to the settler, wherever it may be situated. It wants 

 timber resources conservatively utilized, and not 

 wasted or destroyed. 



In connection with forestry interests there is just 

 now much question of the conservation of water 

 power sites. The demand is that federal lands 

 forming such sites should be withdrawn and leased 

 for the profit and at the pleasure of the federal gov- 

 ernment. Against this the whole West rightly pro- 

 tests. The water power differs from the coal de- 

 posit in that it is not destroyed by use. It will do 

 its undiminished work as long as the rains fall and 

 the snows melt. Not the resource but the use of 

 it is a proper subject for conservation and regu- 

 lation. To withdraw these sources of potential 

 wealth from present utilization is to take just so 

 much from the industrial capital of the states in 

 which they are situated. 



The attempted federal control of water powers is 

 illegal, because the use of the waters within a state 

 is the property of the state and cannot be taken 

 from it, and that the state may and actually does, 

 in the case of Idaho for example, perfectly safe- 

 guard its water powers from monopoly and make 

 them useful without extortion, has been shown 

 conclusively by Senator Borah in a speech in the 

 United States Senate in which this whole subject 

 is admirably covered. Back in our history beyond 

 the memory of most men now living there was 

 the same controversy over the public domain. 

 Ought it to be administered by the government and 

 disposed of for its profit, or opened to the people 

 and shared with the states? Let experience deter- 

 mine which was the better guardian. The worst 

 scandals of state land misappropriation, and there 

 were many, are insignificant when compared with 



