THE IEEIGATION AGE. 



1025 



again? The corporations developing the resources of the 

 West are only "small men," combined into corporations, 

 with officers and managers chosen for their ability in 

 large business. 



That the management of public utility concerns by 

 corporate methods is the most economical and efficient 

 has always been shown, particularly when the business 

 covers a wide field. The only exception to this rule are 

 some municipal waterworks, which are the simplest of all 

 public utilites to operate, and to which every man in the 

 community is closely related. 



The best thinkers on the subject have reached the con- 

 clusion that the prevention of unjust treatment of the 

 public at the hands of public utilities lies in their regu- 

 lation by state commissions. Under such regulation there 

 need be no fear of monopolies, and the excuse for giving 

 the resources employed in public service over to the Fed- 

 eral Government to prevent monoply falls 



On the other hand, the people of the United States 

 are well enough educated to know that the most danger- 

 ous monopoly of all is a government monopoly. When a 

 people loses its liberties, is oppressed, taxed and down- 

 trodden, this is always and always has been, at the hands 

 of government monoply. Contrast the condition of the 

 people of the Unted States, where the important affairs of 

 business are all controlled by the states, with the condi- 

 tion of people in other countries, where a central govern- 

 ment controls everything. 



The real danger to any nation lies in placing too much 

 power in the hands of a central government far from 

 the people themselves. If the states control, the popular 

 influence is nearer and stronger to direct the government 

 to do right. 



History teaches us that the manner in which people 

 are usually deprived of their liberties is just the way in 

 which the so-called "New Nationalism" proposes to do 

 it. At the bottom of all such schemes is hero worship, 

 that universal trait of human nature. In the present case 

 we have two men, Roosevelt and Pinchot, both very 

 popular with a certain class of the people. These men arr 

 both as shrewd politicians as the world has ever known, 

 both have had the opportunity, while in the public office, 

 to create a strong personal following, and while their star 

 was in the ascendency, they both took advantage of this 

 weakness of human nature. There are thousands of meh 

 who are ready to endorse anything put forward by Roose- 

 velt or Pinchot, even when it is against their own inter- 

 est. But the people are now beginning to ask "what is 

 what," instead of "who is who," hence the change in pub- 

 lic sentiment and the waning popularity of these two prom- 

 inent Americans. 



There has never been any reason advanced for the 

 theory that the Federal Government should control, lease 

 or otherwise convert to its use the natural resources with- 

 in the different states. On the contrary, whenever anyone 

 has given sound reasons why this should not be done, he 

 has been met with the accusation that he cannot be 

 trusted, because he may own or represent interests, cor- 

 porate or otherwise, which are engaged in the develop- 

 ment of natural resources, or devoting their capital and 

 energy to public service. 



Thus at the Eighteenth National Irrigation Congress 

 held in Pueblo, Colorado, last September, Mr. Pinchot's 

 address merely consisted in proclaiming that speakers and 

 delegates who had any connection with corporations mus^t 

 not be given credence, and he followed this up by moving 

 that any delegate hereafter addressing the Congress should 

 state his connection with corporation business, if any, be- 

 fore speaking. Well does Mr. Pinchot know that every 

 delegate of much prominence at irrigation congresses is 

 either interested in water companies, power companies 

 and other lines of western development, or else he is a 

 politician of Mr. Pinchot's school and therefore desires 

 to have all business controlled by government bureaus. 

 Apply the gag to those who risk their capital and energy 

 to develop the country, to make homes, prosperity and 

 employment for millions of people, with sometimes a 

 profit to themselves, and as often a loss, and let the 

 political adventurer, who labors not and risks nothing, 

 be heard in favor of creating government monopoly, which 

 once well established, may require a revolution to again 

 emancipate the people. 



Yet, the writer, who was a delegate to the Pueblo 



Congress, seconded Mr. Pinchot's motion, believing that 

 this sort of demagogy is best exposed by meeting it 

 openly. Have the people who represent the business in- 

 terests of the country no right to be heard? Why should 

 a man be afraid to speak up because he is financially or 

 professionally interested in corporations? Are not the 

 funds of estates, belonging to widows and orphans, the 

 savings of the poor and the surplus earnings of profes- 

 sional people, as well as the capital of the wealthy, in- 

 vested in these corporations? 



Long enough have the men who represent the solid 

 business interests, which by the investment of capital 

 in railroads, power plants, irrigation works, mines, fac- 

 tories and a thousand kindred industries, made the masses 

 more prosperous and wealthy, been intimidated by dem- 

 agogues, agitators and politicians. Let them henceforth 

 stand up erect, proclaim who they are and "call" the 

 Roosevelt-Pinchot bluff. 



With an opportunity to present facts and arguments, 

 the following matters will become clear: 



1. The law has vested in the different states the wa- 

 ters of non-navigable streams within their respective bord- 

 ers to dispose of to those who, in compliance with the 

 state laws, will develop them for beneficial purposes. The 

 different states may give away, sell or lease these waters 

 to the people, and profits, whether direct returns in cash 

 or indirect benefits to the community, ought to belong to 

 the states and not to the Federal Government. 



2. In non-navigable interstate streams the different 

 states have a right to grant, lease or otherwise dispose of 

 the waters within their own borders, with due regard for 

 the rights of neighboring states through which the same 

 stream may flow. The profits of whatever nature result- 

 ing from the disposition of such waters should belong to 

 the states and not to the Federal Government. Disputes 

 regarding interstate streams, as between different states, 

 must be settled by the Federal courts, with due regard 

 to the needs, conditions and laws of the litigant states. 



3. Navigable streams, no matter where located, be- 

 long to the Federal Government for its use in promoting 

 commerce, but concessions to the states to dispose of the 

 waters of such streams for other purposes, when not in- 

 consistent with the requirements of commerce, or when 

 they are more valuable for other purposes, should be 

 made. 



4. The disposition of minerals on public lands within 

 a state should be left to the state, not only because a 

 state is entitled to this right to develop its natural re- 

 sources, but because the people of a state, being in closer 

 touch with local conditions, can better and more safely 

 be intrusted with its management. The soundness of this 

 position is demonstrated by the fact that the Federal 

 Government has usually been defrauded out of valuable 

 resources controlled by it, while the states have usually 

 realized a profit and disposed of their resources under 

 proper safeguards. Examples of this are seen by the re- 

 spective ways in which the iron deposits in Minnesota 

 were disposed of by the state and the Federal Government, 

 the manner in which the coal lands in Colorado were 

 handled by that state and the United States, etc. 



5. The natural resources of each state are needed for 

 its own development and prosperity and the Federal Gov- 

 ernment cannot rightfully tax them for the benefit of the 

 entire country, unless all the states would be proportion- 

 ately affected by such taxation. The states will not be 

 thus affected because they do not all possess undeveloped 

 natural resources in the same proportion, and some states 

 like Texas own their own resources and would take from 

 the others without giving anything in return. 



6. For Federal Government to tax by leasing, or 

 otherwise, the resources yet to be developed in certain 

 states, will only inure to the benefit of corporations al- 

 ready in possession of similar resources, which the gov- 

 ernment has no power to tax. 



7. A Federal bureau for controlling the resources of 

 the states is an infringement of the liberties of the people, 

 and a step towards monarchfal government by changing 

 from democracy to bureaucracy. 



8. Private monopolies can be controlled by state and 

 national commissions for the regulation of the business of 

 corporations, but a government monopoly once firmly 

 established, can only be dislodged by revolution. 



