps made showing the areas of our State better adapted for timber-growing than for any other purpose. This work is now well under way. A commission composed of twelve of our leading citizens, interested in forestry, have been appointed to draft a forestry bill to be submitted to the coming Legislature, when, without doubt, the State will start in upon a plan of reforestation; something which every State of the Union should take up. It is the duty of the States to attend to the growing of forests within their borders, and not the duty of the Federal Government. I am not in favor of abolishing the Federal forestry department. This department should stand in the same relation to the State forests as the Department of Agriculture stands to the farming interests of the Nation (applause). We would hardly expect Secretary Wilson to go around the country, preparing the ground, planting and harvesting our crops, and collecting the revenue therefrom, and we do not expect the Federal Government to go inside of the State and start a system of reforestation where it is absolutely the duty of the State itself to undertake that work (applause).

The greatest infringement upon the rights of the State to handle their own internal affairs is the attempt on the part of the Federal Government to gain control by indirection of our water-power for the purpose of supervising and deriving the revenue from any possible development of the powers. This, by the way, is a policy particularly waged by the National Conservation a.s.sociation, an organization which is making of this Conservation question a cult, which has practically set up a dogma, and whose members are now quarreling over their claims to orthodoxy. So far about all it has done has been to play into the hands of the power monopoly, which the first apostles of Conservation claim to fear so greatly.

Of all the lame arguments I have heard, the one that the people of the country have not the brains or authority to regulate the charges of any public service corporation, is the worst. We have two means of reaching them: by regulating the rates, and by taxation. No State in the Union was probably ever more troubled than was the State of Washington a few years ago with a railway lobby. In the year 1905 the Legislature of the State of Washington pa.s.sed a railway commission law, and placed the regulation and control of railroads under this commission. Three years this commission studied the conditions in the State. It was one of the first States in the Union to make a physical valuation to determine the cost of these plants. In 1909 the railway commission of Washington placed an order into effect that saved to the farmers of the State, in the hauling of wheat and other grains alone, $750,000. At the same time they placed an order reducing the general distance tariffs of the railroads, which cost the railroads of the State $75,000, and the railroads have never appealed from its decision and those rates are in effect today. In 1909 the railway commission traveled over every mile of road in our State, visited every station, held hearings, and as a result of that trip they made 250 orders ordering new stations, enlargement of waiting-rooms and train facilities; all those things that the people complained about they remedied, and of the 250 orders put into effect--which cost the railroads hundreds of thousands of dollars--they never have appealed from but 16, and 234 have gone into effect; so the argument that the States cannot control affairs within their own borders, it seems to me, is very fallacious (applause). If we are not competent to handle affairs within our own borders, if we are not competent to regulate corporations, then let us surrender our Const.i.tution and go back to territorial days and let the Federal Government administer our affairs for us. (Applause)

Now, with reference to the water-power bill: The bill before Congress introduced by Senator Smoot, of Utah, and a similar bill introduced by Senator Jones, of Washington, are perfectly satisfactory to the people of the Coast, so far as I know. Governor Norris has explained to you that the beds and banks of all streams, up to the limit of medium high tide and medium high water, belong to the States; they do not belong to the Federal Government. That property is just as much ours as is the jack-knife in our pockets. Senator Smoot's bill provides that all the interest the Federal Government has in this is that it owns the sites.

We own the water, we own the power. There is no question about that. The Supreme Court has pa.s.sed upon it time and time again. The Government owns the sites. The Smoot bill provides that the sites in the Federal reserves shall be turned over to the State government, but that in no instance shall the State pa.s.s the fee-simple t.i.tle to the land, and no lease shall be longer than fifty years. This is perfectly satisfactory, and the people of the State of Washington have no objections to that form of relinquishment to the State.

The high-handed manner in which a Federal bureau attempted to hold up the development of the western States was the result of a false conception of the principles upon which the Government is founded, and a dangerous a.s.sumption that honor and efficiency existed nowhere but in one self-appointed guide, philosopher, and so-called friend of the people. I believe it is the intention of those now in authority to administer the natural resources of the West according to law and with some respect for the welfare of the State in which the resources are located. But outside of governmental and administrative circles, an element composed of faddists, dreamers, and enthusiasts is striving to bend popular sentiment to certain impractical and unfair policies of applying Conservation, and it is against this element that the West has taken arms. We want Conservation that benefits all the people, not a Conservation that plays into the hands of a few. Conservation that does not make use of resources rapidly going to waste is Conservation gone daffy. I have noticed that there are some States down here shouting loud for Federal control of our natural resources. I want to say that those Governors who are here shouting the loudest for Federal control are from the States that have the least amount of natural resources. It is the desire of these people that the revenue received from these natural resources shall be surrendered to the Federal treasury. That is what the western States certainly object to. Some people and papers here are charging that "the interests," whatever you may call them, are favoring State control of the natural resources. I want to say to you that "the interests" are always against local control in any case, and always prefer that monopoly of all kinds shall be placed in the Federal Government and as far away from the people as it is possible to get it.

The address made here by President Taft this morning is in line with the western idea of Conservation as I understand it, and I believe those of us from the West who look at this question as I do endorse the same safe statement that has been made by our great President (applause). Let western men, using up-to-date western methods and familiar with western conditions, deal with and manage western matters. I thank you.

(Applause)