142 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



opposite from what it says. I claim that congress 

 passed those Indian provisions entirely ignorant of 

 the purpose of that particular provision and did not 

 intend to pass a legislative construction act. 



Now we come down to the estimated cost 

 proposition again. The Smith bill provides as fol- 

 lows, "(f) Regarding the method of determining 

 the charges per acre on the several projects so as 

 to recover all expenditures which the Secretary of 

 the Interior shall find to have been made on account 

 of the project." If Mr. Newell gets that provision 

 through congress he has then got a legislative con- 

 struction of what congress intended in providing 

 for the estimated cost in the original act. That pro- 

 vision glosses over his whole ten years of malad- 

 ministration and legalizes all the graft, incompet- 

 ency, extravagance and inefficiency of ten years 

 duration and at one fell swoop charges the whole 

 thing to the homesteader and western landowner, 

 the very men the act of 1902 intended to aid. 



This sly legislative construction business is a 

 new art in legislation, and for ways that are dark 

 and vain, the Chinese are not in it. When we get 

 into court on the estimated cost we will be met 

 with this constructive measure of an act passed by 

 a previous congress ten years back. But if congress 

 passes this measure it will not know what it is do- 

 ing, but will be made to think that it is providing 

 for and conserving the fund against those who might 

 be disposed to cheat the government out of its just 

 due, whereas the real purposes is to let the Service 

 get away with the swag without getting caught. 

 Yes, and have it all charged to the farmer. A big- 

 ger bunco game was never pulled off in the days 

 of '49. 



I never believed very strongly in the extension 

 plan. It would not have been necessary if the 

 contract price had been kept with the farmer. It 

 is only necessary because the government has not 

 kept to its agreements and has not followed the law. 



SIMPLY A "BIG STICK" 



By O. E. Farnham 



(Belle Fourche, S. D.) 



Secretary of the National Federation of Waters Users' 

 Associations. 



To my mind the Smith bill is in no way a relief 

 measure, except so far as the reclamation service is 

 concerned. It is simply a "Big Stick" with which the 

 Department of the Interior can force the individual 

 Water Users into submitting to all the expenditures 

 that the department may find to have been made on ac- 

 count of any project, regardless of the vested rights 

 of the Water Users or landowners under the Rec- 

 lamation act and the acts of the Secretary of the 

 Interior in accordance therewith, and in total dis- 

 regard also of whether such expenditures have been 

 legitimately expended and properly charged. The 

 enactment of the law as drawn, if put into operation 

 as suggested by Mr. Lane in his communications 

 to the Water Users, will result in confiscation of 

 property rights in some projects. Its general plan 

 is in full accord with Mr. Newell's cherished ideas 

 to prevent a congressional investigation of the 

 Reclamation Service by placing the matter entirely 



in the hands of the Department of the Interior, and 

 thus save the heads of those responsible for many 

 grievous wrongs committed. The government is 

 entitled to know how the reclamation fund has been 

 handled during the past decade, for the protection 

 of the fund in the future, and these matters should 

 be thoroughly investigated by a nonpartisan body. 

 In the interest of the government as well as the 

 Water Users I most earnestly protest against the 

 passage of the measure in its present form. 



AVOID HARSH PENALTIES 



By Francis G. Tracy 



(Carlsbad, N. M.) 



Mr. Tracyfs article is printed only in fart, because of 

 lack of space. His complete analysis of the proposed extension 

 legislation and Mr. Lane's letter is one of the most able docu- 

 ments we have read on the subject of Federal irrigation. 

 THE EDITOR. 



In Secretary Lane's 

 admirable letter of Jan- 

 uary 16th, addressed to 

 each individual Water 

 User, he says: "The 

 question always before 

 us is whether or not the 

 United States can suc- 

 cessfully conduct a large 

 business enterprise upon 

 business principles with- 

 out injustice to its citi- 

 zens and without impos- 

 ing a too heavy burden 

 upon those with whom it 

 deals." 



At the same time 

 there comes to us copy 



Francis G. Tracy 



of the proposed reclamation extension act introduced 

 by the Irrigation commission, presumably to carry out 

 Mr. Lane's ideas. 



All of us who last spring attended the "illumin- 

 ating conference" with the secretary in Washington 

 came away thoroughly impressed by the breadth of 

 vision, humanity and singleness of purpose of the 

 new secretary, sobered by the stupendous difficul- 

 ties of the problems involved, and with the convic- 

 tion that at last the Water Users had found a friend 

 and brother in authority. This conviction must be 

 strengthened by the most remarkable letter ever re- 

 ceived by a group of citizens from a government 

 official. But, in weighing Mr. Lane's conclusions 

 and judging his policies we must not permit our 

 sympathies and our confidence in him unduly to 

 sway our judgment. A secretary is in office a few 

 years. We and our successors are Water Users for- 

 ever. The office, not the man, is wholly with us. 

 A wrong start now may carry us far astray before 

 it can be corrected. 



Multiplying restrictions, interference in details, 

 harsh penalties, severe terms of payment must be 

 avoided as far as practicable. Under present theo- 

 ries of government no direct liability is incurred for 

 injuries once committed. There is therefore all the 

 greater need to avoid injury and wrong doing and 



