time, and what is a slight delay when such enormous interests are in the balance? On the other hand, assume that the present theory is continued and these rights granted in perpetuity and we later awaken to the fact that a mistake has been made, how then is it to be corrected? Vested right, vested too often on odious wrongs, will claim and receive recognition and it will be found that a law framed for the most beneficent purposes will have been transformed into a measure to perpetuate monopolies and sustain wrongs. The time to attach conditions is when the grant is made.

Taking up the objections, a slight analysis will show that they are not very serious. Rights could be granted for a fixed period covering a term of years sufficient to justify investments, to be renewed under such regulations as might thereafter be prescribed by law. Those who oppose this system state that the uncertainty as to the conditions of renewal would be such that no investments would be made. My answer is that those who cannot trust the State to do justice to its own citizens cannot criticise others for not trusting them. Let me ask you to search your memory, to recall what you have read, what you have observed, and see if you can find one instance where the public has not dealt fairly with investors, corporate or otherwise. It is a libel on our citizenship to suggest otherwise, and out of fear that our children or their children will not know right from wrong, to grant today rights and privileges belonging to the public that are to stand for ever and for ever. All history shows that such laws are mistakes. Experience has demonstrated over and over again that in the never ending struggle between special interests and the public, the "interests," no matter how careful the public may be, usually prevail and the law books are full of cases sustaining rights granted by men temporarily in power who wallowed in the trough of rottenness, bribery, and corruption. But "vested rights"

were preserved, even though based on confessed and atrocious wrongs.

In my opinion, as power is required it will be developed just as certainly under wise and prudent regulations as under perpetual grants. However, while capital is welcome, it is not everything. There are other things of greater importance. If we cannot go as fast as some would wish, we will go slower and be content. If the water is not being used for power except as the needs of the country require, it will be used for other purposes, agriculture in all its branches will thrive and the country be filled with happy people and comfortable homes. Does anyone ever hear of any of these gentlemen who are so desirous of securing these perpetual rights to our powers offering to give them to anybody else after they acquire them without compensation or even to lease them without pay? If you really felt that these as well as other resources would be absolutely essential to the comfort and well being of your children, would you let the control pass from you. In my own experience, I have before this engaged in a contest for limited franchises granted by cities, and today but few even suggest perpetual life for them. We were then told investments would not be made, but I have seen millions invested since the very enterprises that it was predicted would be driven away. I have seen investors bid thousands of dollars for these limited rights in the very community and under conditions they said would be prohibitory. However, I take the position that no citizen has the right even to ask for grants of perpetual and exclusive rights in a common estate.

It may be said my views are not practical, that they are theoretical and idealistic. I am practical enough to know to what such grants lead and to perceive the results that will surely follow; I am idealistic enough to know that there are better ways of dealing with such public resources than

to give them away for ever; and I am dreamer enough to feel that the people want their interests conserved and preserved.

I will not attempt to show the value of these rights nor their tremendous possibilities for the future. It is sufficient to say that we have the power to deal with them, to say how they shall be used, to conserve them for the benefit of the people, or to put in the power of a few the opportunity to monopolize, own, and control one of the most valuable of the public's resources. We may give them away; we may deprive the people of their rights in them and to the control of them, but when on the one hand a road leads to safety, and on the other to danger, there should be no hesitation which road we should take. The waste of our forests has been appalling and even now plans are being formulated to reforest vast areas of land. The great "burns" found through all our mountains furnish striking evidence of the gross carelessness and indifference to the value of this great resource which has characterized our actions in the past and needs no comment. This criticism applies not only to the treatment of our forests, but to the fish and game and to others of our resources, and it is time that these acts of colossal folly were stopped. Supreme selfishness on the one hand and deadly indifference on the other is at the root of it all. If there be any so blind that he cannot see the total lack of defense to the right, legal or moral, to destroy the sources of such rich revenues, then such an one is hopeless.

It is when one attempts to correct such manifest evils that he is placed under the temptation first recorded as successfully applied in the twenty-fifth chapter of Genesis, when Esau sold his birthright for a mess of pottage. We are told that investments will not be made, the country will not be developed, capital will avoid us, and commerce languish, unless we turn over such of our resources as may be desired

to the free, unrestrained, and perpetual use of those wanting them. The immediate result to ourselves is placed in the balance as against the future, and too often we yield when we should be firm.

It matters not what subject may be under consideration, fisheries, powers, municipal franchises, grants of all kinds and character, it is always the same story, the same temptation, and to carry the Biblical parallel further, it will always be found that while the hand may be that of Esau, the voice is that of Jacob. It hardly seems necessary to say that such a policy, while possibly producing temporary personal benefits, will in the end prove our undoing and we will be rudely awakened to find some of our resources gone forever and others in the iron hand of monopoly. We will find in the hands of private owners instruments rightly belonging to the public, the use of which we but dimly understand today, and whose ownership and control should be had and exercised by the public.

Passing legal questions and resting our position on the broad platform of public welfare both present and future, how should we treat these public resources? Should they be conserved or should they be granted indiscriminately to the first who applies and let the future take care of itself? Which policy is best from a practical standpoint? Which policy makes for real patriotism, for higher citizenship, for the comfort, happiness and well being of the people, and which for selfishness and for self-interest? Our forests, mines, waters, lands, fisheries wild game, as well as other resources, each in itself would furnish a subject for consideration, but it is not my purpose to enter into details. The facts exist that we have these resources. The question is, shall they be conserved? Shall this conservation be for the benefit of the people as a whole, or shall it be in the interest of the individual? If the history of the past teaches us anything,

if the lamp of experience is to light our path, there can be but one answer to these questions. It would indeed take the imagination of a poet with the instinct of a seer to foretell what this country will be one hundred years hence under a wise use and conservation of her limitless natural wealth.

Consider the possibilities alone of the right use of water. Think of the vast empire in our arid sections waiting but water's magic touch to transform it into happy homes for thousands of people. It has been said, and it is generally accepted as true, that whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before would deserve better of mankind and do more essential service to his country than the whole race of mere politicians put together. If this is true, what shall be said of those who make grass grow where none grew before, who transform the desert into fields of clover, of grain and fruit, and who make vast sections not only fit for the habitation of men, but the fairest of lands and the choicest of homes.

Consider for a moment the results that would follow from co-ordinated work. In constructing an irrigating plant, in improving a river, there are many opportunities for the economical development of power. Between Calilo and Big Eddy on the Columbia River, a distance of about eight miles, 120 miles above Portland, where a large Government project is now under way, it has been estimated that there could be developed an average minimum of 460.000 horse power. If it were developed coincidently with the other improvements it would furnish a large revenue and cheap power for all purposes. This is but illustrative of many such operations. But I will not pursue this question further.

It is a matter of fact that ex-President Roosevelt regards the inauguration of the conservation movement as the greatest act of his administration. To inaugurate it required a