11 



tnent of rivers aiitl harbors. I have not included this as among the plans 

 before the country because Mich plan has never been advocated in 

 congress; because I am told by some of the best lawyers in this State that 

 congress would have no constitutional right to make Mich appropriations, 

 and because it would meet with the unanimous opposition of other sec- 

 tions of the country. 



STATK SI' I 'KK VISION FAVORED. 



Whether this matter be considered from the standpoint of local 

 interest or from the standpoint of the best interests of the whole arid 

 region, 1 am in favor of either of the two plans for prosecuting the work 

 tinder State control, rather than either of the two plans for prosecuting 

 the work under national control. As regards the two plan* for prose- 

 cuting the work under national control: I am opposed to the first because 

 I wish to see some results accomplished in the lifetime of this generation. 

 I do not think there is any hope of doing this if we are to depend upon 

 appropriations from the national treasury. I am opposed to it 'because 

 tiny one who has had any acquaintance with the methods pursued in the 

 construction of national public works knows that they are far more 

 dilatory, far more expensive, than is the case in the prosecution of similar 

 work by either State or private authorities. 



NATIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING RIGHTS. 



I am opposed to both of the plans for prosecuting this work under 

 national control because it involves the surrender of the control of our 

 streams to those -authorities; because it revolutionizes the irrigation 

 system already established in this State. Whenever the United States 

 begins the building of ditches, an immediate conflict between the rights 

 of appropriations under the State law and appropriations under the 

 ditches built by the national government will ensue, the result of which 

 will be the jeopardizing of every appropriation made at the present time. 



I do riot look upon any movement which contemplates, or which 

 threatens this with the slightest degree of favor. The pioneers of irriga- 

 tion in ihis State have already expended over ten million dollars in ttie 

 construction of ditches and the reclaiming of lands. Through the 

 negligence of the United States to render them any aid or assistance, 

 they have done this work under the most adverse conditions; they have 

 done it in accordance with a system of water laws of their own creation, 

 a system of laws which they understand, which make their rights the 

 prior claims upon the waters of the streams, and which secures their, 

 rights and claims against all possible encroachments from the diversion 

 of these streams by any ager.cies under control of the State hereafter. I 

 believe that any surrender of the guarantees which the State laws afford, 

 of the protection which these prior water rights now enjoys, would be 

 nothing less than a crime, and I as fully believe that the invitation to 

 the United States authorities to take charge of this work, to assume such 

 jurisdiction over our streams, would involve such a su render. 



SACRIFICE OF NATURAL ADVANTAGES. 



I am opposed to making canal building a national work because it 

 involves the sacrifice of our natural advantages and the surrender of the 

 exclusive control of our water supply. Under such a system political 

 influence instead of industrial needs would govern the building of canals. 



