74 



THE IRRIGATION AGE. 



canvas by the shining light with 

 whom we are honored from the state 

 of Washington. 



I have long since noticed, however, 

 that the most eloquent orators are, 

 as a rule, on the wrong side of the 

 question presented. We do not need 

 orators on the right side. All we need 

 is someone who, in an humble way, 

 may turn on sufficient light to enable 

 us to see the points involved the 

 people do the rest. [Applause.] But 

 when we get on the wrong side of a 

 question then the more oratory we 

 use the more we cover up our tracks. 

 [Laughter.] 



I have not placed my remarks in 

 writing, as has the judge as to much 

 of his address, and consequently have 

 overlooked several good points which 

 I intended to mention in my opening 

 address, but it will not do to mention 

 them now, for there is a rule of ethics 

 among lawyers and debaters that one 

 must present his whole case in the 

 opening statement and confine the 

 closing remarks to answering the op- 

 ponent. 



The distinguished gentleman who 

 has just spoken tells you that we can 

 prove almost anything by figures and 

 gives us the hare-and-the-tortoise 

 story. We are neither hares nor tor- 

 toises on this occasion. [Laughter.] 

 When it comes to figures he at first 

 steers clear of them. You know 

 there is a rule recognized by every- 

 one that figures will not prevaricate. 

 You will therefore understand why 

 my opponent wants to dodge them. 

 [Laughter.] But Judge Graves finally 

 forgot himself and fell back upon 

 "figuristic" logic himself. In nearly 

 25 years' practice of the law I have 

 found that it is human to tell the 

 truth. If a witness upon the stand 

 tries to mislead you, tries to cover up 

 the truth, it is because of some motive 

 in his mind, but if you catch him off 

 his guard, when the motive is for the 

 moment lost, he will unconsciously 

 tell the truth. To tell the truth is 

 natural; to falsify requires an effort. 

 Now, it seems that Judge Graves 

 finally forgot himself on this occasion 

 and actually used figures; he acci- 

 dentally let out the truth with them. 

 [Laughter.] 



The judge picks out specific in- 

 stances to prove that a reclamation 

 service project in a particular case 

 cost more than a certain private 

 project over across the line. We can 

 prove anything in that way. It is a 

 case of reasoning from a special in- 

 stance to a general rule, which no 

 test of logic will uphold. We can 

 pick out special instances and prove 

 the contrary; we can pick out hun- 

 dreds of cases in the United States 

 and when I say hundreds it is no ex- 

 aggeration where private projects 

 cost from $30 to $60 per acre, and up 

 to $125. A private project in the 

 state of Washington, for example, 

 cost $100 per acre, about one-half of 

 which will go as profit to those who 

 build the project and which must be 

 paid by the settlers on the lands. 

 While under the government projects 

 the entire profit goes to the settlers 

 who pay the bills; the government re- 

 ceives no profit, the settlers receive 

 it all, but under projects using private 



capital, a large profit must be re- 

 ceived, which, in part, accounts for 

 the excess cost on private-capital 

 projects as compared with govern- 

 ment projects \vhere no profit is de- 

 manded or received. 



.There is only one safe way to esti- 

 mate this question of cost, and that 

 is to take a given number of projects, 

 as we have done fifteen, say, of the 

 largest projects on each side and 

 average them up and see what they 

 cost. I am not asking you to take 

 my word for it; you can get the sta- 

 tistics and figure it out yourself. 

 When you do so you will find that, 

 on an average, the government proj- 

 ects cost less than $50 per acre, while 

 the projects constructed with private 

 capital cost more than $60 per acre, 

 plus interest, which, in the end, more 

 than doubles that sum. 



The trouble I find in much of the 

 judge's argument is that he, to start 

 with, assumes a premise which we 

 do not accept, but which, if accepted, 

 must lead us to his conclusion. He 

 tells you that he does not want to see 

 the government given the power to 

 withdraw all the sources of water 

 supply; he does not want to see the 

 government given the power to con- 

 trol all the irrigation in the United 

 States, etc. Neither do I. Neither do 

 you. Nor has the government under- 

 taken, nor have any of its agents or 

 officials in the United States Recla- 

 mation Service advocated anything of 

 that kind. 



There is nothing in connection with 

 the reclamation service or its poli- 

 cies that prevents any private enter- 

 prise from reclaiming land wherever 

 and whenever desired; in fact, recla- 

 mation by private capital has been 

 encouraged by the service. At least 

 I know this to have been the situa- 

 tion during the last four years. The 

 sad and painful feature of it is, how- 

 ever, that usually when such reclama- 

 tion has been undertaken, the inter- 

 ested parties have finally called upon 

 the reclamation service begging that 

 we take the matter off their hands. 

 And in many cases the bondholders 

 are willing to sacrifice hundreds of 

 thousands of dollars of their invest- 

 ment in order to get us to do so. 



There is one peculiar inconsistency 

 in the argument of the gentleman 

 who has just addressed you, and that 

 is, he does not believe in the govern- 

 ment entering upon the irrigation of 

 these lands, and yet he is perfectly 

 willing and anxious for the govern- 

 ment to loan its credit to the extent 

 at least of guaranteeing the interest 

 on irrigation district bonds, or even 

 a large part of the principal, in order 

 to aid irrigation districts in the build- 

 ing of these projects to which he re- 

 fers. He is willing for the govern- 

 ment to assist if Uncle Sam will only 

 permit the districts or the citizens to 

 receive the benefit of such assistance 

 without having any right of supervi- 

 sion over them. This, he says, is not 

 government "activity," but govern- 

 ment "aid." But where is the differ- 

 ence? It smells as sweetly under one 

 name as the other. 



He referred to me as having spoken 

 before the senate committee in favor 

 of what is known as the Jones' bill, 



which embodies the plan I have just 

 mentioned. I will admit that I did 

 speak in favor of the general prin- 

 ciples presented by that bill, but there 

 is not a word in the report of my 

 argument, which consumed the fore- 

 noons of two days, from which it can 

 be inferred that I favor the govern- 

 ment guaranteeing either the bonds 

 or interest and at the same time per- 

 mitting the private or municipal cor- 

 poration, as the case may be, to have 

 absolute control of the project, and 

 of its distribution and management, 

 including the disbursement of the 

 funds, etc. 



But I do believe in the principle 

 of the government guaranteeing the 

 bonds, principal, and interest, and so 

 stated in my argument, provided the 

 work shall be done under government 

 supervision; that is to say, the proj- 

 ects must be built and remain under 

 government management until at 

 least one-half of the funds are repaid. 

 And in my argument before the sen- 

 ate committee I intended clearly to 

 say so. I made the remark that I 

 favored the general principles of that 

 bill, but that there were many things 

 in it which I did not favor. Senator 

 Jones, who was its sponsor, replied: 

 "We are not sticklers for this par- 

 ticular bill as it is. What are your 

 suggestions? We are willing to have 

 it amended." I then gave my views 

 in a general way as to how it might 

 be amended, which included govern- 

 ment building and control until the 

 investment should be deemed safe. 



I make this explanation that it may 

 not be inferred that I believe in the 

 government guaranteeing payment 

 and at the same time leaving the 

 management to private enterprise 

 without the supervisory control of 

 the United States.. I am both for 

 that bill and against it; it just de- 

 pends on how it is amended, and I 

 think before we get through Senator 

 Jones, of Washington ; Judge Graves, 

 of the same state; and I will not be 

 far apart. I think all of us will finally 

 "wind up" in favor of the govern- 

 ment supervising the matter to the 

 extent of the building of the project 

 and the disbursing of the funds and 

 maintaining control over them, until 

 after the greater part of the indebted- 

 ness is paid, just as it does on proj- 

 ects constructed under the present 

 reclamation laws. 



We are told by the speaker who 

 has just addressed y.ou, as I under- 

 stood him, that it might be better for 

 the government, out of the general 

 fund, to build irrigation projects 

 just as it dredges the harbors and 

 rivers. Now, ladies and gentlemen, 

 there is a vast difference between 

 that class of public works and the 

 reclamation of arid lands. When you 

 dredge or improve a harbor or river 

 the boats of the entire world may 

 float into that harbor or upon that 

 river. It is the property not only of 

 the United States, but to a large ex- 

 tent of the whole world. But when 

 you reclaim a farm and turn it over 

 to an individual, upon that land its 

 owner is the "monarch of all he sur- 

 veys," and he can prevent any tres- 

 passer from coming upon it. But 

 not so with rivers and harbors. The 



