AZ vs. CA:09 California Exhibits, Vol. IX; Nos. 400-457

page 23

-23- tion upon any individual, or in this instance, extended to a municipal utility corporation. It has not been brought out by the proponents that under the general law this association has the privilege to have a right of way of 100 feet. I am not protesting against enlarging that right of way to 250 feet, but I am protesting as strongly as I can to granting all the lands of the United States in these counties, without any reservation, including lands in the Indian reservations, in the forest reserves, for the respective purposes of storage dams, pumping plants, power plants, canals, ditches, and so forth. Let them bring in a bill properly safeguarding the public lands of the United States and one that seeks to only extend the privileges to one right of way of 250 feet and I will rise in support of it; but when I find a monstrous bill conferring such great powers, powers never before known in the history of public-land legislation, so far as I know, and I have followed such legislation very closely, I must necessarily rise and protest that it is a land grab. I have seen in my experience here instances where we have vested large powers only to regret it later. I say to you, bring in a proper bill and we will pass it before the Congress adjourns; but we will not pass, with my approval, such an outrageous bill that gives everything which is of a public-land nature to this corporation. [Applause.] Mr. Swing. Mr. Speaker, there is not a thing in this bill that is not found in the general right of way law; there is not a thing that these cities can get under this bill that they can not get under the general law, except there is a limitation in width under the general right of way law, and a canal of this magnitude for 13 cities has to be so big that it will require a right of way of 250 feet. Also this bill is necessary, because the bond money that has been