THE IRKIGATION AGE. 



15 



and whether such riparian owner can put the water to 

 a beneficial use on his land or not, then no legislation 

 that we may suggest, or the legislature enact, will ma- 

 terially relieve the situation. If that be the law, and 

 it cannot be changed or modified, there is probably no 

 water in any stream in the State that can be legally 

 appropriated, and the right to the use of water that 

 has been appropriated heretofore has only been acquired 

 by the sufferance of riparian owners or their neglect to 

 assert their rights. The enforcement of such a law 

 would be disastrous in the extreme. The majority of 

 the Commission do not believe, if this is the law of 

 the State, as declared by the Supreme Court, that it 

 cannot be changed by the legislature." 



This is not my statement. I hare not been able, 

 much to my regret, to attend the meetings of the Com- 

 mission and had no share in the preparation of this 

 report. The conclusions above expressed are those of 

 able jurists, and Mr. Maxwell once agreed with them, 

 as can be seen by readirfg a brief he filed in th United 

 States Court of Appeals in San Diego Flume Company 

 v. Souther et al. The following quotation shows how 

 different were the views he held before he began his 

 attempt to eliminate .the irrigation work of the Agri- 

 cultural Department: 



"The uncertainty as to what the law of California 

 is as to the source, nature and extent of a; right to 

 the use of water and the status, under the Constitution, 

 of a water company distributing water for irrigation, 

 on the one hand, and the irrigator, using the water, 

 on the other, is a great public detriment to California, 

 retarding both investment in the construction of irri- 

 gation work and the settlement of irrigated lands; and 

 as it now stands it is to be feared that the decision in 

 this case will rather intensify that uncertainty." 



There has been no important change in the laws and 

 no new interpretation given since the above statement 

 was made, to bring about Mr. Maxwell's conversion to 

 the opinion that California needs no reform in its 

 irrigation laws. 



One of Mr. Maxwell's grievances is that I entered 

 the Department's service from Wyoming. He appar- 

 ently does not like that State or any of its citizens. In 

 the supplement to the National Homemaker for March, 

 1902, he voices thie feeling as follows: 



"The fact should be borne in mind that it seems to 

 be always an influence coming from Wyoming which 

 makes trouble whenever the effort is made to get through 

 Congress legislation which would insure the settlement 

 of the public lands by small farmers. 



"Wyoming was for years the storm center of the 

 theory of State cession. The ablest argument in its 

 favor ever presented was the paper read by Elwood 

 Mead, then State engineer of Wyoming, before the 

 American Society of Irrigation Engineers at Denver, 

 some years ago. Failing to get State cession, the Mead- 

 Mondell Leasing Bill was brought forward as an alter- 

 native. This bill raised such a hornet's nest of opposi- 

 tion in the West, and even in Wyoming, among the 

 small settlers, that Mr. 'Mondell himself, who had in- 

 troduced it, moved to lay it on the table." 



Now, what are the facts? A Wyoming Senator 

 secured the passage of the Carey Act, which has done 

 more to promote settlement than any law passed by 

 Congress in ten years preceding the National irriga- 

 tion act. Under it, land must be both lived on ' and 

 cultivated before the Government parts with the title. 

 No man has done more to promote irrigation legislation 



than Senator Warren, of Wyoming, and when this at- 

 tack on the State of Wyoming was written every mem- 

 ber of its delegation was working with all the zeal in 

 his power to secure the passage of the National irriga- 

 tion act, Mr. Mondell having charge of the bill in the 

 House. , 



Mr. Maxwell speaks of a paper of mine as an argu- 

 ment in favor of cession. It was rather a discussion of 

 land and water laws, with cession urged as a means 

 of reform in their abuses. It was prepared seven years 

 ago when cession seemed the most promising method 

 of securing National aid in development. It was pub- 

 lished by Mr. Maxwell in the first issue of his National 

 Advocate as one of his opening guns in favor of such 

 aid and was commended by him in a public address. 

 When he speaks of the Mead-Mondell Leasing Bill, he 

 seeks to convey a falsehood without directly uttering 

 it. There never was any such bill. I have been in 

 favor of leasing the public grazing land in small tracts 

 to actual settlers, but Mr. Maxwell could just as truth- 

 fully have used this fact to call the Lacey Land Leasing 

 Bill the Mead-Lacey Bill as he could to call the Mon- 

 dell Leasing Bill the Mead-Mondell Bill, because I 

 had nothing to do with the framing of either of them 

 and never saw either until after they had been intro- 

 duced in Congress and printed. He could with equal 

 truth have called it the Maxwell-Mondell Leasing Bill, 

 because he formerly advocated leasing, as is shown by 

 the following quotation from an address he delivered 

 in Wichita, Kansas, and published in No. 2 of The 

 Homebuilder, issued by the National Irrigation Asso- 

 ciation : 



"The public grazing lands should be leased and the 

 revenues derived therefrom used to build large irriga- 

 tion works, such as reservoirs, main canals, and great 

 dams or diversion works, which would be beyond the 

 scope of the resources of the land owners." 



Judging from the fervor with which Mr. Maxwell 

 now supports the National irrigation act and attacks 

 those whom he claims opposed it, one would suppose 

 it had, from start to finish, received his unswerving 

 support. This was not the case, however. In February, 

 1902, when it seemed as if the bill would fail, he 

 issued a supplement to the National Homemaker, in 

 which he speaks of the bill and its advocates as follows : 



"No true friend of western development can con- 

 template this compromise committee bill without cha- 

 grin and humiliation. 



"No broad-minded eastern man, who wants the 

 whole country to grow and prosper, can contemplate 

 it without disappointment and disgust. 



"Every open and avowed opponent of the National 

 irrigation movement will hail it as a confirmation of 

 the charge that the whole movement is a scheme of 

 speculators and land grabbers to loot the National Treas- 

 ury for selfish, private profit. 



"No one needs a microscope to find the bugs in 

 the bill. They are so plain that. he who runs may read. 



They invite and make certain the defeat of the measure. 

 * * * 



"No western man can justify the bill to the East. 



"No bill can be passed without the support of the 

 East. 



"And there you are! * * * 



"What is the use of wasting any more precious 

 time trying to unite the West? 



"It can not be united on any measure which the 

 country generally will approve. 



