and Mexico, is not prohibited by treaty provisions between the two countries. I quote from that opinion as follows:

"The minister contends that the irrigation ditches in Colorado and New Mexico, which result in diminishing the flow of water at El Paso, come within the treaty prohibitions of 'any work that may impede or interrupt, in whole or in part, the exercise of this right' (of navigation), because, as he says, 'nothing could impede it more absolutely than works which wholly turn aside the waters of these rivers.' But article VII is limited in terms to 'the part of the Rio Bravo del Norte lying below the southern boundary of New Mexico.' Article IV of the treaty of 1853 continues, the provisions of said Article VII in force only so far as regards the Rio Bravo del Norte below the initial of said boundary provided in the first article of this treaty. It is that part alone which is made free and common to the navigation of botn countries, and to which the various prohibitions apply. It is plain that neither party could have had, in framing these restrictions, any such intention as that now suggested. The fact, if such it were, that the parties did not think of the possibility of such acts as those now complained of would not operate to restrain language sufficiently broad to include them, but the terms used in treaty are not fairly capable of such a construction.

The

They naturally apply only to the part of the river with which the parties were dealing, and to such works alone as either party might construct on its own side if not restrained. Though equally divided, in theory, between the two nations where it is their boundary, the river is in fact a unit for purposes of navigation, and therefore the treaty required the consent of both for the construction of any work that may impede or interrupt' navigation, even though it should be for the purpose of favoring new methods of navigation. ' (Art. VII.) Up to the head of navigation no such work could have been constructed save by one of the two Governments or by its authority. prohibition was, therefore, appropriately made applicable to them alone, and not to the citizens of either 'neither shall, without consent of the other, construct, etc. Above the head of navigation, where the river would be wholly within the United States, different rules would apply and private rights exist which the Government could not control or take away save by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, so that clear and explicit language would be required to impose upon the United States such obligations as would result from the construction of the treaty now suggested. (Vol. 21, Op. Atty. Gen., pp. 276–278.)

In this connection I also refer to the following language, contained in an opinion and report, dated September 28, 1903, of M. C. Birch, special assistant to the Attorney General, following an investigation requested by the Department of State, in large part at least, on account of a protest addressed to it by the Mexican Embassy at this capital on November 27, 1901, against a proposed diversion of waters of the Colorado River within the United States by a concern styled "Imperial Canal System":

"The first thought from a reading of this last quotation would naturally be that the provisions of Article VII of the first treaty, relative to the construction of any work that might impede or interrupt navigation on the Colorado, were retained. But when carefully considered, the italicized language gives evidence of a restriction of such provision to that portion of the stream where the same is a boundary line. And the diversion of the water by the canal of this company being wholly within the United States and within the purview of the restriction, relieves the company from any claim of conflict with these treaties." (Report to the Attorney General of the United States concerning the condition of Colorado River in California, etc., p. 58.)

The foregoing appears to answer your inquiry, but there are certain other considerations connected with the matter which I desire to bring to the attention of your committee.

Although the provisions of the bill in question are not clear upon the point as to whether the works, for the construction of which the bill provides, would result in the use of practically the entire flow of the Colorado River at a point a little north of the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, information coming to me from other sources appears to indicate that such would be the case during certain seasons of the year. If this information be correct, I may say that it would seem to me that considerations of equity and comity would require that the bill should be so amended as to provide that the works contemplated thereby should not be constructed until the conclusion of an agreement between the Governments of the United States and Mexico for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Colorado River.

In this connection, I may point out that following the delivery of the beforementioned opinion of the Attorney General, the Government of the United Stateş decided upon the adoption of a liberal policy and one not involving insistence on its legal rights; namely, the negotiation of a convention for the equitable distribution of the waters of the Rio Grande. Thereafter and while the question of the regulation of the use of these waters was thus under consideration by the two Governments, the Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co. was proceeding with a project for the construction of a dam at Elephant Butte, N. Mex., which project, if it had been carried through, would have placed in private hands the waters of the Rio Grande at that point and thus have nullified the efforts of the two Governments for an arrangement for the equitable distribution of the waters. For the purpose of forestalling this project, the Attorney General of the United States instituted injunction proceedings against the company in question based on the following provision of the act of Congress of September 19, 1890 (26 Stat., 454):

*

"That the creation of any obstruction * * to the navigable capacity of any waters, in respect of which the United States has jurisdiction, is hereby prohibited."

The proceedings thus instituted terminated in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the Government's contention. (United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co., 174 U. S., 690.)

Following the rendition of that decision Congress authorized the construction by the Government of a dam called the Engel Dam, and on May 21, 1906, a convention was concluded between the United States and Mexico providing for the equitable distribution of the waters stored by means of this dam.

With relation to the proceedings had, as above outlined, in the case of the waters of the Rio Grande, I may call to the attention of your committee the apparent inconsistency which would result should the Government of the United States, having acted to prevent the monopolization by private parties within the United States of the waters of the Rio Grande, provide in an analogous case for monopolizaion by the authorities of the United States of the waters of the Colorado River.

I may add that the Government of the United States proposed in 1912 to the Government of Mexico that a convention be concluded providing for the appointment of a commission "to study, agree upon, and report" the basis of distribution and appropriation of the waters of the Colorado River, the findings of the commission, if and when approved by the two Governments, to be embodied in a treaty. After an exchange of several draft conventions, a form of convention seems to have been practically agreed upon in May, 1913, but apparently because of the strained relations then existing between the Government of the United States and the so-called Huerta administration in Mexico, the convention was never signed, and the matter has since been in abeyance. I have the honor to be, sir,

Your obedient servant,

EXHIBIT D.

ROBERT LANSING.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Washington, September 30, 1919.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I have received your letter of September 26, 1919, inclosing a copy of H. R. 9421, introduced (by request) by Mr. Hayden, to authorize the construction of the Lower Colorado River reclamation project, and regret to say that with a few minor exceptions the objections which I urged in my letter of June 30 as to H. R. 6044 apply equally to H. R. 9421. The changes which have been made, as, for example, the change in terminology so as to authorize the issue of bonds and notes as well as certificates of indebtedness, the enlarged authority given to the Secretary of the Treasury to fix the terms of the issues, and the modified provisions as to the disposition of the surplus proceeds of the sale of bonds, notes, or certificates, do not save the bill from the objection which, from the Treasury point of view, is fundamental, namely, that it imposes upon the Treasury of the United States the burden of financing the project, but attempts to avoid making a direct appropriation, which would be the orderly and businesslike thing to do if the project is found to be meritorious, by directing the Secretary of the Treasury to sell obligations of the United States to provide the funds required for the purposes

of the bill. I feel very strongly that if it should be determined that the project is meritorious and one which the United States should finance, the only satisfactory way to handle the matter would be to make a direct appropriation of a specific amount for the purpose, leaving the Secretary of the Treasury, acting under the general authority conferred upon him by Congress, to finance the requirements of the project as from time to time might be found to be expedient. To attempt to provide for financing the project by authorizing special issues of obligations of the United States without making a direct appropriation tends to confusion of thought in the consideration of the bill, and, in my opinion, is certain to prove embarrassing in the long run to the credit and financial operations of the United States.

Very truly, yours,

Hon. M. P. KINKAID,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

CARTER GLASS.

EXHIBIT E.

[University of California, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkeley, August, 1919.]

A PLAN FOR RECLAIMING AND PEOPLING THE MESA LANDS BORDERING THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT.

By ELWOOD MEAD.

A

In Imperial Valley, on the Southern border of California, there are over 200,000 acres of public lands which can be irrigated from the Colorado River by a canal which would start at the Laguna Dam and carry water, both to the mesa land and to the Imperial irrigation district. This dam was built by the United States Reclamation Service and belongs to the Government. survey to locate the canal from this dam to the Imperial Valley, and an estimate of its cost, have been made at the joint expense of the United States. Reclamation Service and the Imperial irrigation district. The writer of the letter which follows was the chairman of the board which had charge of the survey and which made the estimate of its cost.

This land is the upper part of the gently sloping sides of the Salton Basin. The lower part of this great bowl, or basin, is the Imperial irrigation district, watered by a canal from the Colorado River, but starting farther down and making a long loop into Mexico before reaching the land to be irrigated.

It is planned to build a high line canal, large enough to supply both the unirrigated mesa land and the Imperial district, and to have the entire canal on American territory. The Imperial district and the higher unirrigated land are both to share in its cost, hence less than half the expense of the main canal referred to in the letter which follows would be a charge on the mesa land. A bill has been introduced in Congress, authorizing the sale of the irrigable public land in tracts of 160 acres and the use of money thus obtained to help finance construction; the greater part of the money to come, however, from an issue of certificates of indebtedness by the United States Treasury. These unirrigated mesa lands are now an arid desert where a horned toad can hardly live, but they have great prospective value. They are separated from the irrigated land of the Imperial district by only the width of a canal. Below the canal land sells for $150 to $300 an acre. If irrigated, the higher lands would be worth as much, and on 20 to 40 acres a family could make a comfortable living. If these lands are sold in their present arid condition they will be bought at arid-land prices, but not by landless homeseekers. These will come after canals are built and water is available and they will have to pay irrigated-land prices. Such a sale will make the mesa a fat field for speculation. The letter which follows was written in response to requests from the two gentlemen to whom it was addressed and who are residents of the valley, asking for a statement of the methods and policies which the writer believes should control the reclamation and peopling of this area.

The policy advocated is approved by the State land settlement board and those members of the faculty of the State university who have studied the conditions and problems of the proposed development.

Mr. JACOB LORANG,

R. D. 1, box 32, Imperial, Calif.

Mr. A. M. NELSON,

El Centro, Calif.

MY DEAR SIRS: I have recently had letters from each of you of much the same tenor. Both refer to the efforts being made by the people of the Imperial Valley to secure the irrigation and settlement of the mesa lands, and both ask for a statement of my views on certain matters connected therewith.

The public interest shown in this matter is a good feature. It is an undertaking that needs to be thought out to a conclusion before work begins. This is one of the largest, if not the largest, body of irrigable land in public ownership yet awaiting settlement. The control of the land and the plan to be followed in its settlement will do much to shape the social and economic results. These results, in times like the present, are of great moment.

IRRIGATION WORKS SHOULD BE BUILT BY THE GOVERNMENT.

To reclaim and people this land will require a very large expenditure. The main canal, built large enough to supply the whole valley, with the main supply canals for the mesa lands, and the storage works which will be required to insure ample water, will cost between $30,000,000 and $40,000,000. The improvement and equipment of small farms on the mesa will cost from $15,000,000 to $20,000,000. So that, in some way, about $50,000,000 must be raised and spent. I think all realize that use of the Government's credit will be needed in obtaining this money and the best results will come from making it a cooperative State and national undertaking. The Government can provide money to build the needed canals and storage works at a lower rate of interest and under more favorable conditions than it can be secured in any other way and low interest rates and long-time payments will be needed to enable struggling settlers to succeed.

If the Government furnishes the nfoney, the reservoir and main canals should be built by the United States Reclamation Service. The simplest plan would be for the Government to sell water to the present Imperial district, and to any districts which may be formed on the mesa, at a price which will maintain the works and return 3 or 4 per cent interest on the investment. The distributing systems in each district should be owned and operated by the district.

Title to the land should be retained by the Government until the irrigation works are completed and water is available for irrigation. Settlers could then begin the improvement and cultivation of their farms as soon as they went on the land. It should be sold only to actual settlers in small individual farms. The town sites should be located and laid out, like the farms, according to some carefully thought-out-plan, so that the people who make their homes on what is now a desert will feel that they have all the aid that science and experience can give.

NEED FOR A MORE SOCIAL LAND SETTLEMENT POLICY.

This means a new kind of development, but there are weighty reasons why the primitive practices of the past should give way to better ones. We are living in a time when people are thinking as never before about the right of those who live on the land to own the farms they cultivate. The longing for this and the satisfaction of those who enjoy this privilege is seen in all countries. Where the land is owned by its cultivators, as in France and Denmark, Government is stable. Where no attention has been paid to land hunger, and where tenantry has prevailed, countries are in the throes of revolution. Hungary and Russia are two illustrations.

Since the beginning of this century sonfe countries have sensed this growing desire for landed independence and have spent huge sums to gratify it. It has resulted in one of the greatest agrarian advances of all time. Believing that no expenditure or effort was too great to insure the retention of the right kind of people in the country, Governments have bought privately-owned land and sold it in small individual tracts to its former cultivators under conditions that enable them to pay for it. In this way tenantry has given way to homeowned farms and the movement of land-born people to the city has been checked.

Every nation that adopted this policy has derived imnfense benefits from its action. All except those prevented by war are to-day doing more than ever before. California was the first State in America to recognize the importance of this matter. It has utilized the experience of other countries in framing. a successful policy of State aid and direction in land settlement. The benefits of the first experiment at Durham were so marked that the last legislature, without opposition, appropriated $1,000,000 to buy more land and establish other settlements. A bond issue of $10,000,000 has been authorized and will be voted on at the next election. The State has, therefore, a working plan and the likelihood of a large fund with which to create new communities, nfade up of both soldier and civilian settlers, and which will give broader opportunities to people of small means to become home owners. The land-settlement law ought to be utilized in the development of a part of the mesa lands.

There is now pending in Congress a soldier settlement bill, which, if passed, will provide for planned rural development throughout the Nation. A part of this land ought to be settled under the national soldier settlement act. If this plan is adopted, two public agencies, the Nation and the State of California, would work in friendly emulation to show what skill, knowledge, and experience could do. Both settlements would have 2 and 4 acre honfes for farm workers, the feature of Durham which has proven of such social and economic value. There would be farms of different sizes to meet the needs of men with and without families, and for different kinds of culture.

The first step in this planned development would be classification of the land, based on its fertility and on the cost of preparing it for irrigation. The acreage price of the different farms would not be the same, but would be fixed so as to make them, as nearly as possible, equally attractive. There would be organized, cooperative action in building houses, grading land, seeding crops, buying live stock, seeds, and implements. This would save losses of time and money by settlers and insure a rapid and prosperous development. Land opened to settlement under this plan would be sought by people who would not only be good farmers, but good citizens. They would all live on their farms and be interested in the enduring success of that section. Such an outcome would make development sound financially and the social and economic results would justify the expenditure of public funds to bring them about. The policy will appeal to the common sense and sympathy of the whole Nation. Legislation by Congress to provide nfoney for this development can, I believe, be secured.

OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SALE OF THE LANDS.

The land policy outlined in the Kettner bill is based on a different idea. It leaves each settler to shift for himself and makes the peopling of this area and the creation of towns and farm homes a matter of uncoordinated individual effort. This, for people to whom the problems of irrigation are strange and new and who have little money, is a hard and risky undertaking. It proposes, as the first step, to raise a guaranty fund by selling the public land in 160acre tracts. The land would be sold, therefore, before there was any water for irrigation or any certainty as to when it would be provided. Those who would buy under such conditions might want to farm, but many would buy to reap the increments of value which would follow development. Every landowner who bought at this sale would, to that extent, restrict the opportunities of landless farm seekers.

The land is to be sold under this bill without any proper classification of the soil. This classification should be made to enable people not familiar with the valley to know the relative value of different areas. The size of the unit in which the land is to be sold is too large. The land is to be sold before any one can live there and without conditions which will insure residence by the owner. These lands would not, therefore, be bought by people who ought to find homes here. Land-hungry people of small means can not invest $1,600 in cash or provide it in five years while waiting for Government or corporate canal building.

Another bad outcome of this plan would be that all the land would not be sold. Only the best areas would find purchasers. The Government would hold the culls, with the most desirable areas in private hands. Irrigation is to be provided by the use of the Government's credit. The help would go largely to those who do not need aid to become farm owners. I do not believe that public opinion will regard this with favor.