Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Senator WATKINS. I always wanted to ask you about soil conservation. Do you think anything over 160 acres ought to pay for the costs of soil conservation?

Senator DOUGLAS. We will consider that. The courts of appeal permit us to deal with proximate evils and have not required that we deal with every evil under the sun. You will find that in the decision by Justice Hughes in the California 10-hour law handed down in 1915.

Senator WATKINS. Why in these fields of reclamation and not the others?

Senator DOUGLAS. I have always said my favorite hymn is Cardinal Newman's Lead Kindly Light: “I do not ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me.”

Senator WATKINS. I want to say to you that in my State we do not have any violation of the 160-acre limitation. We do not have any trouble with it at all. I am not talking for people in my State when I say that, but I am saying that if you are going to start in with this kind of a requirement, then you ought to start in clear across the board; watershed programs, flood-control programs, soil-conservation programs, price-support programs of all kinds.

I voted to limit the price support to $50,000 in any one farm, but I did not get much help on that. I was defeated. I do not remember whether the Senator from Illinois returned on the vote I gave him in that case.

Senator ANDERSON. May I point out, if I may, that this is a long way from where we started. Let us realize that this vote on putting the cost of river levees against the adjoining land, half the cost, or any portion of it, could probably have been voted down because it is not the farmer that adjoins the land next to the river that causes the levee. It is the man above that who harvests the timber on top of the mountain.

When I spoke of my family coming from Sweden to this country, my father was raised in a part of Sweden where lumbering is the principal industry. Where do you suppose he went to work? New York! He went to Sioux City, Iowa, which at that time had the largest sawmill in the world. They were timbering all of Minnesota, the northwestern corner of Iowa, the northeastern corner of Nebraska, and the whole southeastern corner of South Dakota. They took off all that timber, and we have had flood conditions on the Missouri ever since.

The Senator from Illinois says that because they did that, the man who lives in Kansas ought to build his own levee in order to protect himself from floods. I do not prescribe to that doctrine.

Senator WATKINS. I cannot prescribe to your doctrine, either.

Senator Douglas. I said half of the cost could fairly be borne by the adjoining lands, the value of which is benefited.

Senator ANDERSON. It would have been fine if they put the flood water on him. I live along the levee on the Rio Grande River. It is not my fault that the Rio Grande floods. It is the people in the headwater of the Rio Grande who were still timbering it.

Senator WATKINS. We have to take it as we find it. Senator Douglas. I do not want to get into a long debate on this other issue, because I recognize your great abilities and experience,

and I know how greatly I could improve my own performance. I seek to do that. I merely say that I have tried to support the junior Senator from Oklahoma and others in small-dam projects to retain water at the source and in soil-conservation projects, to reduce the runoff. But I have also recognized that there have been profitable killings, as the Senator from Utah points out, on reclaimed land next to the levees.

I am very glad for this reference to the 26 million acres. I had never seen the precise figure, but I did find that the Chief of the Army Engineers in an uncautious moment said that he had reclaimed more land than the Bureau of Reclamation had ever reclaimed.

I have seen some of that bottom land which was formerly flooded and which had the alluvial deposits, in the case of the Mississippi, from the upper Mississippi watershed. It was very rich soil; and when the Mississippi was confined within the levee, this made this land comparatively dry. The land would be purchased by insiders at a very low price per acre, the bulldozers would be turned loose, and at a relatively low cost the land would be cleared, and then the owner would have very valuable law upon which he would make a big profit.

I agree with the Senator from Utah that this land thus improved should pay part of the costs of the lezee.

Senator WATKINS. Why did you not propose an amendment to this last flood-control bill?

Senator DOUGLAS. I made myself such a nuisance in the Senate that if I tilted every windmill that comes up, I would be exhausted.

I debated for a long time whether I should come into this committee room this morning, because there is just a limit to the number of things that one can take on. I decided, probably against my better judgment, that I should charge once more.

We are together on this project of making the adjoining land pay for the cost of the levees.

Senator ANDERSON. Do not lose your only supporter.
Senator Douglas. I have helped you on that, and I hope you

will help me on checking the subsidy which the excess land owners get. That is all I am proposing. I am proposing to eliminate now the subsidy which the owners of excess acreage receive.

Under this proposal they can own the excess lands; they can get the water, but they should pay for it. We will subsidize those under 160 acres as I am willing to subsidize them on soil conservation and other matters.

Senator WATKINS. If you will go along the full distance, and if in time we could go over this point by point, I am sure you would probably be willing to support me and see to it that the flood-control people who get the benefits should pay at least 100 percent of the profit. Senator DOUGLAS. Let us leave it at fifty percent.

Senator WATKINS. It does not seem to make any difference who did the job, whether Providence did it or somebody else; the fellow who comes along later to take over that land has to take it as is, and you cannot begin to say that Providence did this or some fellow camo out early and cut all the timber off.

Senator DOUGLAS. Senator, you are too nice a man to try to get me in a false position.

I was

Senator Watkins. Do not try to butter me or you might lose me.

Senator DOUGLAS. No, you are too nice a man to say that we should not take this step because, at the same time, we do not remove every evil in the world.

We have to start somewhere. Every piece of legislation has to deal with a more or less limited area of application. Let us take this first step, and then we can take other steps later. I will march shoulder to shoulder with the Senator, but one step behind him, because he should take the lead in this matter, in applying this principle that he advocates.

Senator WATKINS. Let us take all the windmills that you speak of as they come up. One came up here over that flood control, but there we had an open-ended authorization of various types and kinds that could have gone to the extent of $8 billion, and there was not one word in there about the limitation on the acreage or anything of that sort.

Senator Douglas. I am not going to come here and beat my breast and say I am the one virtuous Senator. God knows I have faults. But it is a matter of record that I was the only Senator who voted against the flood-control bill when it was up last year. The vote was 85 to 1. I do not know where the Senator from Utah was. 1 of the 11 Senators who voted against the conference report. I was criticized by my own State on this, I may say, because there are some $43 million of projects for Illinois in that bill.

I have had some trouble in fighting off these attacks.
Senator WATKINS. We have marched together on that.

Senator DOUGLAS. Let us march together somewhere. Let us take this on first.

Senator WATKINS. I may be with you. I do not know.

Senator Douglas. I want to emphasize again what I have tried to do.

Senator Watkins. I am sorry I missed the first part of the show, if it was as good as this part.

Senator Douglas. Let there be a subsidy to those who have less than 160 acres but no subsidy for those over 160 acres. Let them have water. Let them own land, but do not subsidize the water for excess land holders. Full interest would have to be paid. And that, in practical terms, would run up the price excess holders would pay for reclamation water to the point where they could not compete with and eclipse family-size-farm irrigators.

It would thus become an effective economic sanction. That is what I am trying to do.

If we are going to shift from mandatory mathematical sanctions, which are termed irrational, to economic sanctions, let us not just give lip service to the family-sized farm philosophy, but really do the job we pretend to do by creating an economic sanction that will work to the end of protecting and preserving this fundamental cornerstone on which this great Reclamation Act rests. This amendment also might make life a bit easier for our adminis

a trators who are and always have been under constant pressure from excess-land holders to get reclamation water.

I see in the audience Mr. Michael W. Straus who was Commissioner of Reclamation in a previous administration. I know the pressures

to which he was subjected and I know in general he preserved his virtue and worked for the public interest. I also know the pressures to which he was subjected, and upon occasion I felt I had to deal very strenuously with him.

May I say I also have great respect for the present Secretary of the Interior, a former colleague, Fred Seaton. I like and respect him. I think he is a man of complete integrity. I simply say these pressures build up. They are almost more than any human being can withstand. We public servants are all too human and I want to strengthen their good resolves.

Senator ANDERSON. I may say to the Senator from Illinois that was one of the reasons why I took exception to his language about New Mexico, California, and Arizona when he said the drives to vacate the 160-acre law comes from these areas because I think Mr. Straus would testify publicly that when they attempted to keep him from drawing his pay the Senators from New Mexico and Arizona were his stanchest defenders.

Senator Douglas. May I say that we have a lot of work to do. It is not always possible to make guarded statements which a Ph. D. thesis writer would make coming up before a board of examiners of supercritical professors. So I hope you will forgive the inexactness of the word and remember that the heart was kind and friendly.

Senator ANDERSON. I am only happy to concede that.

Senator Douglas. Such a plan would likewise possibly relieve the pressure on Senators who believe in the family-farm principle constantly chase and try to catch up with and oppose these exemption proposals. But, make no mistake, this last-named proposal of mine is intended to be so effective in taking the subsidy out of Federal reclamation water that the economic sanctions, in terms of higher water costs, would be strong enough to deter the further fostering of corporate agriculture in this country at the expense of the Federal reclamation operation.

Senator ANDERSON. At this point what would happen if a man had a wife and had 320 acres and wanted to sell it and the only buyer was a man who did not have a wife. He could only farm 160 acres. Could you not imply an economic sanction and take his purchase away from him?

Senator Douglas. Forgive me for an analogy which I hope may not seem too irreligious. Let us remember that when the great teacher who founded our Christian religion came up to Jerusalem the wise men asked him a number of questions. One of them was about a woman who had been married a number of times. Each husband died. The question was then whose wife would she be in Heaven. Jesus said that in Heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage.

May I say—and I am not putting myself in the role of the prophet of Christianity—but you can ask these highly elaborate questions, Senator, and only proximate answers can be found.

All I am defending here is the general principle, and I am certain that with your ability and legal knowledge, which far surpasses mine, you can find words which will carry out the purposes of this act. So I plead for your cooperation. I ask the privilege to correct the record on this allusion to the founder of Christianity because uncautious words of mine may have crept into it.

Senator ANDERSON. The rule of our committee is that you have a right to correct your record. Senator DOUGLAS. I say that as a caution to the press. Senator ANDERSON. We would like to get a good record.

Senator WATKINS. I, at the present moment, have not been able to get the full weight of your illustration.

Senator DOUGLAS. I think it will be evident.

For all the foregoing reasons, in order to foster family-sized farms and discourage large-scale corporate agriculture on Government-irrigated lands, I hope that as one step in this direction our bill to make the Small Projects Act fully subject to Federal Reclamation law, S. 1425, may have your approval. In the comprehensive study of this problem which your committee has undertaken, I hope you will also consider closing the breach in the reclamation law that is accomplished through multiple individual ownerships of 160 acres each by a number of members of one family. I submit for your study a separate bill which would accomplish this purpose. That has been submitted and I ask that it be printed in the record.

Senator ANDERSON. Without objection, it will be printed. (The bill referred to by Senator Douglas is as follows:)

[s. –, 85th Cong., 2d sess.)

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Douglas introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on

A BILL

To define the term "any one owner" for the purpose of certain excess land

provisions of the reclamation laws Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 46 of the act entitled "An act to adjust water-right charges, to grant certain other relief on the Federal irrigation projects, and for other purposes," approved May 25, 1926, as amended (43 U. S. C. 423e), is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following: “As used in this section, the term 'any one owner' means a person, corporation, partnership, joint-stock association, or family; the term 'family means a group consisting of either or both husband and wife, together with their children under 18 years of age, or all of such children if both parents are dead; and the term 'their children' includes the issue and lawfully adopted children of either or both husband and wife. Lands shall be deemed to be held by a family if held as separate property of husband or wife, or if they are the property of any or all of their children under 18 years of age. Lands held in trust for any person shall be deemed to be held by that person regardless of where legal title lies. They shall also be deemed to be held by the trustee if he derives from them any profit or advantage other than a moderate fixed fee for the management of the same."

Senator WATKINS. On page 4 of your statement you sayand that limitation is enough water to irrigate 160 acres, which in practice means in community-property States 320 acres for a man and his wife. I assure you that 320 acres of irrigated land is not the kind of an operation that could be marginal or "peasant" farming.

In my State we do not have community property so we are limited to 160 acres. Is that a fair situation? I hope your bill is taking care of that.

a

« ForrigeFortsett »