| OCR Text |
Show 648 HISTORY OF PUBLIC LAND LAW DEVELOPMENT irrigation companies, lawyers, journalists, civil engineers and businessmen-stockmen and farmers were noticeably absent- resolutions were adopted urging that the remaining public lands be conveyed to the states to permit them to undertake large and well-planned irrigation projects. Among the principal supporters of the Irrigation Congresses was James J. Hill, president of the Great Northern Railroad, whose line stood to benefit from any irrigation carried out in Montana, Idaho, or Washington. Other railroad officials who took an active part in the Salt Lake City congress were the general land agent of the Central and Southern Pacific Railroad and the land commissioners of the Oregon and California and of the Houston and Texas Railroads.33 Congress was not ready to convey all the remaining arid lands to the western states but was disposed to make a partial grant to let the states experiment with irrigation. Senator Joseph M. Carey of Wyoming introduced a measure to provide for a grant of up to a million acres to each of the states containing desert lands to aid in their reclamation. The states were required to file maps showing their plans for irrigation and the sources of water in much the same way that persons entering desert lands were required to do; they were required to sell or otherwise dispose of the land only to actual settlers in tracts no larger than a quarter-section and within 10 years not less than 20 acres of each quarter-section was to be in cultivation. In the discussion on the bill the fear was expressed that if there was any good land susceptible of irrigation left in the possession of the government it would be taken up quickly and would not assure a systematic and well-planned program of irrigation, nor the most effective use of available water resources. Two Con- gressmen, William P. Hepburn of Iowa and Francis G. Newlands of Nevada, were not at all sure that the states would be able to carry out the very expensive projects being contemplated by some of them and, perhaps reluctantly, expressed their view that only the Federal government could be expected to handle the question in a broad-gauged and constructive way. They were foresighted. Congress accepted the Carey measure which became law on August 18, 1894.34 At each of the Irrigation Congresses- Salt Lake City in 1891, Los Angeles in 1893, Denver in 1894-the question of cession of the public lands to the states absorbed much attention. Many staunch advocates of cession believed that the Federal government could never be persuaded to undertake large-scale irrigation work and in any event would have strongly opposed its doing so believing that the matter should be left to the states. In the Carey Act they had won a minor victory but were by no means content. However, for the moment they thought it wise to let the states experiment with the land thus made available to them. At the Denver meeting those present voted overwhelmingly in favor of the repeal of the Desert Land Act, which, in the words of the chairman of the National Committee of the Irrigation Congress, was an "anomalous statute [that] assumes that a single settler can divert a mighty river and reclaim 320 acres of land." It assumes that that large [an] area is necessary for the support of a family. In its practical operation it is the instrument of corporations, and enables them to acquire vast tracts of arid land for a nominal price and to put it on the market on their own terms. It breeds perjury, fraud and speculation. William E. Smythe conceded that in the past the act had enabled much useful work 33 Cong. Record, 53d Cong., 2d sess., Aug. 11, 1894, pp. 8422-23; Davison, "The Leadership of the Reclamation Movement," p. 221. 34 Cong. Record, 53d Cong., 2d sess., Aug. 11, 1894, pp. 8422-23; 28 Stat. 422. |
