XXTI. GEORGE CHAMIER. 
inter-State navigable river should not be withdrawn, apart 
from ‘‘reasonable use’? of riparian owners, to the 
detriment of any vested interests in the river. It is no 
justification for such action to allege that South Australia 
contributes nothing to the Murray, as it is quite 
immaterial where the water comes from. It is no 
justification, as between States, to dwell on the superior 
importance of irrigation, for the development of the 
whole community over navigation, which represents a 
minor and much restricted interest. 
Such arguments, though plausible, carry no intrinsic 
right with them, unless it is the right of the strongest. 
No doubt, in a question of this sort, if a conflict of public 
interests became unavoidable and irreconcilable, then 
the cause promoting the greatest good of the greatest 
number must eventually prevail, but in this instance there 
is no necessity for a desperate struggle for supremacy, as 
simple methods are available for accommodating all differ- 
ences, and serving both interests without injury to either. 
There are two ways by which the navigation of the 
Murray in South Australia, might be maintained, without 
hindrance to the projected irrigation from that river :— 
First, by the construction of large, impounding reservoirs, 
where sufficient flood water might be stored to supply the - 
deficiency during the dry season, and there are suitable 
sites for such works. Secondly, by locking the lower 
river; by which means and at a small expense, the 
Murray, with South Australian territory, could be 
rendered permanently navigable, and with a greatly 
diminished water discharge. Under both these systems, a 
large volume of water, which now flows to waste, might 
be utilized with benefit to extensive areas of good land, at 
present almost valueless for settlement, through lack of 
moisture. 
: 
