Chapter XIV: Front Matter (14)

My suggestion is that the first step is required by the public through action of States and action of the Government. I appreciate that this cannot be accomplished without explaining fully to the people exactly what is required. I appreciate that there is necessary an organized campaign of education which should be carried into every locality of the country. This campaign may and must be practical, and not only the general problem of forestry but also the specific means of solving it must be presented to the people. This educational work may be done in part by the Government; a large amount of it must, however, be carried on through the State officials, through the State forest and conservation commissions, and through National and local associations. (Prolonged applause)

* * * * *

President BAKER--The next subject is "The Stake of the Business Man in Conservation," by Mr Alfred L. Baker, of Chicago.

Mr BAKER--Mr President, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: Here in this Second Conservation Congress, where are assembled specialists who have given profound study to the different phases of the Conservation of our resources, where are met together scientists in agriculture, forestry, mineralogy and waterways, it is not intended that the remarks of a business man should stumble into the fields of the experts. It is, however, appropriate that he should voice his approving earnestness and vigorous enthusiasm in behalf of the Conservation movement (applause), and voice them to those National benefactors who are holding their shoulders to the wheel of progress. As a delegate to this Congress, representing the business man and with the knowledge of his views, I wish to state with all the emphasis of which I am capable that the business men in this country are heart and soul in favor of Conservation (applause). Owing to the infirmities of human nature a few may faint by the wayside; but the great body and mass can always be depended on to faithfully and loyally support the movement. By so doing they are promoting the proper development of those resources which are not only the foundation of our National prosperity but also the foundation of their own individual success.

The most conspicuous quality in the character of the successful business man is foresight--and he, more than any other member of the community, must realize the necessity of foresight in the management of our National affairs. He himself would never permit the waste or plunder of his own personal resources, and whilst enjoying their daily possession would always take thought for the morrow. The Nation in its control of our resources should reflect the same character and intelligence which the individual shows in the management of his own private affairs. (Applause)

The great body of business men favor the well-known policies of Conservation. They recognize that those resources which are of a public character should be held in trust by the Nation for the benefit of the people (applause) and that those resources of a private nature should be so disposed of that they will be enjoyed by the greatest number for the longest time. (Applause)

They believe in the Government control of water-power (applause) with the cooperation of the States, and in the application of a scientific forestry which will eliminate waste, also in a fire patrol which, _at whatever cost_ (applause), will prevent the destruction of our forests and of human life. They believe in better methods of farming and in the improvement of country life so that the bright boy on the farm shall no longer respond to the call of the great city, but find immediately about him equal opportunities for fame and fortune. (Applause) They believe in the continued distribution of information on a large scale that will educate the people and advance their knowledge of Conservation (applause); and finally they believe in the Conservation of public integrity, which is the basal foundation of our National life on which all else depends. (Great applause)

I am not one of those who believe that the Conservation movement should be confined solely to the technical treatment of the forest and soil and the prevention of material waste. The second article in the platform of the first Conservation Congress provides that "the objects of this Congress shall be broad, to act as a clearing house for all allied social forces of our time, to seek to overcome waste in natural, human, or moral forces." I concur in that declaration. (Applause)

We are told that the Constitution of the United States was the unexpected outcome of a conference convened for the sole purpose of investigating our waterways. The charge of irrelevancy might well have been brought to bear upon the discussions which ensued relating to a standing army and the powers of the Federal Government, but in all National movements the importance rests not with their origin but with the extent of their usefulness. (Applause)

However restricted at the outset, Conservation has grown into a larger and more comprehensive movement, and its principles include the conservation of ideals that make for good citizenship (applause). It is in relation to this larger view that I wish to emphasize the importance of the American business man and his influence on our National progress.

In the lifetime of many now living, the land in this great State of Minnesota was divided between two Indian tribes--the Sioux and the Chippewa. These tribes were uncivilized. Intelligence had not arrived at the stage which produces diversified industry, commerce, and the merchant. The influence of these forces marks the difference between the land of the Sioux and the State of Minnesota today.

The early pioneers who first settled on the Atlantic Coast and then continued their journey across the Continent were all business men, but they were not capitalists. From the eastern States they sought in Europe capital to build up the industries of their locations, and, by the use of this capital and labor rendered the East prosperous; and when these sturdy pioneers opened up the wealth of resources in the West they, in turn, drew upon the East for capital, and by paying for its use and uniting labor with it developed this great country. The descendants of these pioneer business men are the representative business men of today. They are not in an economic sense capitalists. Whilst the capitalist may be a business man, the vast majority of business men are not capitalists. The business man is the one who obtains capital from one source and labor from another source and unites them in an anticipated prosperous undertaking. (Applause)

The material prosperity of the United States is due to our natural resources and the genius of the business man united with the capital of the few and the toil of the millions; but the _creative genius_, the organizing ability, the spirit which animates the partnership, is the contribution of the business man--by his brains, energy, force of character, and toil he has created here in the United States a commercial system of enterprise and a degree of business prosperity unparalleled in history.

If we give the credit of this achievement to the business man, he should also bear the responsibility of the evils which have been engendered (applause). The gravest evils which have developed out of our commercial prosperity are the uncontrolled power of great wealth, the growth of monopolies, and their sinister influence on our political institutions. (Applause)

Industrial efficiency may justify the union of many smaller corporations into one big one, but if it leads to industrial despotism this efficiency is obtained at the sacrifice of industrial freedom (applause). No one nowadays, on the ground of efficiency, believes in a _political_ despotism; surely it is equally difficult to believe that any degree of efficiency could justify _industrial_ despotism. (Applause)

As early as 1888 so conservative a man as Grover Cleveland expressed himself as follows: "Communism of combined wealth and capital, the outgrowth of overweening cupidity and selfishness, which assiduously undermines the justice and integrity of free institutions is not less dangerous than the communism of oppressed poverty and toil which, exasperated by injustice and discontent, attacks with wild disorder the citadel of misrule." So far as communism of capital is concerned, did not Cleveland's graphic statement adumbrate the conditions as they exist today? Since that time how tremendous has been the growth in the combinations of capital and industry.

But of more importance than the size of the corporations and the combinations of capital is the activity in our political arena of the agents and members of these corporations (applause); they are not there to advocate measures for the welfare of the community, but to obtain for themselves special privileges, to gain some advantage in disregard of the public welfare and merely for private gain. These conditions are precipitating an economic and political crisis, in which the issues are not to be between the two great political parties, but between ranks which are being formed to give battle on these new issues regardless of party lines. (Applause)

To my mind great encouragement lies in the fact that there is rapidly developing a segregation in the ranks of business men. Already many of them, freed from a false sense of class loyalty, or a fear of injury to business, are unwilling to assist by their public support or private esteem that man, however successful or powerful he may be, who by himself or by his agents practices methods which are unfair and opposed to the common good (applause). They no longer respect the citizen who in any way indicates a reluctance to take part in the crusade against bribery and graft, or the one who, by silence, hopes to conceal his public attitude when public sentiment seeks to fasten responsibility where responsibility belongs (applause). This sort of man must come out into the open and declare himself--he must be either with us or against us. (Applause and cries of "Good!")

Even though the advocacy of the control of industrial combinations and the enactment of measures for their regulation temporarily affect business interests, they should not for this reason excite the opposition of the mercantile world. Those business men who have become convinced of the wisdom of regulation should be willing to follow the example of the intelligent patient who goes through with a necessary operation that in the end he may obtain permanent health and strength. (Applause)

During the last five years there is apparent among business men a larger recognition of their obligations to the community, and there is noticeable among the directors of many of our corporations a stricter sense of trusteeship. An anti-toxin to corruption has entered the very veins of the business world (applause). The phagocytes of health are overcoming the macrophags of decay. This is not a sudden revival, a temporary wave of reform, but a gradual evolution of the moral sense, a permanent advance in the idea of social justice (applause). This moral awakening may show itself politically in an effort toward municipal reform, in legislative and municipal voters' leagues, in a determined resistance to monopoly, or for a larger control and a larger share in the profits of public franchise corporations. But in whatever form it seeks its expression, it is the manifestation of an actively constructive principle which will soon become so effective that the merchant and the man of affairs will overlook the near and personal view which appears on the stock ticker and take the larger view, the view that ultimately provides for the greatest good of the greatest number (applause). This awakened sense of social justice is the new and deeper significance of the Conservation movement. (Applause)

Two years ago the Conference of Governors adopted a declaration of principles which the President said should hang on the wall of every school-house for the education of every citizen who is to become a voter in the next generation.

Since then Conservation has become the watchword of the hour. The widespread use of the word has given to it a meaning undreamed of in the beginning. In the form of an intelligent energy it has applied itself to all the concerns of life from the conservation of the soil and the forest to the conservation of birds, of child life and of health. It enters into our daily life, awakens into an active moral force a renaissance of the old-fashioned virtues--prudence, thrift, and foresight--and gives to them a larger and a National meaning.

Conservation is the intimate and individual message to our day and generation. It marks the advent of a new patriotism wherein love of humanity becomes an integral part of love of country, and where the conservation of our "rocks and rills," our "woods and templed hills," is not a more sacred trust than the conservation of those ideals and principles through which we hope to attain our ultimate National purpose--a Government of enlightened people, enjoying equal opportunities, sharing equal burdens, and rejoicing in the freedom of an Industrial and Political Democracy. (Great applause)

* * * * *

[In the course of the foregoing, President Baker invited Professor Condra to the Chair.]

Professor CONDRA--Ladies and Gentlemen: President Baker desires me to say that his voice has failed. He also authorizes me to announce that the Call of States will be made this afternoon.

I am pleased now to introduce a speaker opposed to the leading objects of this Congress. I ask you to hear kindly any criticism that he may offer. His subject is "The Relation of Capital to the Development of Resources." Mr Frank H. Short, of California.

* * * * *

Mr SHORT--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am permitted to speak today for the first time for real money, and apparently in behalf of those who are sometimes denominated "malefactors of great wealth." I observe that one of the Saint Paul papers in announcing this address has referred to me as a lawyer and capitalist. The latter I modestly deny. It is unprofessional for a lawyer to become rich. Good lawyers are scarce and valuable, and judging by the speeches I have heard in this Congress rich men are very common and a great public nuisance. Therefore I hold that it would be a great misfortune for a good lawyer, such as I admit that I am (laughter), to be spoiled by making out of him an ordinary capitalist.

This audience, in listening to my address, will no doubt have in mind the numerous warnings which have been given to them in advance to forestall the evil influences of my humble remarks. I hope none of you will ever have to sustain the painful ordeal of appearing before an audience decorated with hoofs and horns by angels of light wearing crowns and playing harps, who have so kindly bestowed upon me the habiliments of the Evil One. Perhaps, since I have been so excessively featured, I had as well admit the whole horrible truth. First, and perhaps worst of all, I am a Missourian, having committed the indiscretion of being born in the "Show me" State--but not in Kansas. All of my youth was spent in the Middle West in the occupation of a rough rider; and I still enjoy a fight or a footrace as much as though I were a real colonel. Further confessing, I have lived for many years in California and am a lawyer by profession, and have committed the offense of allowing myself to be retained and am now employed by a considerable number of large water companies and electric power companies and other corporations, diligently endeavoring to commit the crime of investing capital under the laws of the western States in the development of the industries and resources of those States.

The difference between a real colonel and a second lieutenant is illustrated by the fact that this admission permits of my being heard under his authority, although industrious efforts by the lieutenant referred to have been devoted to the contrary purpose. I am, however, speaking under the general permission of this Congress, and under no other frank than my unrevoked license as a real though obscure American citizen.

The rights and interests of all American citizens and business institutions under the laws of our country are the same (applause). As a man accumulates property, and his interests and substantial connection with the country and its resources increase, he thereupon becomes just that much more interested in the honesty and integrity of the Government under which he lives, in the perfectly equal and just operation of the law, and above all in the supremacy of the law and similarly in the inauguration, continuation, and perpetuation of good policies.

No doubt we self-governing Americans have all erred, both the poor man and the capitalist; and perhaps it would not be unfair to say that we all ought in humility to bear our equal share of the odium connected with whatever failures and offenses have been committed during our history, and I am not here to shift any of the burden from one class upon another. Neither am I here to answer denunciations with denunciations. I am handicapped in such debate, for the reason that I acquired my education in the old-fashioned school that was taught to believe that an honest man was one who said little of his own honesty and less of the supposed dishonesty of others.

A convention of this character can be carried on with but little capital, and may travel a good ways on sheer wind; but with all respect to free speech, it takes money to carry on Government and conduct business, and if capital is as timid as it is supposed to be, and if some of our political friends were as dangerous as they sound, all of the money would have been scared out of America before I commenced these remarks on capital. Allow me, however, respectfully to suggest that we of this country are engaged in many vast enterprises; we are responsible to many men and their families for the opportunity to work and to earn a living. We are committed to the completion of many National enterprises of great magnitude. Our crops are none too large, our reserve capital is small and is growing smaller. The general industrial and financial conditions of the country from the point of view of thoughtful men who understand the situation, are not as satisfactory as I wish they were, and those who are gaining fame and ascending to office by wild denunciations of wealth are willing to assume hazards that I do not envy. (Applause)

Honest capital is more secure when governments are made honest and special privileges are denied, when graft is prevented and crimes are punished: and there is never any danger in real reform, but infinite harm can be done by attractive orators of maximum lung power and minimum brains (applause). Honesty is the best policy in large business and in small business, and the most that capital ought to expect or demand, and the most that will be profitable to it in the long run, is to seek and if it can obtain the passage and the enforcement of equal and just laws, the continuation of justice, and the right honestly to accumulate, hold and enjoy property (applause). The relations of capital to Conservation are identical with its relations to all other business. As Conservation tends to increase and continue the natural resources of the country, the fertility of the soil, the perpetuation of the forests, the flow of streams, and all of those conditions that insure the substantial welfare of the country, the capitalist has an equal interest with all other citizens in Conservation, and the added interest that he can share in a greater degree in the resulting and continuing prosperity than his less fortunate neighbor.

Some excellent things have been done and said in this convention. If "conversational conservation" would cure the evils under which we live we would have no need of doctors for a long time. As against "conversational conservation" I wish now to say a few words about constitutional conservation. From now on I may wander a little from the rich subject that has been assigned to me, but I have been much interested in the suggestion that that branch of the Government that can accomplish the most good for the people should take charge of their business and affairs connected with Government. Unless, however, we have some authoritative source other than the nebulous question of the general welfare to determine where this authority lies, I am apprehensive that most of the resources of Government would be dissipated in fighting over the question of authority.

What I now hold to be true for all time--and you will all agree with me some day--is that that branch of the Government that under our constitutional system is designated as the one having the authority is the only branch of the Government that can benefit capital, conserve or advance the rights of the people, or do justice in any way whatever. Conservation as it was understood in its inception in this country, the preservation of our soils, our forests, and our resources presented a subject of little difficulty, and in connection with which we were all practically in accord and where apparently there would have been no occasion for any serious disagreement. No more new or difficult questions of Government are legitimately involved in Conservation and forestry than are involved in cultivation and farming.

If the device of using the public lands to graft Government onto Conservation had not been invented by some civic genius, we would have had 90 percent of conservation to 10 percent of controversy. But when the landlord seeks to be the governor, especially in America, we get 90 percent plus of controversy and 10 percent minus of conservation. Landlord law and governmental conservation was devised, we are told, to control wealth for the benefit of the plain, small man. Inquire in the vicinity of any forest reserve, and you will find that there are more plain, small people than there used to be, and they are getting plainer and smaller every day; so apparently the good work will never end.

As briefly as I may, and seriously as I can, I will state the situation that confronts the people of the West, the poor man and the capitalist alike, in connection with the forest reserve. Forest reserves were authorized by Congress for the purpose of protecting forests and conserving the source of supply of streams. Probably one-third of the 200,000,000 acres that have been set apart in forest reserves in the western one-third of the United States are reasonably necessary and suited to these purposes. As to the other two-thirds, they were largely included--and in some instances this is frankly admitted--for the purpose of authority for Government control, to include pasture lands, power-sites, irrigation projects, and the like. If forest reserves had been created to meet the actual necessity which brought them into existence, and if they had been administered with due deference to the rights of the State within which they are situated, to improve and develop its resources without restraint, to construct or authorize to be constructed roads and highways, railroads, telephone and telegraph lines, canals and ditches for the beneficial use of water, and the functions of local self-government had not been assumed to the Federal authorities and denied to the local authorities, I could conceive of no reason why the forestry policy could not have been carried out with great credit and some profit to the Federal Government and greatly to the advantage of the district in which the forests are situated. The pity of it all is that this has not been done. We are told that the sentiment in opposition to transferring from the States to the Federal Government important functions of regulation and control is not unanimous. This is true as to districts not directly affected by the forest reserves; but as to the people within and in the vicinity of the forest reserves, in other words, as to those who have come directly or indirectly in contact with bureaucratic government, the sentiment is about as unanimous as ever existed in America.

That the Forester and those under him honestly desire to benefit the people, especially "the poor, small man," we need not deny; that the actual results have been beneficial, however, we wholly deny. The imperial dominion withdrawn includes territory as large as 20 or 30 average-size eastern States, amounting frequently to one-fifth or one-fourth, and sometimes even exceeding the latter fraction of the territory within a State, and practically taking over and paralyzing local self-government in certain entire districts of a State. These lands are, and if the policy continues will remain forever, withdrawn from State taxation and revenue, and instead will become a source of expense and burden. First, considering the prime purpose to preserve and protect the forest, what has been the result? The Forester and those under him have my profound sympathy in connection with the recent awful destructive forest fires and the heroic way in which the disaster was met, even though it was not overcome.

For many years experienced and practical men in the West have protested against the policies pursued. Previous to the establishment of the forest reserves the land was pastured by sheep and cattle, admittedly in some instances over-pastured. Frequent fires ran through the country, but in most instances as the country had been closely pastured off and fires had usually recently occurred, these fires did only incidental harm, and in a general way the great forests of the West in many districts--although the result of mere natural processes--as valuable and magnificent as there are in the world, were retained in their primitive and perfect condition. For a good many years now exactly the reverse of this primitive condition has prevailed. Sheep have been excluded and cattle have been limited; falling and decaying timber, the growth of vegetation from year to year, and the accumulation of underbrush and debris have continued; and we have gone on conserving our forests in such a way that we have been accumulating fuel and the elements of destruction, piling up wrath against the day of wrath, until the fires, in spite of precautions, have started, and the destruction that has resulted is inevitable. What is needed now in this particular is a surgeon who has the nerve to amputate the conditions that create fire, and until this is done the danger will go on increasing from year to year and more destruction than benefits will inevitably result. To those who suggest that a sufficient patrol will prevent fires, I respond that they ought to try the experiment of filling a building with powder, putting an ample guard around it, and touching a match to it.

These great reserves have been practically closed to settlement and homesteading. The price of pasturage has been increased, the number of cattle and sheep pastured has been diminished, and the price of meat correspondingly advanced. The price of stumpage has been doubled and trebled, no small mills have been or can be successfully started, and the price of lumber to consumers has been increased. The policy has limited the construction of canals and other appliances for irrigation, and still more effectually limited the construction of like appliances for the diversion of water for the development of electric power. If this water could be diverted for irrigation and electric power under State laws without other restraint, the quantity available in the majority of the western States is so great that the supply would exceed the demand, the price would be lower, the consumption greater, and in every way the people would be benefited. The country would be settled, the people would be more prosperous, the supply of water and electricity would be more abundant and cheaper, and all of the people and all of the industries would be correspondingly more prosperous.

It is gratifying that the line of cleavage and difference between the advocates of bureaucratic control over local industries and the advocates of local self-government have been better defined. Upon the all-important question of the law applicable to this subject, I submit that there is little ground for honest difference. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided practically every phase of the matter over and over again, and the law is settled to the following effect: That the United States Government owns the public lands in each of the States as private proprietor and not as sovereign; that it, the Federal Government, if it seeks to assert any authority in any State, must find its warrant in the Constitution and not in the ownership of the public lands; that the authority of the United States Government to adopt needful rules and regulations in connection with public lands is an authority to protect its proprietary interest and not exercise governmental functions within any State; that every State is upon an equal footing with all of the other States, and for the protection of its own people, its own industries, and the regulation of its own monopolies, each State has all of the powers of any other Government; that the United States Government exercises the same power, and each of the States exercises the same power, "no more and no less," regardless of the existence or non-existence of public land in any State.

The whole pretense made by some that the United States Government can exercise exceptional governmental authority in a State having public lands is a pretense and a pretense only. Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, such a claim has no shadow of foundation, and its assertion is merely injurious, detrimental to capital, destructive to industry, and can never serve any useful purpose of regulation or otherwise. These principles being fully decided and clearly in mind, it is hard to understand why the issue is raised, and how it is hoped that the policy can be imposed upon the western States or any other States under the Constitution. It has been said with derision that the corporations are appealing to the Constitution. I would to God that neither the corporations nor the American people might ever appeal to anything worse. However much evil may have been taught, no honest man need be apprehensive of injustice if his rights and the rights of his fellow citizens are always measured by a just construction of the Constitution of the United States. (Applause)

We are told, and I think some of our adversaries honestly believe the tale, that all of the remaining resources of the country belong to all of the people. That "all of the resources belong to all of the people" is a slogan that sounds good. Its chief defect is that it is not true, and the next objection is that to assert it now, after pursuing an exactly contrary policy as to four-fifths of the Nation's resources, would be an intolerable injustice. The United States Supreme Court decided a long time ago that the United States Government received and held the public lands as trustee for the benefit of the people and the States within which they were situated, to the end that they might be disposed of to actual settlers at nominal prices in order that the country might be settled, cultivated, populated, and developed; the lands come under the taxing power, and all of the unrestrained functions of State government. These decisions have been reaffirmed, and it has been held that the United States' title and trusteeship as to the public lands is identical in all the States. Therefore it is not true as a matter of understanding or of law that the United States is the unrestrained proprietor of the public lands, but it holds in them a trust; and I submit that no justice can be done or good come from the violation or attempted violation of a trust. Considering the equity of the situation, if the United States is now the owner of the remaining lands and resources for all of the people, it has been such from the beginning of the Government; and having disposed of these resources to the beneficiaries entitled thereto, it is now seriously proposed to seize upon the remaining fraction and hold that fraction for the benefit of all the people, as much as for the benefit of the people and the sections of the country that have received their proportion as for those who have not received theirs.

The situation might be illustrated by this simple statement: Uncle Sam may be assumed to be the father of four sons; we will name them East, North, South, and West. Uncle Samuel being liberal to a fault and mindful of a trust, has transferred to his three elder sons, East, North, and South, all of their share in his estate. But these elder sons, especially after their industrious younger brother has begun to show the real value of his portion of their father's estate, begin to look with covetous eyes upon the younger brother's inheritance. Finally a deep sense of justice begins to pervade the minds of East, North, and South, and they appear before Uncle Samuel and say, "Father, you have been very profligate in the management of your great estate. You have turned over to us and to our children without needful restriction the whole of the proportion that we can rightfully claim. In the doing of this you have shown great incompetency and have practiced many faults, and behold, you have sinned against Heaven and in the sight of men. We can see no way of atoning for this awful offense except that you shall take and hold that portion of the estate that should descend to our younger brother for the benefit of all of your children. And as a further atonement, having shown in the distribution of your estate to us that you are dishonest and incompetent in the last degree, in consideration thereof we will nominate and appoint you the landlord and guardian, without bonds and forever, of that portion of the estate that, except for this atonement, would have belonged to our younger brother; requiring you, however, to see to it with scrupulous care that we, your elder sons, shall receive from the rents, leases, and profits of this estate our equal shares with our beloved younger brother." Painful as it may seem, these elder brothers seem well nigh unanimous as to this scheme of atonement, and Uncle Samuel seems weak and subject to the influence of the majority. History, however, will record that the Constitution broke the will and the elder brothers were charged with the costs and counsel fees. (Laughter)

If anyone present feels justified in challenging the accuracy or historical correctness of the foregoing statement or its logical application to the situation, he will now please rise and state his case or hereafter forever hold his peace.

The overshadowing political reason why the United States Government must invade the public land States and assert powers of government that it cannot assert in any other States we are told is to control monopolies. As a controller of monopolies not constitutionally subject to be controlled by the Federal Government, and under claims of title to the public lands, the United States Government and its respective bureau chiefs would have St. George, the dragon destroyer, outclassed at the ratio of sixteen to one. It may do as a political issue for a long time, but if the people of the western States had no powers of government or sources of control within themselves, or except through the Federal Government, the public lands, and the heads of bureaus, these people would have little to expect or hope for.

It is gratifying, however, to observe that instead of being helpless and impotent, the western States not only have all of the powers that are vested in any other Government for the protection of their people from monopoly and wrong, but an understanding of their constitutions and laws clearly demonstrates that they are showing themselves far more alert, advanced, and capable in these functions of government than either the Federal Government or the older States in the East. It ought not to be necessary to say to an American audience that it is elementary that the people of a locality can give themselves more honest, efficient, and better government than can be given to them by any remote authority. The reason for this is so simple that the only excuse for attempting to deny it is the ignorance and incapacity of the people concerned to carry on or carry out self-government. The people of the western States alone will suffer if they do not efficiently and intelligently exercise their undoubted authority to supply themselves with good self-government, and efficiently control and direct their own industries and their own monopolies.

About the only argument that is made in favor of Federal control and against local self-government in the West is that the corporations appear to prefer the former. The question is not what the corporations prefer but what the Constitution requires; and, in the next place, the corporations do not deny the authority of the States because they are advised that they cannot and therefore should not attempt to do so, and because they are advised that they must in any event submit to local self-government and that Federal control would be an additional and not a lawful but a wholly unauthorized usurpation of authority. The American people, of all people in the world, have earned the reputation of being the most obedient to law and the least submissive to usurpation of any people in the world. If some of our wealthy men and some of corporations have offended against honesty and attempted to circumvent, misapply, and misuse the law, these are instances to be regretted, condemned, and punished. The practice should be abandoned, and if not abandoned rigorously prevented; having it, however, religiously in mind that ultimate justice can be done and the law vindicated only by adhering to due process of law.

We are told that Switzerland as a Nation regulates and manages its own power business. Since, however, Switzerland has no more authority or powers of government than California, Colorado, or New York, and since it is probably one-tenth the size of these States and its cantons are about the size of an ordinary western school district, this would not appear to indicate any reason why the western States of the Union could not successfully carry out the same function of government.

Our former President has said to us that he would be as swift to prevent injustice and unwarranted uprising against property as anyone. This I do not doubt, and I am prepared to agree that probably no one living could perform the task more cheerfully or effectively; but in this connection it might not be improper to reflect that the people have been taught, and rightly so, that this is "a government of law and not of men," and we rely upon the equal and continued protection of the law for the protection of our persons and our property, not upon the life or disposition of any man.

We have already referred to the assertion that the remaining resources of the Federal Government belong to all of the people and are to be administered and revenues obtained for their full benefit. We are not, however, deluded with the thought that we are to begin to draw individual dividends. The revenues thus obtained are to go into the Federal treasury (and allow me parenthetically to suggest that the pay-roll will not be far behind the earnings), but if through some oversight a balance should be found in favor of all of the people it will go into the Federal treasury to reduce taxation to the common benefit. Allow me to suggest, and ask all thoughtful people to well consider, that if sufficient revenues were collected and paid into the Federal treasury to prove of great benefit to a hundred millions of people, the collection and payment of these same revenues will of necessity amount to some slight imposition and burden upon the ten millions of people when they are paid out of their resources and revenues.

While we are considering monopolies it might not be inappropriate to consider that they are of two classes: private monopolies and government monopolies. One of the highest functions of government is to control and regulate private monopolies. It is not always easy, but the undoubted power exists and if properly applied is effective. History records that four-fifths of the exactions and oppressions and human sufferings that have existed in the world have come about when the conduct of business and the sources of supply were confined and vested in the government and constituted a government monopoly. Government monopolies are invariably created for the alleged benefit of the people, and throughout all history have almost invariably operated to the oppression and detriment of the people and ultimately to deprive them of their liberties. In the face of these undeniable records of history, the people of the western States are invited to surrender their control over their industries and their own private monopolies and have substituted therefor a Federal Government monopoly over which they could have no possible control. The western States are asked not only to surrender this control, but along with it to surrender the powers of taxation and revenue over all these great resources. My friends, some of you may congratulate yourselves that these so-called policies are popular, and no doubt to a certain extent they are; we think, however, because they are misunderstood. There need be no misunderstanding between us. You are welcome to your assumption of victory, and to the assumption of defeat for those who adhere to the right of local self-government.

We are correctly told that the ancient doctrine of State rights ended at Appomattox. The doctrine was there ended that the Federal Government did not have all of the power necessary to protect and continue the Nation for the common defense and the general welfare. The undeniable doctrine and right of the American people within the several States to continue an unrestrained local self-government was at that time neither destroyed nor impaired. The right and doctrine of local self-government will endure and continue until, if ever, some common disaster shall terminate and end the National existence as well as the existence of the several States. No question is ever settled until it is settled right. Frankly, today may be yours but tomorrow is ours. The Constitution of this country is greater and more enduring than any man. Let there be no misunderstanding between us. You should not, but if you would you cannot, deprive the people of this country in any number of States or in any one State of the equal guaranteed constitutional right of local self-government.

In recent months, so numerous have been the complaints and utterances against the courts that it would almost appear that there was a common design to discredit the courts with the American people. For even a longer period there have been recurring attacks upon and denials of the capability and capacity of the representative branch of our government. Even within its obvious jurisdiction the Legislative department has not only been excessively criticized but its very powers denied. The Executive of the country and each of the States, Congress, and each Legislature of each of the States, the Supreme Court and all of the subordinate courts, derive all of their authority from the American people through the Constitution of the United States. He who acts without and in spite of the Constitution acts without authority from the people. Constitutions are adopted to safeguard the rights of all men and to protect minorities from majorities. The question is not, where the Constitution declares the measure of right, what the majority wants, but the question is, what does the Constitution declare; and that is the beginning and the end of the law. The Government under which we have lived is the best vindicated Government in the history of the world. If a democratic people, as we have been told, have destroyed more since the adoption of the Constitution than has been wasted and destroyed in Europe in all of its history, we may admit this and agree that it is wise always to prevent waste; but we can with equal truth assert that if our free people under our free institutions have destroyed more than the people of Europe in their entire history, our people by scientific research and invention have added more to the potential and productive power of the earth and the elements for the benefit and subsistence of mankind than has been added by the people of Europe, Asia, and Africa during the entire recorded history of the world--all since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.

Whether it be popular or unpopular, it is true that the tendency to belittle the legislative power, to disparage judicial power, and to correspondingly exalt the executive power, is the same evil tendency that has destroyed every free government that has ever existed. It is the same spirit that overthrew the mild judicial government of Samuel and made Saul of Tarsus king over Israel. It is the same spirit that subverted the free cities and provinces of Greece, and made Alexander, the Macedonian, the sole arbiter of the destinies not only of the people of Greece but of the whole eastern world. It is the same spirit that subverted the Senate and the tribunals of Rome, and made Julius Caesar and his successors the emperors and rulers of the entire known world for succeeding centuries. We may agree that no such events will recur in modern history. But it is the same spirit that brings about such a condition in Mexico that nobody knows or cares when Congress meets or adjourns, because they never pass or suggest the passage of any laws that have not already been approved by the President. They must have a Supreme Court in Mexico, because their Constitution is very similar to our own. For the same reason we assume that they have States, although nobody ever hears of them. Neither do we hear of any one criticizing the decisions of the Supreme Court of that country; nobody has ever suggested that within the last quarter of a century that court has ever decided anything displeasing to the President.

The United States of America today is the world's sole and single exception where the people under a constitution through a long period of years have been guaranteed and have received the equal protection of the law. No guards have been required to stand at our city gates, no bayonets have defended our towns; we have all lived and prospered under the equal protection of equal laws. (Applause)

These institutions are human, they are imperfect and under them errors have been committed, but undeniably under this Government the people have received a larger measure of liberty together with a better distribution of the benefits of industry than was ever received or enjoyed hitherto by any people in the world. We favor that new efficiency that is neither National nor State, that under an equal respect for the Nation and for the State and for each branch of the Government strives for a higher condition of civic virtue, better enforcement and greater respect for the law in all of its branches. I hope and pray that none of us may ever be required to look beyond the years when the Constitution and the law in letter and in spirit are no longer supreme in this country and when we shall have reverted to "that good old simple plan, that each may take whate'er he may and keep whate'er he can." (Applause)

* * * * *

Professor CONDRA--Ladies and Gentlemen: A question has been sent to the Chair: "Will the Congress close this evening?" We do not know; probably the Congress itself will decide. There are several other features in the program, and there will be a report by the Committee on Resolutions. It may be that the Congress can finish all of its work today if you choose to re-convene.

You all know the next speaker, Honorable John Barrett, Director-General of the Pan-American Union. (Applause)

* * * * *

Mr BARRETT--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentleman: When the captivating senior Senator from Indiana fascinated us yesterday, and after holding us enthralled by his eloquence ending with that magnificent climax in eulogy of Gifford Pinchot, he left this room remarking to the reporters that he couldn't stay longer because he must go down and look after his State and 3,000,000 people. Now, if some of the rest of us relied on the measure of States and population as a reason for not being here, we would not come at all. For example, I might have said, when invited to take part in the work of this Congress, that I couldn't possibly come because I might neglect that which was best for 21 independent Republics and 160,000,000 people. What I want to say is this--that I would like to multiply twenty times over all the enthusiasm with which Senator Beveridge fired us yesterday, and extend it to many millions of people, in order that the wave started here by him and other speakers might sweep over the whole western hemisphere and remove the slightest question that all these Republics are awake to the practical value of Conservation.

Possibly some of you do not know very much more about the practical work of the Pan-American Union than I knew about the country to which I was first appointed minister some sixteen or seventeen years ago--when I knew as little about foreign affairs as some of us did a few years ago about Conservation. One day the President of the United States, with two United States Senators from North Carolina standing near by--if one of them had been from North Carolina and the other from South Carolina there wouldn't have been any doubt as to what the conversation was to be (laughter), but as both came from the same State I was in the dark--looked at me and said, "Mr Barrett, I am trying to find some young man who is not afraid of hard work and wants to make a reputation for himself to go off to a distant country, in another part of the world, to settle a case involving several millions of dollars and our treaty rights in the Orient; I am looking for a minister to Siam." Well, I thought that he wanted me to recommend somebody, and was trying to think of somebody in my State that I would like to get rid of and never see again, when he added, "I am thinking of appointing you; what do you know about Siam?" To save my life I couldn't even remember where it was, and I was conscious of the terrible impression I must be making upon the Executive, when with a twinkle in his eye he intimated "I have him this time." Then, a child-memory coming back, I braced myself and said, "Why, Mr President, _I know all about Siam_." "You do? What do you know about that country?" "Why, Mr President, Siam is the country that produced the Siamese Twins." Whereupon he shook my hand and said he was delighted to get hold of a man of such abundant information. (Laughter)

Now, before proceeding further, let me, as one of the officers of this Congress--although one who has had very little to do with its hard work--join with you in expressing profound appreciation of the splendid hospitality that has been shown the Delegates and all others who have come here to the city of Saint Paul in the State of Minnesota (applause). Moreover, I believe it is only fair and fitting that we should also express our gratitude for the hard work and the devotion to this Congress shown by President Baker and Secretary Shipp and Professor Condra and Chairman White and other men belonging to the Executive Committee. (Applause)

I have been asked, as a resident of the District of Columbia, whether, if this Congress shall go to the East next year, it might not go to the city of Washington, and there arouse the interest and the sympathy of the East. The West is awake; and if it be necessary to secure the cooperation of the eastern sections, and if the Executive Committee hesitates as to where it may go, I can assure them that by the city of Washington, the Capital of the Nation, will be given a welcome akin to that which has been given by the city of Saint Paul.