THE CONFERENCE PROPER 



27 



have not had anything of that kind in recent 

 years. Look now at the conditions immedi- 

 ately north of us in Canada. I was up there 

 and visited that country, and to me it appears 

 that both the frost line and the arid lines are 

 driven westward and northward in the face 

 of settlement. 



I believe a great deal of this country today, 

 that we have considered utterly useless at one 

 time — useless, at all events, without irriga- 

 tion — can be farmed successfully by prudent 

 and careful methods. 



I noticed as I was passing through that 

 country how those crops which the farmer 

 had out, who had the year before summer 

 fallowed his land, looked much better than 

 other crops. I was told by people in North 

 Dakota that crops raised on summer fallowed 

 land were considered pretty sure crops, while 

 as to the other lands they were not at all 

 sure, on account of drouth and hot winds in 

 the summer. 



My idea is that, for the welfare of our 

 people and in order to furnish homes for our 

 future population, we ought to save all this 

 great region that has not yet been taken up 

 under the homestead or other laws. That 

 land should all be saved for homesteads for 

 future generations. 



There are plans pending in Congress to 

 make homesteads larger. There have been 

 plans, and they have succeeded in passing a 

 law some years ago applying to certain local- 

 ities in Nebraska, fixing homesteads at 640 

 acres. I believe bills are pending in Congress 

 now for 320-acre homesteads. It may be that 

 in one sense a 320- or 640-acre homestead is 

 not too much ; but we must bear in mind the 

 amount of land we still possess, and the num- 

 ber of people who will want land in the 

 future, and I think the wisest and safest pol- 

 icy, if we consider our future interests, is to 

 limit our homesteads in all cases to 160 acres. 

 There is another problem. Of course, where 

 the Government still retains ownership and 

 control of timber lands, the problem can be 

 easily handled by the Federal Government ; 

 but when you come to the matter of protect- 

 ing our timber lands from forest fires and 

 other damage, lands that are in private own- 

 ership and within the several States, you will 

 find it to be a problem that pertains to the 

 States and belongs to the police powers of the 

 States. Our recent fire in Minnesota, last fall, 

 where one of the prosperous towns, in what 

 we call the iron range, was totally destroyed, 

 as well as other fires we have had there, all 

 demonstrate that one of the causes of forest 

 fires, that makes them so dangerous, is the 

 refuse that is left by the lumbermen when 

 they do their logging. We think it is entirely 

 within the police power of the respective 

 States, for the protection of lives and the 

 property of their people, to pass a law requir- 

 ing lumbermen, when they do their logging, 

 to burn up and destroy the refuse and waste 

 matter, just as is now required by the Forest 

 Service of the United States. But we must 

 look to the States for that relief, and all we 



can do in this convention, my friends, is to 

 give them good, fatherly advice and good 

 sensible suggestions. 



I think that the two great problems, or the 

 two important questions, so far as our public 

 lands are concerned, are, first of all, to reserve 

 all our agricultural land simply for homes. 

 In the next place we should reserve our tim- 

 ber lands absolutely in the Government, and 

 sell nothing but the matured timber. In the 

 next place — and I agree with that part of the 

 report — it is well to segregate these different 

 rights. The timber lands should not be sold, 

 agricultural lands should only be sold so far 

 as the surface goes, and the mineral rights 

 should be held separately and disposed of 

 separately. I am free to confess, however, 

 that in respect to that question I have some 

 doubt. I can readily see how, in the matter 

 of coal lands — for instance, the lignite coal 

 lands in Dakota — it is quite practicable to give 

 the surface right to one man and the right to 

 the bed of coal beneath to another man, and 

 how the two men could work in harmony and 

 unity; but when it comes to a matter of min- 

 eral claims, such as lode claims and placer 

 claims, then there is some question about 

 working out the problem. As a rule, most of 

 the lode claims are on the mountain tops and 

 mountain sides, and very little of the land 

 covered by those claims is fit for agricultural 

 purposes. The same is true in reference to 

 placer gold mines. They are generally found 

 in the ravines and gulches and beds of rivers 

 — land that as a rule is not of much value for 

 agricultural purposes. So it seems to me 

 there is necessarily no conflict, and in making 

 up this general report l*felt perfectly safe in 

 agreeing to the general proposition, an<i I 

 think the commission has made a wise and 

 judicious recommendation to the people of 

 the United States. Bear in mind, gentlemen, 

 we can only work out this problem completely 

 and thoroughly by the active work of the 

 Federal Government and by the active coop- 

 eration of the several States as well as the 

 individuals. 



When it comes to this matter of policing 

 our forests that are in private ownership, the 

 great work in reference to that must be left 

 to the States. When it comes to protecting 

 our own forests and controlling them, the 

 Federal Government has absolute power in 

 the matter. When it comes to the regulation 

 of our water supply, the Federal Government 

 has control of all these streams so far as pur- 

 poses of navigation may be concerned. Gov- 

 ernor Chamberlain yesterday, in his speechat 

 the Belasco Theatre, announced, in my opin- 

 ion, the correct rule. 



The correct rule was laid down by the 

 Supreme Court of the United States in the 

 Rio Grande case, and that is that even that 

 portion of a stream which is above the head 

 of navigation, if it be the headwaters of a 

 navigable stream, is nevertheless, on account 

 of its effect upon the navigability of that por- 

 tion of the stream lower down, absolutely 

 under the control of the Federal Government. 



Now, gentlemen, I have in the rough stated 



