234 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



the law from the burden of the bonds they themselves 

 had sold and then dishonestly sought to repudiate. He 

 did not succeed in having the district law annulled by 

 the courts, but he did succeed in so discrediting all dis- 

 trict securities that successful organization under the 

 law was for a time impossible. He is even now appeal- 

 ing to his former employers in one of the discredited 

 districts, promising in return that their land shall now 

 be irrigated by the National Government. This is no 

 secret, for it is fully known from Mr. Maxwell's own 

 letters sent to hundreds of farmers in the district. 

 There is not a single irrigation authority in California 

 who will say that had there been more of public super- 

 vision of the affairs of the various district organizations, 

 there would never have followed the calamitous results 

 that are a blot on the industrial history of the state. 



It would seem that Mr. Maxwell either has an idea 

 that the Government is to ultimately control the water 

 of the streams or that he desires to leave the matter 

 undisturbed until he has the leisure to dictate the irri- 

 gation policies of those states which have not yet pro- 

 vided a legal method whereby claims to water may be 

 equitably and definitely settled. He visited New Or- 

 leans last fall and in talking to the Chamber of Com- 

 merce of that city congratulated the people that there 

 were no good laws governing the diversion and use of 

 water in the State of Louisiana. He goes to Montana 

 and advocates his system of "home rule" as against a 

 measure which has been prepared by an able student 

 of irrigation, a man who has some interest in the wel- 

 fare of the state. To bring his ideas before the public, 

 ,he writes an open letter to Senator Paris Gibson, which 

 is sent broadcast to the papers of the state. This let- 

 ter cautions the people of Montana against the enact- 

 ment of any law which would be revolutionary in the 

 practice of the state. He speaks as though there were 

 no one within the borders of the state who could intel- 

 ligently frame a law suitable to the conditions prevail- 

 ing there. Lying between the Dominion of Canada and 

 Wyoming, it would seem that a compromise measure 

 incorporating a portion of the laws of both might not 

 go far astray. Behind all of the cautions urged by Mr. 

 Maxwell can be seen his desire to prevent the enact- 

 ment of any laws which might later interfere with the 

 prospects of a certain irrigation project lying within 

 the borders of Montana for the construction of which he 

 has failed to secure "specific appropriations" from Con- 

 gress. 



In the same letter to Senator Gibson he referred 

 to a bill which he says would be presented to the Cali- 

 fornia legislature. He prophesied that it would meet 

 the same fate as did a bill in the Arizona legislature 

 two years ago. Mr. Maxwell's influence killed the latter 

 measure and he takes pride in pointing to its failure. 

 The bill before the California legislature also failed of 

 passage, largely through the influences represented by 

 Mr. Maxwell. It was framed by some of the best law- 

 yers, irrigationists and judges of California. The poorer 

 class of irrigators can not afford to be continually in 

 court in defense of their water titles. The more wealthy 

 are able to control the available water supply by threat- 

 ened law suits. How long this condition is to prevail 

 in California depends upon how soon the people are 

 aroused concerning the purpose of those who are furnish- 

 ing paid lobbyists in the California legislature. 



Let us briefly consider the agencies which operated 

 to defeat the bill. At a meeting held at Riverside, on 

 the 29th day of last December to "consider" the merits 

 of the bill it was found that the program had been fully 



arranged before the delegates appeared. But one friend 

 of the measure was present and he was not on the pro- 

 gram. Charges had been made by those opposing the 

 bill that it had been framed for the benefit of the large 

 corporations. That there was no truth in this asser- 

 tion is demonstrated by the character of the delegates at 

 this convention. It was composed almost wholly of 

 agents of the great water companies of Southern Cali- 

 fornia, who have the irrigator in their power and who, 

 t for this reason, do not favor state restrictions to their 

 influence, or any provisions which might bring relief to 

 the actual user of water. The call for the meeting was 

 signed as follows : 



S. Armour, a director and officer of the Anaheim 

 Water Company, and others. 



John G. North, attorney for the Riverside Water 

 Company. 



F. C. Finkle, chief engineer of the Edison Electric 

 Company. 



E. W. Freeman, attorney for the Temescal Water 

 Company. 



George E. Otis, attorney for the Arrowhead Reser- 

 voir Company and others. 



H. Clay Kellogg, chief engineer of the Santa Ana 

 Valley Water Company. 



E. E. Keech, attorney for the same company. 



W. E. Smythe, representing other companies. 



Does this look as though the irrigator or the water 

 company opposed the bill? In this fight did Mr. Max- 

 well defend the interests of the irrigator, or did he array 

 himself with the corporations? The following quota- 

 tion from a statement made by one of the defenders 

 of the bill makes clear his position : 



"And then comes George H. Maxwell, another re- 

 former, who protests, in an article just published in the 

 Los Angeles Times, that the bill is bad because it makes 

 that very provision, preserving to the state the control 

 of the waters of its own streams. And why ? Because it 

 will interfere with national irrigation." 



In a letter written from Chicago by Mr. Maxwell 

 on February 11, 1903, he says: "It is true that a bill 

 embodying the theories of state property in the control 

 of water has been introduced in the California legisla- 

 ture, but the actual irrigators who compose the co-op- 

 erative canal companies of the southern part of the state 

 are up in arms against it, and are making a vigorous 

 and determined effort to prevent such a law from be- 

 ing inflicted upon the State of California." Mr. Max- 

 well knows that the actual irrigators were not repre- 

 sented at Riverside on December 29th of last year. 



Does Mr. Maxwell go to Nebraska, Colorado or 

 Wyoming legislatures and advocate his doctrines ? Does 

 he seek to outline the policies of those states relating 

 to irrigation or does he predict the outcome of any re- 

 form legislation there introduced? We have heard of 

 nothing of the kind. The irrigator is well represented 

 among the law makers of those states. 



Mr. Maxwell refers to the State of Washington as 

 having model irrigation laws. Those who have given 

 the matter study know that the rights of the irrigators 

 have never been established on a single stream in the 

 state, and where a few irrigators have gone to court 

 and obtained a decree fixing their relative rights, the 

 state assumes no responsibility in protecting them 

 from later diversions. Does this indicate that Mr. Max- 

 well is working in the interest of the irrigator? Will 

 a few court decisions with no state administrative ma- 

 chinery to carry decrees into effect ever lead to a just 

 settlement of rights? Government by injunction, at 



