^74 



A:\ 1 EJ<J CAN U( )RESTR V 



Gov, W, R. Stubbs ol Kansas 



velt and Gift'ord Pinchot. He intimated 

 once or twice during the afternoon that 

 this session was to give some of these 

 governors a chance to reheve their 

 minds, after which the congress could 

 get down to business. 



Governors Hay, of Washington, Nor- 

 ris. of J\k)ntana. and Brooks, of Wyo- 

 ming, had come from the recent con- 

 ference at Salt Lake City prepared to 

 insist upon state control of natural re- 

 sources and full of fight because they 

 had not the opportunity they desired on 

 the program. This session therefore 

 gave them their only real opportunity. 



The first speaker was Governor Noel, 

 of Mississippi, and he declared on be- 

 half of his state: "We stood for state 

 rights ; we are for state rights still ; but 

 we know that our only rights as states 

 are through the federal government." 

 He said further: "We stand for conser- 

 vation of natural resources by all gov- 

 ernment agencies, state and national. 

 that will ])reserve and protect them for 

 the use of the whole people." 



Governor Norris, of Montana, claim- 

 ed that his state originated conservation 

 legislation but to ])rove this he had only 

 to show a land law of 1908. llis cita- 



tion of this showed that he has given 

 little attention to the legislation of other 

 states or of the nation. He also as- 

 serted that the first conservation com- 

 mission, state or national, was appointed 

 by him for the state of Montana. He 

 then plunged into an impassioned de- 

 fense of state rights, in the course of 

 which he asked how, if Montana cannot 

 be trusted to legislate for herself, a dis- 

 tant state like Maine can be trusted to 

 legislate tor her. This seems to an un- 

 prejudiced listener to beg the ciuestion. 

 No one proposes that Maine or Florida 

 .shall legislate for Montana, but many 

 people do propose that the Congress of 

 the whole Cnited States shall legislate 

 for the ])rotection of its own property 

 and the interests of all of its pc<^])le in 

 every state. 



(Governor Deneen, of Illinois, ex- 

 pressed his sympath}- with the western 

 governors in their efforts towards the 

 development of then- own states, and 

 gave it as his opinion that the national 

 government should not interfere to pre- 

 vent the development of these western 

 states, but he also said that the national 

 government should not allow the nat- 

 ural resources of the cinmtry to be 

 wasted either through neglect (jr spolia- 

 tion, and that neither nuist it be placed 

 in a position where the legislatures of 

 the various states can hinder its efiforts 

 toward conserving all the resources for 

 all the people. The western states must 

 and will work with the central goverii- 

 ment, for they each have interests that 

 -neither can make available without the 

 other. 



Then came another attack from the 

 state rights side, by Governor Hay, of 

 Washington. The governor charged 

 with nuich show of feeling that his sec- 

 titju would not have been allowed rep- 

 resentation at this congress but for the 

 action of the city of St. Paul. He 

 sharply arraigned the government's 

 forest policy of his state as l):id inv the 

 poor settler. He said that in the con- 

 servation movement common sense had 

 given place to humbug, and fairness to 

 intolerance. He attacked the attempt 

 of the federal government to gain con- 

 trol of water powers by indirection, a 



