THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



167 



influence the expenditure of the reclamation funds 

 toward corporate and selfish ends, and we further believe 

 that when once they know the truth they will cease to 

 stand sponsor for the acts of Mr. George H. Maxwell 

 and the interests he represents. We reach this conclu- 

 sion from the fact that many of those who have been 

 most influential in the National Irrigation Association 

 have already withdrawn their support from it. It is 

 these men who, with state officers, irrigation officers, 



ADD1SON J. McCUNE, 

 State Engineer, Denver, Col. 



irrigation associations, newspapers and newspaper cor- 

 respondents, have provided the material on which the 

 discussion is based. 



It is the desire of the AGE to use its utmost effort 

 in support of what is right in carrying out the provi- 

 sions of the National Irrigation Act. In doing this 

 we shall give our unqualified endorsement to all, 

 whether individuals or public officers, who stand 

 squarely on the side of an honest and wise expenditure 

 of the funds made available by the act. The expendi- 

 ture of these funds is a trust from the whole people for 

 the benefit of the whole people, and we cannot idly 

 see this trust misplaced through the machinations of 

 corporate agents. 



His Mistakes. 



From Montana newspapers we glean 

 that the Executive Chairman of the 

 National Irrigation Association, Mr. 

 George H. Maxwell, has been misus- 

 ing the prestige of his position and all the facilities af- 

 forded by the N. I. A. to prevent needed irrigation 

 legislation in that state. This action by Mr. Maxwell 

 is foreign to the purpose which most members of the 

 N . I. A. regard as its legitimate function. His per- 

 sistent interference in state matters, his wilful misrep- 

 resentations concerning meritorious measures have 

 hindered instead of aiding irrigation ; the result to Mr. 

 Maxwell is merited loss of influence and esteem in 

 Montana. 



Montana credits him with some good done in 

 helping to create sentiment for national aid, but 

 charges he has been guilty of utilizing the literary bu- 

 reau of the N. I. A. to mislead by unfair statements 

 concerning laws and to circulate malicious attacks on 



a government official who has an untarnished record for 

 able irrigation work. Just what Mr. Maxwell's motive 

 is beyond personal dislike is not shown, but those fa- 

 miliar with his past believe time will disclose that his 

 aim is entirely selfish. 



Noting last fall that the Montana papers were em- 

 phasizing the need for better irrigation laws, Mr. Max- 

 well tried to forestall action by a long open letter to 

 Senator Gibson, in which he condemned, what two 

 years before he had in publications and in a brief be- 

 fore the California Supreme Court, praised very high- 

 ly, viz. : the Wyoming law. He referred to it as the 

 Mead "theory" of State control, with its army of polit- 

 ical appointees, predicted conflict with the federal gov- 

 ernment if any legislation ,was enacted, and plead for 

 no action. He did not investigate conditions in Mon- 

 tana, as he should have, he ignored the special re- 

 ports made by the Government, he suppressed the fact 

 that what he designated as a "theory" had for twelve 

 years in Wyoming, for seven years in Nebraska, and 

 for eight years in the Northwest Territory, been in suc- 

 cessful operation to the great satisfaction of irrigators. 

 That in these two States, under it, there had been over 

 5,000 claims adjudicated with slight expense and trouble 

 to claimants, and so justly decided that only about a 

 dozen appeals to court had been taken. 



To befog the situation he made "home rule in irri- 

 gation" a slogan. Soon after his initial attempt to de- 

 ceive Montanians, a report was ma-de to the Governor 

 recommending a law based on the Wyoming law and 

 containing some of the law proposed for California by 

 her able State commission. In that report it was shown 

 that Mr. Maxwell had not been fair in his presentation, 

 and a controversy resulted. 



Maxwell vociferously asserted that serious compli- 

 cation with the national government would ensue if the 

 State enacted an irrigation code, but he failed to show 

 how or why a law which embodied recommendations 

 made by the Government would hinder the national ir- 

 rigation law, or why of necessity any conflict between 

 State and Nation should arise. The position taken by 

 the State, or rather in the report to the Governor was 

 "The federal and State governments each have inter- 

 ests in the arid lands within the State, each have a 

 work to do in connection therewith that the other can- 

 not perform; there is no necessity for conflict of ani- 

 thority, there need be no friction between them and 

 the proposed laws makes easy their effective co-opera- 

 tion for the common good." A statute to aid the gov- 

 ernment in construction of reservoirs and other means 



of saving flood waters was included. 



It is significant that despite Mr. Maxwell's state- 

 ments as to what the Government would do, it bars out 

 of nine projects selected six in States having State con- 

 trol of water. 



Mr. Maxwell's "home rule" idea proved a mis- 

 nomer. In November Forestry and Irrigation he is on 



