Mr. HAYDEN. The Mexican authorities could have no legitimate objection to the construction of a high-line canal which had for its object the irrigation of the east mesa in the Imperial Valley? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. We have the land; we control the way of diverting the water from the stream, and we would have a perfect right to do that without any diplomatic protest on their part?

Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely. But if we build a canal large enough to carry all the water that the Imperial Valley uses, it would be practically an announcement that we were not going to let any run down through the other canal. But even that wouldn't involve the element of permission; we can always drop water into that canal if proper arrangements are made by which it is brought down there, and it isn't necessarily a threat against the Mexican lands to build a high-line canal.

Mr. HAYDEN. That is my idea. I am also inclined to agree with you that we can not enter into any successful negotiations with Mexico until Congress has enacted legislation to authorize the construction of a canal to irrigate the Imperial Valley lands.

Mr. DAVIS. That is what I hold, and as long as we hold-if we do hold as some claim, that we must not take any action of this kind until we get an agreement with Mexico, it simply announces, "We are in your hands; do with us as you please."

Mr. HAYDEN. I do not believe that anybody on this committee feels that we should remain in such a position as that.

Mr. DAVIS. One other objection that has been raised by Mr. Rose is the difficulty of raising funds upon bonds issued by districts where the district includes public lands, and they have not been sold. The provision on that subject in this bill is merely discretionary with the Secretary of the Interior, and it is only a small portion of those lands in the State of California that he will be able to utilize for soldier settlement purposes. Of course, so far as it is necessary to raise the money, those lands could be sold in advance, but I don't see how it is necessary to do that to raise the money.

There was a provision for the sale of lands in the original Kettner bill to provide a guaranty fund. Now, the lands before they are sold, as the prospect of water approaches, are a better guaranty than the money which would be received for them if they were sold long before that. And so far as the raising of money is concerned, that depends upon these lands being bound by the action of the district. Now, under the Kettner bill they could not be so bound, and under this bill they can. I mean that under the Kettner bill they could not be so bound unless the land was sold, and under this bill they can. This bill makes those lands available as a basis for a bond issue, just the same as the Kettner bill, but in the form of public lands rather than private lands; and leaving them in the hands of the Government makes them a better guaranty than if they are sold in advance, because they are worth more every day as the delivery of water approaches.

Mr. ROSE. I would like to ask Mr. Davis a question. Those lands are not bonded and they can not be bonded in their present condition, and they can not organize an irrigation district in their present condition. Now, the bill provides for the filing of bonds for the

construction of the all-American canal in advance of the construction of it; how could they file those bonds and pay their proportion?

Mr. DAVIS. This bill provides that those lands may be included in the district, although they are a majority, and the district can issue bonds, can't it?

Mr. ROSE. But under the State laws, the district must have a population of 500 actual residents there.

Mr. DAVIS. Are you sure that is a fact?

Mr. ROSE. We have got the law right here.

Mr. DAVIS. I have heard it questioned. It may be the case.

Mr. ROSE. And those 500 must be bona fide residents, and the majority of the lands in there must petition, and then it must be submitted to an election, and a majority must vote for it at the election, and they must subdivide it into various districts.

Mr. DAVIS. There isn't any obstacle there to including these lands in a district that includes settled lands. For example, the Imperial irrigation district might be extended to include these lands.

Mr. ROSE. It might be extended and could under this provision take in these lands, but the objection to that probably would come that it requires the consent of the people inside to take them in. Mr. DAVIS. Well, I don't think that is unfair.

Mr. ROSE. Well, it is under such conditions as they might see fit to prescribe. Now, the land which would be taken in is not all public land, so certainly if the conditions were not satisfactory to the private lands out there, they would not come in. In other words, supposing they attempted to attach a portion of their bonded indebtedness, the present private lands out there would not consent to it. Mr. WELLING. I want to ask you a question. Under your law, do think you could get 500 families to move out onto these unoccupied public lands and form an irrigation district without any water in sight or anything of the sort, and then go to work and vote for the bonds? In other words, can you settle these public lands under your law? Can you get the people to go out there and do it? Mr. ROSE. Absolutely.

you

The CHAIRMAN. What is their basis for legal residence? Do they enter these lands first?

Mr. ROSE. They would purchase the lands and build houses there, and probably put down a well or a community well, and then they would settle there and register that that was their residence. Mr. WELLING. They couldn't make a living there.

Mr. ROSE. They couldn't make a living there, but they could settle on it.

Mr. WELLING. That would just be constructive residence.
Mr. ROSE. That is all, complying with the law.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have to adjourn, gentlemen. It is 12 o'clock, and we will take this measure up next week.

Mr. WELLING. I am going to make a motion that the Hayden print of the proposition, the Hayden idea, be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, and that we ask for a report on it with special reference to its meeting the requirements of the Kettner bill. We have got to do that now, it seems to me. I think we ought to do it. I want to know if the Hayden bill fairly meets all of the requirements of the Kettner bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The requirements of the Kettner bill or the requirements of the Imperial Valley?

Mr. WELLING. The needs of the Imperial Valley.

The CHAIRMAN. As represented by them?

Mr. BARBOUR. If we have got to take up this Hayden bill and if we have got to have further delay, wouldn't it expedite matters if we had a subcommittee of this committee appointed to do that? Why do we have to go to the Secretary of the Interior and wait on all these matters? We are familiar with the questions involved in a general way at least, and why couldn't we appoint a subcommittee to take this up and get some action on it?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have got to say all the time on the floor that the Secretary of the Interior has indorsed these bills. We will have to say that.

Mr. WELLING. The idea is this: In my mind, they have got special law officers down there who are experts only in matters of drafting bills but who would understand the technical relations of all of these different problems to each other, and I would like to have the benefit of their opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. If we go on the floor of the House to pass this bill, we need the unqualified indorsement of the Department of the Interior.

Mr. TAYLOR. The chances are, Mr. Barbour, that the Interior Department would grant the composite bill and offer it back to us as a substitute, which would probably take up some of the Hayden provisions and dove-tail these things together in here; maybe leave out some or add some of them, and draft a bill here that they might recommend. If they do that, we would simply strike out all after the enacting clause of the Kettner bill and substitute this and go on.

Mr. HAYDEN. I think it would be advantageous, Mr. Chairman, to follow Mr. Barbour's suggestions and have you formally appoint a subcommittee to consider this legislation. I have been somewhat embarrassed about the work that I have done. I was not especially delegated by the committee to do it, and yet I tried to get a general idea, by questioning the witnesses and by questioning the members of this committee, as to about what the opinion of the committee would be; I thought this bill of mine would be helpful in that way. I am just as anxious as any man on the committee to see prompt action on this legislation.

Mr. BARBOUR. Could the secretary have back, Mr. Davis, do you think, a draft, as suggested by Mr. Taylor, inside of two or three days?

Mr. DAVIS. I don't know whether such a draft would be necessary. If it were referred to my office I don't think so.

Mr. BARBOUR. You could point out the features of the Hayden bill that you think are desirable, and of the Kettner bill, or preferably to the Kettner bill, and then let the subcommittee take it and thrash it out and be ready to report some day next week, and decide what we are going to do?

Mr. DAVIS. Of course, I don't know whether the Secretary would indorse my draft. I am not trying to commit the Secretary at all.

Mr. TAYLOR. I move that a subcommittee of three be appointed. I think Mr. Smith, Mr. Barbour, and Mr. Hayden can get together

here. They are more familiar with it. Mr. Smith has given a great deal of thought to this matter; in fact, he has got a bill here that he is entitled to have reported:

Mr. BARBOUR. I suggest that Mr. Smith be the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. WELLING. What are you going to do about submitting the Hayden print for report from the department?

Mr. BARBOUR. We will submit both of them.

Mr. WELLING. I ask that that be done, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us understand specifically, which one do you want to submit?

Mr. WELLING. The Hayden bill.

Mr. TAYLOR. And call attention to the Kettner bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the subcommittee is appointed as suggested, Mr. Barbour, Mr. Hayden, and Mr. Smith, and we will now adjourn. Report of the Secretary of the Interior, see appendix, Exhibit B. Report of the Secretary of State bearing on treaty provisions in force between the United States and Mexico upon the provisions of Kettner bill, see appendix, Exhibit C.

Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on H. R. 9421 (Mr. Hayden), see appendix, Exhibit D.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE OF COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS, Wednesday, October 29, 1919.

The committee met at 2 o'clock p. m., being a subcommittee of the Committee on Irrigation of Arid Lands, having under consideration H. R. 6044, known as the all-American canal for the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, Calif., consisting of Mr. Barbour, Mr. Hayden, and Mr. Smith, all of whom were present, Mr. Barbour presiding.

Mr. BARBOUR. Gentlemen, we have had referred to us H. R. 6044 by Mr. Kettner, and we have met for the purpose of hearing further testimony from Mr. Thomas C. Yager, representing the Coachella Valley, and Mr. Mark Rose, representing the Imperial Valley, Calif. Mr. Yager, the subcommittee will now be pleased to hear from you. STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. YAGER, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY, MORE PARTICULARLY THE COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, COACHELLA, CALIF.

Mr. YAGER. Recently you may have heard a great many statements being made in regard to the position taken by the different departments of our Government and how their position is affecting the passage of our bill; so I have asked permission to discuss before your committee some of those positions and present some facts as we know them, and in the outset I want to state that it is not a desire on my part to criticize or be discourteous to any of the departments in any of my statements. However, if the facts which I present are disparaging to their interests they are facts that are created not by us but by the departments.

Since the hearings before this committee in the whole, there has been received a letter from the State Department opposing this

legislation. I will state that the State Department has set out in its letter that there is no legal or treaty obligations upon the part of the United States that compels the United States to furnish waters of the Colorado River to Mexico. In other words, there is no legal or treaty obligations depriving American citizens from diverting those waters upon American land. But the State Department in addition to that goes beyond that statement and suggests this wording: "I may say that it would seem to me that consideration of equity and comity would require that the bill should be so amended as to provide that the work contemplated thereby should not be constructed until the conclusion of an agreement between the Government of the United States and Mexico for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Colorado River."

I have stated that there is no legal or treaty obligations upon the United States that requires any distribution of the waters of the Colorado River with Mexico, and that is stated in Mr. Lansing's letter. Now, when we analyze Mr. Lansing's position and know conditions existing in Imperial and Coachella Valleys, I feel that he is not only opposing the interests of the people of the Imperial and Coachella Valleys, who are trying to develop the arid land of that district and create a valuation there that the people of this Government should be proud of, but he is opposing the interests of every citizen of the United States when we talk of depriving those citizens of something that is inherently ours. The waters of the Colorado River rise entirely within the United States and are inherently the property of the citizens of the United States.

I will state that the Imperial irrigation district, that has been most ably represented before this committee by Mr. Swing, has been bled by those interests south of the line. I refer to the Mexican corporations composed of American citizens, who have gone into Mexico for the purpose of exploiting Lower California and have developed their property in Mexico by waters of the Colorado River, and that most of this development has been paid for by farmers and at the expense of the land on this side of the national boundary line. It is this situation that I want to discuss in connection with the letter of Mr. Lansing.

Every mule, every man, all property that is taken into Mexico for the purpose of putting in protection works, not only for land on this side of the line but for protection of the land on that side of the line, has been taxed by the Mexican Government. They taxed the rails. to the extent of $25,000 that were laid on the levee in Mexico by the Imperial irrigation district for protection work; they tax all gravel, rock, and sand put there for building up protection work.

Mr. SMITH. Was that protection work for the benefit of the Imperial Valley people exclusively?

Mr. YAGER. Not at all, Mr. Smith. It was protection work for all of that territory in Mexico south of the line as well as for the Imperial irrigation district, and, as you can see from the map, any water that would break out there for any reason would first flood over Mexican lands, also the town of Mexicali, which is in Mexico. Mr. SMITH. So they make you pay for the privilege of protecting their own property?

Mr. YAGER. The Imperial irrigation district has paid for that. They have paid $5 a head for a mule to go over there, per month,