EDITORIAL 



233 



is remembered that men in Senator Hey- 

 burn's section have, in cases, been sus- 

 pected of helping themselves, by ques- 

 tionable means, to public lands, includ- 

 ing the metals and mineral under the 

 surface of the lands, the forests grow- 

 ing upon them, and even the squirrels 

 themselves which gambol in the 

 branches of those forests, it would 

 seem that, for a charge preferred upon 

 the floor of the Senate of the United 

 States, the one under consideration is 

 somewhat lacking in dignity and 

 weight. 



Public Advantage from Reclamation 



IN A news item in this issue appears 

 a statement regarding the progress 

 of the work of draining the Florida 

 Everglades. Lands hitherto valueless 

 are being redeemed. We are informed 

 that a vigorous demand has already- 

 sprung up for these lands, and the state 

 could easily dispose of every acre of 

 them. It is recognized, however, that, 

 with the progress of the drainage, the 

 value of the lands will steadily en- 

 hance until, by the completion of the 

 work, they will attain such figures as 

 are obtained for the rich coal lands of 

 the western states. This region, it is 

 expected, will be converted from a 

 habitation of Seminoles and crocodiles 

 into a home area for thousands of pros- 

 perous and contented farmers. 



Next follows a still more interesting 

 statement. We are told that, instead of 

 converting all these lands into private 

 ownership, the Drainage Board has 

 wisely reserved each alternate section, 

 from which the state will, in time, reap 

 a substantial reward in the great en- 

 hancement of value which is certain to 

 follow the success of the reclamation 

 project. 



As is well known, numerous western 

 states, in converting public into pri- 

 vately owned lands, reserved .one sec- 

 tion in each township for public-school 

 use. Some of the younger states went 

 further and reserved two sections in 

 each township. One of these school 

 sections lies in the heart of the city 



5 



of Chicago; it is still public property, 

 and the land is now enormously valu- 

 able. Had the school sections been gen- 

 erally retained by public authority and 

 properly administered they would, in 

 numerous instances, have proved gold 

 mines for the promotion of public edu- 

 cation, instead of, as was frequently 

 the case, for the multiplication of 

 "swollen fortunes." 



A valued correspondent calls atten- 

 tion to the principle of the Revolving 

 Fund, in accordance with which public 

 moneys, appropriated for improvement 

 purposes, do not inure wholly or pri- 

 marily to private advantage, but are re- 

 couped from the proceeds of the im- 

 provements, and made available for 

 repeated uses. For example, the fund 

 used by the Reclamation Service, be- 

 ginning with a little more than $3,- 

 000,000, and amounting now to above 

 $51,000,000, is a permanent fund. The 

 Government uses it to reclaim an arid 

 or semi-arid region, receives back from 

 the users of the irrigated lands the 

 equivalent of the funds actually used 

 in reclamation work, and is thus in po- 

 sition to irrigate still other lands ; so 

 to continue, personally, ad infinitum, 

 until there shall remain no other desert 

 worlds to conquer. 



The same principle has been intro- 

 duced into one, at least, of the bills 

 before Congress for the drainage of 

 swamps. Its workings in the case of 

 the Reclamation Service are admirable. 

 In the case of a great National drain- 

 age service there is excellent reason to 

 believe the principle would work 

 equally well. 



Why, now, is not this principle sus- 

 ceptible of much wider application? It 

 is conceded that certain great public 

 improvements, if effected at all, must 

 be initiated, carried through and paid 

 for by the public. On what ground 

 or principle can we justify a policy 

 which then transfers the sole or chief 

 benefit of such improvements to private 

 individuals and corporations? If indi- 

 viduals are to enjoy the proceeds, why 

 should they not bear the burdens? If, 

 on the other hand, the public must do 

 the work and pay the bill, should it not 



