

CONSERVATION 



A partial inveiitorx xvas made and an 

 .i-k taki-n at the last conler- 

 .,ii(l ii would be out of place at this 

 I mi. to indulge in detail. In/cause the Na- 

 mal and Sta ' ervation Commissions 

 now ei iii making a complete in- 



all natural resour. 

 question, it seems to UK-, which 

 ..lit to engage tin- attention of the present 

 what policy ought to be 

 adopted for the future with respect to the 

 nservation of the natural resources of the 



< hie of two policies mils', he adopted in 

 order to succeed and that policy must be 



National, or State. 



Whatever policy is adopted must he cn- 

 d upon with a vigorous determination, 

 -tri'iig hand and under intelligent direc- 

 tion. 



And first as to a National policy: 

 As !o the authority and jurisdiction of 

 the I'Ydcral government oxer the undis- 

 posed of portions of the public domain, 

 there can he no <|iiestion. There the poxver 

 of Congress is unquestionably supreme with 

 respect to the soil, the mine, the forest and 

 :he si reams tributary to the navigable 

 xvaterxvax- and their use, certainly insofar 

 as Mich use might interfere with naviga- 

 tion. 



\LMUI. the I'Yderal government, under the 

 interstate clause of the Constitution, has 

 jurisdiction over the navigable waterways 

 of the country. About this, too, there can 

 In- no i|iie.stioii. 



In tl rcise of jurisdiction over the 



navigable waterways, hoxv far can Congress 

 or the courts go in the matter of the con- 

 ' ams \vhioh, though non-navi- 

 le. are nevertheless tributary to the 

 sources of supply, and so affect the uni- 

 lormitx of the tlo\\ of, waters in the navi- 

 gable liigh\va\-: 



lu the case of the United States v. Rio 

 inde ham and Irrigation Company. 174 

 S. <M>. the court discussed this ques- 

 tion m connection \\ith the appropriation of 

 For irrigation and other purposes as 

 ig the navigability of a river, and in 

 Hie . i i [hi opinion said : 



" Vhliou-h this poxver of changing the 

 in laxv rules as to streams within its 

 'lmain un.loiibtedly belongs to each State, 

 limitations must be recognized; 

 thai in the absence of specific au- 

 Congress, a State cannot, by 

 a: ion. destroy the right of the 

 the owner of lands border 

 stream, to the continued flov 



far at least as may be nee 

 the beneficial uses of the go\ 



rty. 



1 that it is limited by the superior 



the general government to secure 



I't.'d navigability of all na\ 



- itliin the limits of the United 



In other words, the jurisdiction of 



the general government over interstate 

 commerce and its natural highways vest in 

 that government the right to take all needed 

 measures to preserve the navigability of the 

 navigable water-courses of the country, 

 even against any State action. It is true, 

 there have been frequent decisions recogniz- 

 ing the powers of the State, in the absence 

 of Congressional legislation, to assume con- 

 trol of navigable waters within its limits 

 to the extent of creating dams, booms, 

 bridges and other matters which operate 

 as obstructions to navigability. The power 

 of the State to thus legislate for the in- 

 terests of its own citizens is conceded, and 

 until in some way Congress asserts its su- 

 perior poxver, and" the necessity of preserv- 

 ing the general interests of tfie people of all 

 the States, it is assumed that State action, 

 although involving temporarily an obstruc- 

 tion to free navigability of a stream, is not 

 -nbject to challenge." 



And again in the same case the court 

 said : 



"It does not follow that the courts would 

 be justified in sustaining any proceeding by 

 the Attorney General to restrain any ap 

 propriation of the upper waters of a naviga- 

 ble stream. The question is always one of 

 fact, whether such appropriation substan- 

 tially interferes with the navigable capacity 

 within the limits) where navigation is a 

 recognized fact. In the course of the argu- 

 ment this suggestion was made, and it seems 

 to us not unworthy of note, as illustrating 

 this thought. 



"The Hudson River runs within the limits 

 of the Stale of New York. It is a navigable 

 stream and a part of the navigable waters 

 of the United States, so far at least as from 

 Albany southward. One of the streams 

 xvhich flows into it and contributes to the 

 volume of its waters is the Croton River, 

 a non-navigable stream. Its waters are 

 taken by the State of New York for domes- 

 tic uses in the City of New York. Un- 

 questionably the State of New York has n 

 right to appropriate its waters, and the 

 United States may not question such ap- 

 propriation, unless thereby the navigability 

 of the Hudson be disturbed. On the other 

 hand, if the State of New York should, 

 even at a place above the limits of naviga- 

 bility, by appropriation for any domestic 

 purposes, diminish the volume of waters 

 \\hicli tloxv into the Hudson, a navigable 

 -tream. to such an extent as to destroy its 

 navigability, undoubtedly the jurisdiction of 

 the National government would arise and its 

 poxver to restrain such appropriation be un- 

 questioned; and within the purview of this 

 section it would become the right of the 

 Attorney General to institute proceedings 

 i" restrain such appropriation." 



Numerous other cases might be cited to 

 w that Congress has not only jurisdic- 

 tion of the navigable waterways, but over 

 the tributary streams as well, so as to pre- 



