Mr. SINNOTT. That is, the individuals?

Mr. ROSE. The individual stockholders.

Mr. LITTLE. How much would each of them get?
Mr. ROSE. They could file on only 160 acres each.
Mr. LITTLE. How many of them were there?

Mr. ROSE. About 100 of them in the Imperial Laguna Water Co. That is, men who have their families there. A good many men who have farms in Imperial Valley put up money, and they have one or two or three sons who have grown up since the Imperial Valley lands were taken, and they were trying to provide, in the same way that we have in Imperial Valley, an opportunity for the rest of their family to acquire a piece of this desert land.

Mr. SINNOTT. Have they filed on it as desert land?

Mr. ROSE. They can not. It is withdrawn. But they intend to file when the land is restored.

Mr. LITTLE. They would have a preferential filing?

Mr. ROSE. No; they would only have the water stock. They would take their chances on filing. They would own stock in the water company, and would take their chances on going into the local land office and filing on the land. But my understanding was that the company would be recognized if this was feasible, and an applicant would be required to show stock in this company in order to get a filing, the same as on a desert-land entry a man has got to show where he is going to get the water.

Mr. WELLING. But the company could have refused to sell water to anybody.

Mr. Rose. No; because under the contract it is left up to the department to fix the rules and regulations, etc., to whom they could sell. They could not have done that. They could have gotten their money back, but what they hoped was to get a piece of land.

Mr. LITTLE. Now, you want to go on and build a ditch and just get authority to go in and take 160 acres in that 23,000 acres?

Mr. ROSE. Now, these other people come in and say: "We want to handle this situation." And we say, "Now, if the State and the soldiers and the Imperial irrigation district want to handle this, give us a chance to get a little piece of that land over by ourselves and let us take it."

Mr. LITTLE. You want the right for your people to settle 160 acres each in that corner, the preference right over anybody else, provided you waive your rights?

Mr. ROSE. Just as all other American citizens would have if you didn't put in this bill special legislation saying what should become of the rest of us.

Mr. LITTLE. You want to have your people have the right to go in and take 160 acres down in this corner, if somebody else builds that ditch besides you, providing that you waive any claim that you have? Is that right now?

Mr. Rose. No; here we have submitted an amendment that provides for the Secretary setting this tract of land aside and selling it at a price to be determined by him at not less than $10 per acre, giving the holders of the Imperial Laguna Water Co. stock a preference right to purchase. That is what we are asking. We are not asking for the land; we are asking to buy the land, enough of it to take care of our people who have put their money in.

Mr. LITTLE. You want the first right to buy the land?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LITTLE. If somebody else builds a ditch?

Mr. ROSE. And we will pay our just proportion for the building

of the main canal.

Mr. LITTLE. That isn't clear to me now.

this ditch or not?

Mr. ROSE. No.

Mr. LITTLE. Who is going to build it?

Are you going to build

Mr. Rose. It would be up then to the lands covered by the district and the outside lands.

Mr. LITTLE. Then, your theory is if you get out of the road and let somebody else build the ditch, you waive all claims of any kind, providing they will let you have the first chance to buy in that corner? Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SUMMERS. Meanwhile you will pay your proportionate part of the main ditch?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WELLING. And in justification of your claim you urge the fact that you have already expended some money?

Mr. ROSE. We have expended in money about $50,000, and it will take probably $25,000 to clean up the liabilities of the company. Now, that is the situation exactly.

Mr. SINNOTT. Under what section of this Warren Act is your contract formally drawn?

Mr. GATES. Section 2.

The CHAIRMAN. Just let me ask Mr. Rose one question there. You desire the right for yourself and your associates who have been working in this matter, to be accorded the preference right to take these lands. Now, do you claim that regardless of how much land you already have, what other lands you have in the Imperial Valley? Mr. ROSE. We limit that to the purchase of 160 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. No difference how much land either of you have? Mr. ROSE. We would not object, if the committee wanted to say that no man who already has 160 acres should have any land there. I would not make any objection to that, although I have more than that.

Mr. TAYLOR. If the Government made this price $300 an acre to you people, what would be the result?

Mr. Rose. We would lose out. Of course, if the Government put up that land and sold it for $30 or $40 an acre, and our people didn't want it, and somebody else took it, we would be out.

The CHAIRMAN. You would be willing to allow the preference right to be restricted to those who are qualified homesteaders?

Mr. ROSE. Well, if they purchased it—I would not want to purchase it and then homestead it, because I would be paying $30 or $40 an acre for the right to homestead; but if they are allowed to homestead, I am perfectly willing to let that go in; but not to purchase a homestead. That would be giving us a double shot on it.

Mr. KIBBEY. May I ask Mr. Rose a question?

How much, Mr. Rose, was spent after the date of the contract with the Government?

Mr. ROSE. Well, I suppose probably $35,000 or $40,000.

Mr. KIBBEY. That was subsequent to 1917?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. KIBBEY. And how much was spent-what was that spent for? Mr. ROSE. Surveys and in any way that we could promote the building of the All-American Canal and irrigation system.

Mr. KIBBEY. The representatives of the Imperial Irrigation District have offered to submit the question as to whether you spent any money as to whether or not you should be compensated, either morally, legally, or equitably-to the Secretary of the Interior or any disinterested person, have they not?

Mr. ROSE. No; I will say no; but I will say what they have made. They have made me the proposition to submit to the Secretary of the Interior what I should be reimbursed, the amount that I should be reimbursed providing this bill becomes a law. Now, if the Secretary of the Interior would say that I was entitled to $75,000 under such an agreement as that, there isn't a man on this committee who would give me 10 cents on the dollar for it, on the condition of that bill becoming a law. That is the situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, when you speak of yourself, you do not mean you individually; or do you mean the company?

Mr. ROSE. The Imperial Laguna Water Company.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what you mean?

Mr. ROSE. That is what I mean. I am president of the company and their representative here.

Mr. KIBBEY. If the bill doesn't become law, you contend your contract still is in force?

Mr. ROSE. I contend it is still in force now.

Mr. KIBBEY. What is your objection to that plan of settlement? Mr. ROSE. There is quite a little objection, because this bill might be tied up in Congress for two or three years. It might tie my hands and not get anywhere. I haven't had so awfully much encouragement on this bill becoming a law. I listened to the representatives from the West make statements to the convention of governors and heard them say that a bill providing for an appropriation has no chance of passage. I have talked to a good many individuals about it and they concur. They are not offering me a cent for my time or anything else, but just simply offering to reimburse whatever money the Secretary may say the company is entitled to, nothing for my time, contingent upon the passage of the bill. Now, I have been generally known as the one who originated this plan, and am I to go home and say: "I will take my money upon condition of your carrying out your agreement if this bill becomes a law?

Mr. KIBBEY. I would like to make this statement right now: We are authorized in behalf of the Imperial Irrigation District to submit the question to any disinterested person, to the Secretary of the Interior preferably, as to whether or not they have any rights under the contract, morally, legally, or equitably. Let the Secretary or whoever the question is submitted to determine how much Mr. Rose and the Laguna Water Co. should be paid, if anything, and the Imperial Irrigation District will pay the money.

Mr. ROSE. Now?

Mr. KIBBEY. Conditioned upon the passage of the bill.
Mr. Rose. Oh, yes.

Mr. LITTLE. How much do you suppose that would be?

Mr. KIBBEY. I have no idea. Mr. Rose made a counter proposition that we pay him $65,000 at once for the Laguna Water Co., and $10,000 for his personal services. Of course, anything that occurred prior to the date of the contract could not be chargeable against the contract. He now says there is $30,000 or $40,000 due.

Mr. LITTLE. If this bill is not passed, what then?

Mr. KIBBEY. Mr. Rose's contract, if valid and subsisting so far as we know, will remain in force and effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, let Mr. Gates proceed.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Gates, will you tell us, incidentally what position this committee would be in, or what position Congress would be in, trying to legislate to carry out some contracts or some tentative agreements or something that hasn't been attended to? Where does that land us? What position would we be in on the floor of the House? Would they charge us with trying to legislate to pay somebody for trying to promote something and not succeeding?

Mr. GATES. The question as to whether we agree with the Secretary in sending the matter to you is not for us to decide, because we are not here of our own volition; we are here because of the Secretary's letter referring it to this committee, in which he says the matter is more properly determinable by this committee than by him. Frankly I say personally I don't agree with that. He made the contract. I think Congress can not pass legislation which would have the effect of violating our contract.

Mr. TAYLOR. It seems to me we ought to get at the beginning of this thing and go through it.

Mr. SINNOTT. How are we interfering with the contract?

Mr. GATES. If you pass a law covering all of this land and making it impossible for us to work under this contract your are violating the obligations of it, whether you intend to or not.

Mr. SINNOTT. How does your contract relate to the lands outside of the canal or some reservoir?

Mr. GATES. It relates to the whole of the land mentioned in the contract, which covers that whole east-side mesa.

Mr. WELLING. This committee has had hearings, extended hearings, and so far as I can recall your client has been most active of all of these California gentlemen in pushing the passage of this law.

Mr. GATES. Yes; under his contract he could proceed under H. R. 6044 or H. R. 12013, but not under H. R. 11553 unless amended as we suggest.

Mr. KIBBEY. Is that the reason Mr. Rose was pressing before this committee the passage of the bill, because he would gain privately by it?

Mr. GATES. Not at all.

Mr. KIBBEY. Then I misunderstood you.

Mr. GATES. He has been, as you know, the father of the American canal, if it has a father; if it can be brought into being—

Mr. KIBBEY. Yes: I understand that.

Mr. GATES. You admit that the district board passed resolutions favoring his plan; you admit that nearly every civic organization in the valley has done it. I can show you telegram after telegram and resolution after resolution to that effect. and now when he comes

to the end almost, when the American canal must be built, then you want to take it away from him and wipe him off the map.

Mr. KIBBEY. May I ask you whether or not, after the introduction of the Kettner bill, it was not generally stated throughout the valley by the Laguna Water Co. that all rights that they might have under a contract had been done away with? Upon the strength of that statement Mr. Rose was selected as one of a committee of the Imperial Irrigation District.

Mr. GATES. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. Mr. Rose probably can answer that; I can not. I was not there.

Mr. KIBBEY. I understood you to say a moment ago that the reason Mr. Rose was here urging this thing

Mr. GATES (interposing). No; you said it; I did not.

Mr. KIBBEY. Then I misunderstood you.

Mr. LITTLE. Are you for or against the original bill, for the allAmerican canal?

Mr. KIBBEY. I am for the all-American canal and was one of the original men in favor of it.

Mr. LITTLE. Were you for the Kettner bill to do that?

Mr. KIBBEY. No; I was against the Kettner bill, because of the disposition of the lands under the Kettner bill.

Mr. GATES. If you are for the all-American canal, why do you want to wipe the father of the canal off the map without any consideration whatever?

Mr. KIBBEY. We are offering to compensate him.

Mr. GATES. You are offering it to him contingent upon the passage of the bill.

Mr. KIBBEY. Certainly.

Mr. TAYLOR. Supposing we don't do anything, what then?

Mr. GATES. We would go right back to the Secretary of the Interior. We think we can carry out that contract, sell that stock, and have enough money to build that canal; and we will ask the Secretary of the Interior to restore that land and approve our surveys and let us proceed. That is what we will do.

Mr. SINNOTT. If the land is restored you would be justified in going ahead with your expenditures?

Mr. GATES. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROSE. I want to answer one question. Mr. Kibbey says they have offered to compensate us. I don't want the impression to get out that they have offered to compensate us anything. They have offered to hand back as much of our money as the Secretary of the Interior says we are entitled to. That is not compensation; that is reimbursement. and I don't want the word "compensation" to get out here, because they haven't offered to do anything of the sort.

I can show you articles in the Los Angeles Times, the very enemy of this bill. where they refer to "Mark Rose, father of the AllAmerican Canal." I have brought this up to where it is at present, and I have resolutions from the district, even as late as last March, saying they were willing to cooperate with the Imperial Laguna Water Co. and the Coachella & West Side Water Co. in the construction of this canal. I have wires from the heaviest property owners and from all the county officials asking the district to cooperate, and they did come here and ask to take over this contract and build under it.