company simply went into court, paid the fine, and there the matter ended. 

 We want to be fair and square with all the manufacturing interests. We 

 should not say that within 60 or 90 days, or anything less than a year cer- 

 tain improvements must be made. We should give them suflScient time. 

 Then there should be a law with a penalty of from $2,000 to $5,000 for the 

 second offense, and there is no doubt that improvements would be made and 

 our streams cleaned up. 



Mr. Hoover's meeting was a fine thing. International waters, of course, 

 and outlying waters along the coast are for the Government to take care 

 of; but I object to the United States Government coming into our State 

 and telling us what we must do with our streams and other waters. Our 

 legislature convenes once in two years, and our commission will recom- 

 mend a law along the line I have outlined, giving manufacturing plants 

 sufficient time to take care of their industrial waste. Then we should fix 

 a penalty that will make them sit up and take notice. I would deal fairly 

 with them, but in that way we would clean up the streams. I believe our 

 legislature is in the right temper to pass such a law. The protests we get 

 on account of this sort of thing are mighty annoying, when we are tied 

 hand and foot with a maximum fine of $100 ! 



Mb. Alexander: I do not think Mr. Hoover contemplated taking con- 

 trol within the States, particularly as to inland conditions. I am i)Ossibly 

 as strong a believer in State rights as anyone here. That is the principle 

 upon which our Government has largely been founded, as we see it down in 

 my section of the country ; but we have had some demonstrations of federal 

 control. Take the yellow fever situation in the South, and particularly in 

 my State ; also the matter of levee protection along the Mississippi River, 

 and the boll weevil in the cotton districts. All of these were taken care 

 of by the Federal Government. Many of the rivers in Wisconsin which are 

 affected by stream pollution probably enter into other States. These rivers 

 go from State to State, and when that condition prevails it seems to me 

 that the Federal Government could well come in and advise with you, and, 

 if necessary, take control and remedy the condition, recognized by all as 

 one of the most serious with which we have to contend. 



Mr. E. Lee LeCompte, Baltimore, Md. : I beg to state that I cannot 

 agree with Mr. Barber. Wisconsin cities may, though I doubt it, be located 

 on streams different from other States of the union. As the Game Warden 

 of Maryland, I have more trouble with pollution than vs^ith the enforcement 

 of the game and fish laws — ten times as much. In many instances the 

 pollution is not caused by the manufacturing industries located in our 

 State. For instance there is one pulp mill in West Virginia just across 

 the border, which pollutes the waters of the Potomac River. The mill had 

 been putting all of its waste into the Potomac, and finally the people below 

 at Cumberland complained that the fish life was absolutely destroyed. I 

 am just as strong an advocate of State rights as any one hei*e, but when 

 the States do not take care of a situation of that kind, give me federal legis- 

 lation that will. A justice of the peace thinks that a $2.5 fine for a viola- 

 tion of the game and fish laws is awful and that a man ought not to pay 

 more than a dollar and a half at the outside. So how can you ever get 

 a conviction with a fine of .$2,000? I have had a number of pollution cases, 

 but have never had one brought to trial, because I had no faith in the 



128 



