porary proprietorship of vacant land situated therein, these States would be subjected to the arbitrary control of distant bureaus, their industrial progress would be arrested, their equality with the original States in these respects would be taken away, and that a government of men, in whose selection they would have no choice, would be substituted for a government of laws enacted by their own representatives. The preservation of our dual form of government-the Nation exercising its powers over national affairs committeed to it by the Constitution, and the States exercising their constitutionally reserved powers over their own internal policy and development-was recognized as a matter of first importance, not only for the sake of the States as component parts of the Union, but for the sake of the Union itself. After three days' deliberation, during which a number of instructive and illuminating addresses were delivered, the conference adopted resolutions by the decisive vote of 28 to 7. The resolutions are set forth in the following pages: RESOLUTIONS OF THE CONFERENCE. [Adopted Thursday, Sept. 23, 1915.] Whereas the new States admitted into the Union are of necessity upon an equal footing in all respects whatever with the original States; and Whereas each State has full jurisdiction over all lands within its borders, including the beds of streams and other waters; and Whereas the ownership by the Federal Government of the technical title to vacant public land within a State does not confer upon the Federal Government any greater or other governmental powers than it possesses within the original States; and Whereas the long-established and sound policy of the United States with respect to the disposition of its unappropriated public lands is opposed to the making of a direct revenue therefrom, beyond the expense incident to the surveying, classification, and disposing of such lands, but, on the contrary, that said policy is intended to encourage and promote the settlement and development thereof; and that any act of Congress or any administrative interpretation thereof, which is not in harmony with this policy, does an injustice to the new States by placing them on an unequal footing with the original States, and by discouraging and preventing the settlement of such new States and the development of their resources; and Whereas the vacant land belonging to the Federal Government constitutes two-thirds of the area of the States represented in this conference, and amounts to more than twice the area of the thirteen original States; and Whereas the vacant lands belonging to the Federal Government are under the law exempt from taxation, while the burden of maintaining local government over their entire area rests upon the States; and Whereas the maintenance inviolate of the constitutional equality of the States of the Union is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That we are unalterably opposed to any legislation which is in conflict with the fundamental principles above declared. Resolved, That the States have the constitutional right and power to control and regulate the appropriation and use of the waters within their boundaries for all beneficial purposes except navigation, and also the right and power to control and regulate the rates and service of their public utilities. Resolved, That we are opposed to any policy that looks toward imposing the system of leasing generally upon the public domain for the reason that such system is contrary to the spirit of our free institutions and would retard the development of the resources of the States in which there is still any public land. Resolved, That in view of what we believe to be administrative misconstruction of existing legislation, we are in favor of a declaratory act by Congress recognizing and acknowledging that the proprietary interest of the United States in the vacant land within the States is subject to the jurisdiction and eminent domain of those States for all uses which are declared by the laws of those States to be public uses and which are so essential to the development, well-being, and prosperity of those States. Resolved, That the purposes of encouraging the development and utilization of the natural resources of the country by private enterprise which actuated Congress in the enactment of the right-of-way acts of July 26, 1866, and March 3, 1891, and in the enactment of the acts of March 3, 1877, and June 4, 1897, making all nonnavigable waters on public lands, including forest reservations, free for appropriation for beneficial uses, should actuate Congress to-day in the enactment of any further legislation upon these subjects. Resolved, That any legislation of Congress the purpose or effect of which is to substitute arbitrary or discretionary authority of executive officials for the fixed rules of law governing the administration, sale or other disposition of public lands and reservation and rights of way over the same, will be unwise and inconsistent with the spirit of our Constitution. Resolved, That we are opposed to ownership or control either direct or indirect by the United States Government of intrastate public utilities. WESTERN STATES WATER POWER CONFERENCE. WILLIAM SPRY, Chairman. C. C. CHAPMAN, Secretary. BASIS OF RECITALS IN RESOLUTIONS. These resolutions are based upon fundamental principles of our Government, and commend themselves to the sound reason and common sense of the American people. The language of the first recital, relating to the equality of the States, is based upon the language used in cessions of their territory by the original States to the United States, upon the acts of admission of new States into the Union, upon the Constitution itself and repeated decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The second recital is in the words of the opinion of Justice Brewer in the case of Kansas v. Colorado (206 U. S., 46). The third recital is in line with numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The fourth recital is a copy of a resolution unanimously adopted at the conservation congress held in the city of Washington in November, 1913. The fifth and sixth recitals are facts about which there can be no dispute. The seventh recital is taken partly from the Republican platform in 1860 and partly from a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Coyle v. Smith, (221 U. S., 559). DELEGATES TO THE CONFERENCE. ARIZONA.-Gov. George W. P. Hunt, Phoenix; *Howard S. Reed, Phoenix; E. F. Sanguinetti, Yuma; T. A. Riordan, Flagstaff; Prof. W. H. Lawrence, Tucson; Alex T. Nelson, Sacaton. CALIFORNIA.-Gov. Hiram W. Johnson, Sacramento; W. A. Johnstone, Sandimas; *A. E. Chandler, San Francisco; Irving Martin, Stockton. COLORADO.-Gov. George A. Carlson, Denver; *George E West, Durango; *A. P. Ardourel, Boulder; *Clyde C. Dawson; *Thomas Tonge; *David R. Elliott; *W. F. R. Mills. IDAHO.-*Gov. Moses Alexander, Boise; *James H. Hawley, Boise; *John W. Hart, Menan; *Fred W. Berger, *I. E. Rockwell, *Dr. J. B. Morris. MONTANA.-Gov. Samuel V. Stewart, Helena; Henry L. Myers, Hamilton; *Thomas J. Walsh, Helena; *J. B. Collins, Miles City; *Sam D. Goza, Helena ; *J. E. Erickson, Kalispell. NEW MEXICO.-Gov. William F. McDonald, Santa Fe; N. B. Laughlin, Santa Fe; E. W. Dobson, Albuquerque; C. M. Bayne, Raton; Joseph Gill, Clayton. NEBRASKA.-*George Lyon, jr. NEVADA. *William M. Kearney, Carson; Key Pittman, Tonopah. NORTH DAKOTA.-Gov. Louis B. Hanna, Bismarck; *D. V. Moore, *John O. Hanchett, Harvey; James F. Randall, Minnewaukon; H. W. Braatelin, Williston. OREGON.-*Gov. James Withycombe, Salem; *W. Lair Thompson, Lakeview; C. S. Hudson, Bend; *S. B. Huston, Portland; *Edgar B. Piper, Portland. SOUTH DAKOTA.--Gov. Frank M. Byrne, Pierre; S. E. Wilson, Hot Springs; Chambers Kellar, Lead; A. J. Plowman, Deadwood; Mortimer Crane Brown, Spearfish; O. E. Farnham, Newell. UTAH.-Gov. William Srpy, Salt Kake City; *Senator Reed Smoot; *E. A. Wedgwood; *S. A. Bailey; *W. D. Beers, Salt Lake City. * Present and seated. WASHINGTON.--*Gov. Ernest Lister, Olympia; *Phil H. Adams, Ellensburg; *M. C. Harris, Hoquiam; *A. H. Imus, Kalama; *W. V. Wells, Anacortes. WYOMING.-*Clarence D. Clark, Evanston. Chairman of Conference, Gov. William Spry, Utah. Secretary of Conference, C. C. Chapman, Portland, Oreg. SPEAKERS AT THE CONFERENCE. Following are the speakers invited by the governor of Oregon to address the conference, together with the subjects assigned. Those indicated with an asterisk were unable to attend in person: Hon. George E. Chamberlain, United States Senator from Oregon. *Hon. John D. Works, United States Senator from California. Hon. John H. Roemer, ex-chairman Wisconsin Railroad Commission, Chicago. Subject: “Term of Franchise Proposed in Ferris Bill." *Hon. William E. Borah, United States Senator from Idaho. Mr. Frank H. Short, Fresno, Cal. Subject: “ Constitutional Aspects of the Ferris Bill." Mr. John C. Ralston, member American Society of Civil Engineers, Spokane, Wash. Subject: Water Power and Its Relation to National Development." Hon. Samuel H. Piles, ex-United States Senator, from Seattle, Wash. Subject: "State Ownership of Water Power." Hon. Reed Smoot, United States Senator from Utah. Tax on Water Power." Subject: Federal *Hon. Oscar W. Underwood, United States Senator from Alabama. *Hon. Lindley M. Garrison, Secretary of War. *Hon. David F. Houston, Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. Henry J. Pierce, of Seattle, Wash. Subject: “Commercial necessity of Water-Power Development." Mr. S. Z. Mitchell, president Electric Bond & Share Co., New York City. Subject: Why Financing Power Development is Not Practicable Where Government Land is Involved." *Mr. Joseph N. Teal, of Portland, Oreg. Mr. John H. Finney, American Institute of Electrical Engineering, Washington, D. C. Mr. Clyde C. Dawson, of Denver, Colo. Subject: "Developed Water Power— Ideal Conservation." Hon. Clarence D. Clark, United States Senator from Wyoming. "Duties of Government Towards Development of the West." Subject: Hon. Clay Tallman, United States Commissioner of Public Lands, Department of the Interior. Hon. Henry S. Graves, Chief, United States Bureau of Forestry, Department of Agriculture. Hon. O. C. Merrill, Chief Engineer, Bureau of Forestry, Department of Agriculture. Subject: "Power Development on National Forests and Proposed New Legislation." Hon. Thomas J. Walsh, United States Senator from Montana. AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED BY MR. CLYDE C. DAWSON, OF DENVER, TO "PROPOSED WASHINGTON, D. C., March 26, 1918. Amend subdivision (b) of section 9, as follows: Page 14, lines 13 to 18, inclusive, after the word "to in line 13, strike out the remainder of the subdivision and insert the following: "The initiation of a right to apropriate, divert, or use water for power purposes and with such other laws of the State or States within which said proposed project is located as may govern those engaged in developing, transmitting, or distributing hydroelectric power." As amended, the subdivision would read as follows: "(b) Satisfactory evidence that the applicant has complied with the requirements of the laws of the State or States within which the proposed project is to be located with respect to the initiation of a right to appropriate, divert, or *Present and seated. use water for power purposes and with such other laws of the State or States within which said proposed project is located as may govern those engaged in developing, transmitting, or distributing hydroelectric power." Amend the bill by inserting after section 27 a new section, to be known as section 27 (a), as follows: "SEC. 27(a). That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to affect the appropriation and use of water for beneficial purposes, other than navigation, under the authority of the respective States." Amend the bill by inserting after section 27(a) a new section, to be known as section 27 (b), as follows: “SEC. 27(b). That the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed and administered, in order to effectuate its purpose and to encourage the development and utilization of the water resources of the United States and of the respective States." (Thereupon the committee took a recess until 2 o'clock p. m.) AFTER RECESS. The committee reassembled at 2 o'clock p. m., pursuant to recess. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. You may proceed, Mr. Leighton. Give your name and occupation. STATEMENT OF M. O. LEIGHTON, CONSULTING ENGINEER, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. LEIGHTON. My name is M. O. Leighton, consulting engineer, with offices at 700 Tenth Street, Washington, D. C. Prior to 1913 I was for 11 years a member of the Geological Survey, and from 1906 to 1913 I was its chief hydrographer, and in that capacity became familiar with the water-power conditions pretty generally throughout the country. That familiarity has been supplemented in a very practical way since 1913. That which I had prepared myself to say has been said so well by previous witnesses that I will not indulge in repetition. Mr. Britton, Mr. Pierce, Hon. F. C. Stevens, Mr. Krauthoff, and Mr. Hall have covered all the suggestions that occurred to me, as well as Some which did not occur to me but which have my support. While I would not go as far as Mr. Townley did in asserting that the bill that is before you will not permit the development of a large number of water powers, I can not, as an engineer who has become more or less familiar with the steam-power-versus-waterpower question, fail to appreciate the profound engineering point inade by Mr. Townley, namely, that from the standpint of economy and efficiency steam power is going to overshadow hydroelectric power to a degree that will astonish the layman. Of course Mr. Townley spoke from an engineering standpoint, and in reviewing his testimony it may help you in your appraisal of his statements to know that, although he did not mention the fact, Mr. Townley is chairman of the power committee of the engineering council. That council is far and away the highest and most authoritative engineering body in the world. A seat in that council is secured only by actual attainment and achievement, and the seats are few in number. In fact, a seat in that council is regarded by engineers in the same way that lawyers regard a seat in the Supreme Court of the United States. I want to invite your attention to this legislative matter from an angle which strangely enough has not been suggested so far in these hearings. Many of the important points of conjecture which have been raised by the members of this committee may be fully satisfied by an examination of the facts in hand. I recall, for example, that Mr. Ferris has on two occasions suggested that it is a long step from the revocable permit under the act of 1901 to the type of legislation that is before you, and he has questioned whether it would not be wise and sufficient to follow a middle of the road program. My answer to that is that such a program has been followed on the navigable streams, with results so definite and certain as to admit of no argument. I am going to ask you to give your attention briefly to the general dam act of 1910 and the results that have been achieved under its provisions. The general dam act provides, among other things, for an affirmative grant for a period of 50 years. provision is made for the property at the end of the 50 years. It also provides for the payment of "reasonable value "-and I quote that-"reasonable value exclusive of the value of the authority or franchise granted," if at any time during the period of the grant the property is taken over by the United States. No Now, here is a law which may fairly be called a middle of the road measure between the revocable permit under the act of 1901 and the measure that is before you. If the faith that has been expressed here in these hearings that the Government will not take over the property at the end of the 50 years, and that consequently a renewal of license will follow as a matter of course- -if that faith furnishes a stable basis of financing, then there ought to have been some progress under the general dam act of 1910. Moreover, if, as has been asserted at these hearings, a water-power property can be amortized in a period of 50 years, then experience under a law that makes amortization a necessity ought to throw some light on the amortization question. In other words, there is no need of conjecture at all concerning many of the important questions that you have raised here concerning the term of license, recapture, and financing; and an examination of the general dam act of 1910 and the accomplishments under it will afford a conclusive answer. The facts are that the United States has paid a huge price for the lack of a law that will permit, encourage, and promote water-power development on the navigable streams. The data that I shall citeand they are all obtained from official sources-show that the subjects of controversy and the doubts and fears that have arisen are of small importance in comparison with a single public purpose that would be enormously advanced by the passage of a productive waterpower law. That purpose is transportation. Our transportation needs require no explanation. The situation is acute and, strangely enough, has been foretold for more than 10 years. In fact, it was in the fall of 1907 that I heard the late Mr. James J. Hill predict the present situation in transportation with detail and accuracy that now seems amazing. No one advocates a water-power subsidy; but if values be weighed and measured as we are accustomed to weigh and measure them in the ordinary and honorable course of legitimate exchange, it ought to be perfectly clear that the United States could better afford to pay a subsidy than to adhere to its present policy or to debate fur |