The CHAIRMAN. Then, these engineers recommended a further appropriation, a further investigation with an appropriation of $1,000,000 thereafter?

Mr. DAVIS. Half a million, I think. I don't remember how much they recommended, but $350,000 was the amount appropriated, and that Nicaragua Canal Commission expended that money in investigations in Nicaragua and made an estimate of nearly double what had been previously estimated as the cost, and also proved beyond question that the entire scheme formerly approved and proposed by the Nicaragua Co. was infeasible absolutely. The high dam that they had proposed was not feasible for lack of foundation and other things of that kind. Then, it was thought that that information was absolutely sufficient. The people wanted the canal and they all favored a big appropriation for the Nicaragua Canal, and Senator Spooner introduced a resolution which prevented the passage of the bill, making appropriation of $1,000,000 to investigate all Isthmian canal routes, and when asked, when that resolution was put in, whether that was a wise move or not, I said it was the wisest move possible under the circumstances, and events have proved that to be the case. That appropriation of $1,000,000 was made; further investigations were made in Nicaragua, and investigations were made at Panama, with the result that it was found that Panama was the best place to build the canal, and that is where it has been built, and it has been exceedingly fortunate that those investigations were made before the country was committed to a canal in Nicaragua.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, from an engineering standpoint you regard it as a very wise precaution that this investigation be made? Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. As provided by the bill?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; very important.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Mr. Director, how long would it take to make these investigations? Do you think it would be wise to defer this and have it come in in the sundry civil bill available on the 1st of July, or should it be made immediately available as soon as we can?

Mr. DAVIS. If it could be passed quickly, it would do some good to make it immediately available. If we were authorized at once to make an investigation, we could make a preliminary report in December; but it would probably take a few months longer to make complete report.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. If we get this bill through immediately so that you could go to work in 30 days, would that probably give you sufficient time?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. To make a comprehensive report?

Mr. DAVIS. But beginning the 1st of July would not give us time enough.

There is this thought, Mr. Chairman: One of the most important things required is borings at the foundation of the high dam, as proposed in the Boulder Canyon, and it is not feasible to undertake those borings until after high water. It could be undertaken by the 1st of August.

Mr. TAYLOR. Ought we not to change this date from December to January?

Mr. SUMMERS. Make it the earliest feasible date; that would be better.

Mr. TAYLOR. I think it ought to be January, anyhow.

The CHAIRMAN. In fixing the date December & I did not want to put it over to another year. I did not want to go into 1921.

Mr. DAVIS. We can begin those borings in August, and if this appropriation passes undoubtedly by the 1st of December we can have very valuable information and probably settle the feasibility of that site; and I have no doubt we can give a valuable report in December, as called for in this bill. That may settle the feasibility, and we can give a still more valuable report in January, a month later. Mr. WELLING. How many men do you expect to put to work on this project, Mr. Davis?

Mr. DAVIS. I don't know, sir. We would probably have a party of 30 or 40 in the surveys of the dam site and borings in the canyon, and then we would have other parties on the mesa investigating the soils, and other parties carrying out the surveys of the canals in greater detail.

The CHAIRMAN. Can not all of this work, Mr. Director, other than the investigating for reservoir sites, be disposed of any time that we get the money ready?

Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely. We could begin on that right away.

The CHAIRMAN. And will not a report on that practically determine what the legislation should be?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; that is true.

The CHAIRMAN. So that a report on that could be made by December 6?

Mr. DAVIS. In that view and for that purpose it would be very important to have this appropriation immediately available, if it can be passed soon.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. Do you not think the appropriation should be a little larger than $20,000 to do all the work and employ all the men you contemplate employing?

Mr. DAVIS. It would be better. If it were $25,000 or $30,000, on the supposition that Imperial Valley would put up twice as much as that as they did the other time-we can make a pretty good investigation with this amount.

Mr. SUMMERS. There is one question I would like to ask. Doesn't this appropriation, and the work to be done isn't it all hinged on that 6th day of December? Under this would you have authority to go ahead with investigations and so on, and spend money after the 6th day of December? I don't believe you would, so it seems to me that since we all desire this should be pushed along as rapidly as possible, but that it might not be handicapped at the last, that the reading" at the earliest feasible date" would be advisable.

Mr. DAVIS. I don't think this language would limit the expenditure of money to the 6th of December at all.

Mr. SUMMERS. This says "shall make report to Congress not later than the 6th day of December, 1920, of the results of his examination, together with his recommendation, as to the feasibility, necessity, and advisability of the undertaking," etc.

Mr. DAVIS. The secretary is required to make a report the 1st of December of every year on the reclamation fund, and nobody ever

question the authority to pay out more money after that report is made. I think this is practically the same thing.

Mr. SUMMERS. Well, that may be.

Mr. BARBOUR. It simply limits the time within which the report shall be made.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; it does not limit the time for making expenditures.

The CHAIRMAN. We can fix that so it will be flexible enough. It is very easy to fix that.

Mr. LITTLE. Mr. Chairman, if this bill appears to be the best that we can do, of course, we are all for it. The Chair has had some suggestions to improve the wording a little, and I hope he will do so. I am sorry we can not do more for the Imperial Valley now. I have received a telegram from there in regard to the bill which I will read in a moment, but in a general way I want to say a word, in view of what the Judge suggested as I came in, with regard to going before the Committee on Ways and Means.

I may say this on this bill, however: That if this bill is intended to have the Reclamation Service put in a lot of time finding out whether they can build a dam up on the Nevada line somewhere, and if this project is to wait on that, I would not consider it keeping faith with those people. There is plenty of water at Laguna Dam and Yuma Dam to supply this valley and everybody around there. We don't need to wait on any dam up in Nevada, and I trust that this bill is not prepared with the intent of stalling these people any longer. We have fooled away some time now, and eventually probably that will be very useful and probably necessary, though they would have gotten along pretty well as they have, walking on one leg, with the Laguna Dam, and if they get a little decent consideration they can take care of themselves.

Now, as to this Committee on Irrigation going before the Ways and Means Committee, I don't think it comports with the dignity of this committee or its utility for it to go rambling around after some other committee and telling them something that they don't know anything about and never will. If we have any views on irrigation, I think we should present them to the House and then let the Appropriations Committee of the House decide about it. Furthermore, the thought does not appeal to me particularly anyway, and I may say this in order to keep good faith with the committee, that if there is going to be an attempt of this committee to get $250,000,000 this year for western irrigation that does not include and care for the Imperial Valley, I shall not consider myself bound to support it and reserve the right to oppose it.

Imperial Valley, as I understand it, is the greatest irrigation project, the most successfully irrigated district, in the United States. It has been done by poor people without any assistance from the Government of the United States. The Government of the United States, as near as I can learn, has done everything it could to destroy that project, to do those people all the harm it could. I think it is time for Congress to take hold of the matter and make some amends.

If we are going to spend $250,000,000, this outfit that went in there, poor people, and accomplished something, more than any

body else has accomplished; who have never had a nickel's worth from the Government-and the rest of them did have-and which has been greatly embarrassed by several departments of the Government, ought to have consideration. As to the question of Mexico, if you read the Elephant Butte decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Taylor, you will find there isn't any question there to discuss at all. Mexico has no legal rights at all that would interfere in any way with the building of a project of the kind these people seek. There is nothing to that. The Supreme Court said it was the law anyway.

Now with these preliminary remarks I am going to read a telegram here from the Imperial Valley, which I received this morning. This gentleman is a soldier, too, and a member of the society, I believe, of Veterans of Foreign Wars, a man who has had very good experience for his country across the seas-the Pacific seas, though perhaps not the Atlantic. He was sent here as a delegate to represent those people the last time they were represented here, and he is a man of very high character, a settler, a farmer there. The last line here is a little personal in its nature, in the nature of personal comment, so I will not read that, but he says:

Although we see no reason to oppose the Kinkaid bill, yet we see no hope to be derived or obtained from such a measure, and would therefore have to look to some other source for relief for this great valley.

MIKE LIEBERT.

I think the committee will remember Mr. Liebert. He presented their case very fairly. Now I don't join with Mr. Liebert in his feeling that there is nothing to be derived from this. I have high hopes that it will be the beginning of a great move for this valley, to take care of them in a businesslike, sensible way, and I am going to support it upon that theory, the theory that the committee is in good faith, that the House will be in good faith, that Congress will be in good faith with those people down there who have done more for irrigation than anybody else in the United States, and who need some help worse than anybody else in the United States, and who have made themselves worthy of help.

Now with that proposition in view, with that understanding in view I am going to tell Mike Liebert that he is mistaken; that this does mean something; that he can derive some hope from it, and in my judgment there isn't any other way, unless it would be that they can hook on with some $250,000,000 project to help a lot of people who have already been helped by millions and have never done anything for themselves without Government help, and who don't need it as the Imperial Valley does.

The CHAIRMAN. It is 12 o'clock, gentlemen. Mr. Rose, you wanted to be heard on this bill?

Mr. MARK ROSE. Yes; but it will take some little time for me.

Mr. SMITH of Idaho. I think we ought to hear Mr. Rose. How much time do you want? It seems to me would continue the meeting this morning and finish it, so that at the next meeting we can report the bill out.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will hear you now, Mr. Rose.

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK ROSE, OF IMPERIAL VALLEY, CALIF.

Mr. ROSE. I have considerable land holding in the present irrigated area of the Imperial irrigation district, and also am interested both in land and in companies outside which are interested in an allAmerican canal.

The CHAIRMAN. You came here several months ago to work in behalf of the Kettner bill?

Mr. ROSE. No; I came here in behalf of the Imperial-Laguna Water Co., and was appointed after I came on by the Imperial irrigation district as a member of their committee to represent the district.

Mr. HAYDEN. Are you a member of that committee now?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYDEN. By appointment from the board of directors of the district?

Mr. ROSE. No; I am not.

Mr. HAYDEN. They have revoked the commission formerly given. to you?

Mr. ROSE. They have revoked the committee entirely, the former committee.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a new committee now?

Mr. ROSE. I suppose so; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you are not a member of the new committee? Mr. Rose. No; I am not.

The CHAIRMAN. Now you are speaking in behalf of your own interests and some other interests?

Mr. ROSE. And the general interests of the valley, where I have been ever since the valley first started. I saw the first water_come in there. Now, I have this objection to this bill, gentlemen: It appears to me that it is a delay that does not get us anywhere. Practically two years ago-in fact, considerably over two years agothere was a large meeting held, at which Mr. Davis was present, in Imperial Valley, and Mr. Davis urged further investigation then, as he does now, and he thought that $45,000 would probably make the necessary investigation, and I made a motion that that money be provided. If the Government put up one-third of it, all right; if they did not, that the valley put up the entire $45,000, and it carried. We understood at that time that the report probably could be handed to us in six months.

However, it was handed to us in approximately 18 months. Now, that was the investigation on 60 miles of the canal route, and the money was immediately made available, so there was no delay, as this money will be if it goes on, no doubt. But the situation that I want to bring up is simply this, that you are asking to-day 10 months' delay. Now, that throws us into what? Into a short session of Congress. When Congress finishes this session it convenes again on the first Monday in December and is annihilated by law on the 4th day of March. Now, there is not, in my judgment, in my experienceand I have been here-well, I have had more or less close knowledge of Congress for the last five or six years. They do very little of this kind of work in those short sessions-just winding up things. Then