Doc. No. 13 (N. C )

WHICH IS THE PARTY OF

IRRIGATION?

A PLAJIN STATEMENT OP HOW
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Redeemed Its Pledges to the West

AND HOW

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
Fought Irrigation to the Last

By William E. Smythe.
Author of "THE CONQUEST OE ARID AMERICA'
(Recognized Authority on the History of Irrigation)

>62

i34

THE TRUE STORY
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATION.

The St. Louis platform boldly declares that the national irrigation act
¦"was a measure framed by a Democrat," and that it was "passed in tho
House by a vote the majority of which was Democratic." As President
.Roosevelt owes his popularity in the West largely to what he has done
for irrigation, the declaration in the St. Louis platform makes a sharp
issue between the parties, which will doubtless be the subject of an
animated debate throughout the campaign.
Singularly enough, the discussion will not concern itself with the
merits of the national irrigation policy. There is no division of senti
ment on that subject. Everybody admits that the enactment of the na
tional irrigation policy is the most significant event in Western history
since the exploration of Lewis and Clarke. Everybody sees that it is an
example of constructive statesmanship unrivaled in the annals of the
United States. The only contention between the great parties is as to
which of them is entitled to more credit for bringing it to pass. If the
issue involved nothing saye the division of credit between individuals ajid
parties it would possess merely historical interest and have no legitimate
place in the debates of a great national campaign. But behind it all is a ,
question of real importance, the decision of which may profoundly in-'
fluence the future of the far Western states for a. generation to come.
The question is this: Which of the two historic parties is the true friend
of the great West, and to which of them should the West give its allegiance
when the roll of States shall be called next November?
IRRIGATION STILL A LIVE ISSUE.
The answer to this question is not to be sought alone in the record
of the two parties on irrigation. There are other considerations of vital
importance, reaching far back into the past. But irrigation is the live
question of to-day. Moreover, it is the question with which I am most
familiar and upon which my word would be entitled to most weight. I
shall discuss it dispassionately, and try to give an absolutely truthful
account of the matter, leaving the public to judge how the credit for this
great achievement should be divided between the political parties. Of
the irrigation movement from its humble beginnings down to the present
hour, I can say, in the language of the old chronicler: "All of which I
saw, and a part of which I was."
Perhaps I ought to say frankly that I happen to be a Democrat, yet
r ' 3

probably no one doubts that I am much more of an irrigationist than of
a partisan, and I am sure I shall be believed in saying that there is a
very warm place in my heart for all who have contributed in any way to
the triumph of this cause.
To my mind, parties are but instruments to be used in the attainment
of desirable ends. If the Democratic party is not a worthy instrument
for the economic up-building of this Western land, to the development
of which I have gladly given all I had to give, then, indeed, it is no
party for me. On the other hand, if it is the party which has fought
the battles of the West in the years of the past, and which promises
to fight its battles in the years of the future, then it is the only party
for me.
The ninth Irrigation Congress, held at Chicago in 1900, declared un
equivocally for a system of national irrigation works. There was no at
tempt to frame an actual measure. This was to be left to the veterans
of the cause who belonged to the national legislature. But in order to
secure political backing, it became necessary to see that irrigation should
have a standing in the platforms of both the great parties. The influence
of the movement was promptly directed to this end, with gratifying
results.BOTH PARTIES PLEDGE SUPPORT.
The Republican National Convention held in Philadelphia in June,
1900, declared as follows:
"In further pursuance of the constant policy of the Republican party
to provide free homes on the public domain, we recommend adequate na
tional legislation to reclaim the arid lands of the United States, pre
serving the control of the territories of water for irrigation to the re
spective states and territories."
The Democratic National Convention, held at Kansas City in July,
1900, spoke a's follows:
"We favor an intelligent system of improving the arid lands of the
West, storing the waters for the purpose of irrigation, and the holding
of such land for actual settlers."
These party expressions were couched in very general terms, yet they
distinctly committed both parties to a new policy of internal improve
ment. Were they made in good faith, or were they merely designed to catch
the votes of the arid region ?
This question could be answered only by subsequent events. Hence,
events were awaited with anxious interest by all the veterans in the
Grand Army of National Irrigation who had fought the nine-years' war
from Lexington to Yorktbwn — from Salt Lake to Chicago.
The Fifty-sixth Congress assembled for its final session in December,
1900, after the second election of McKinley.
REPUBLICANS FORGET.
Neither in his December message, nor in his second inaugural address
delivered on the 4th of March, 1901, did the Republican President make

the slightest reference to national irrigation. Evidently, the irrigation
plank of the Philadelphia platform had produced no serious impression
on his mind. Nor is there any evidence that it had made the slightest
impression on the minds of Republican senators or representatives, ex
cept in the most general way. At any rate, none of them sought to
take the initiative in putting the platform into practice.
DEMOCRATS REMEMBER.
How about the Democrats? At least three of them were busy with
the effort to translate the abstract principles of the Kansas City plat
form into concrete legislation looking to the early reclamation of arid
lands. These three were Messrs. Shafroth and Bell of Colorado, and
Newlands of Nevada.
On December 3, 1900, the very first day of the session, Mr. Shafroth
introduced House Bill 12230, entitled: "A Bill for the construction of
reservoirs in the arid land States and for the disposal of public lands
reclaimed thereby." This was the first comprehensive measure, aiming at
a, general scheme of reclamation rather than at any specif.c project. It
authorized the Secretary of the Interior, not on'y to investigate, but
actually to construct reservoirs and canals, and appropriated $13,000,000
for the purpose.
On December 17, 1900, Mr. Newlands introduced a, bill "for the dis
position and settlement of arid lands, and for the construction of reservoirs
and necessary hydraulic works for the storage of water on and near the
Humboldt River, Nevada."
Early in January, 1901, Mr. Bell introduced a bill "for the diver
sion of the Gunnison River into the Uncompahgre Valley, Colorado, and
other purposes." A bill for a single project but containing many val-

REPUBLICANS WANT DELAY.
Up to this time, no Republican had been heard from since the
adoption of the national party platforms, but on January 23, 1901,
Mr. Barham, u, Republican from California, presented a bill "to authorize
surveys of the arid lands of the United States with a view to the irri
gation thereof, and to estimate the cost of the irrigation of such lands."
Now, such investigations had been in progress for many years. What
was wanted was actual construction. This had been proposed in the
three bills already referred to, introduced, respectively, by Messrs. Shaf
roth, Bell and Newlands, all Democrats. Mr. Barham's bill not only
proposed nothing except more investigation, but it gave the wearisome
period of ten years during which these investigations should drag their
slow length along. It provided that the Secretary of the Interior should
"within ten years report to the Congress of the United States an esti
mate of the cost of the proper irrigation of such arid lands." It might
well have been entitled, "A bill to do nothing for the arid West for the
next ten years at least."

"DAY-BREAK" AT LAST.
Finally, on January 26, 1901, a measure was introduced which be
came the broad foundation stone of the great policy of national irriga
tion. It was a stone from the Democratic quarry, hewn and shaped
by Democratic hands.
If there is ever to be any dispute about the paternity of the actual
measure of legislation which enabled us to realize the hopes of this
movement, then it is at this crucial point in the history of legislation
that the dispute must begin and end.
The measure referred to was the original Newlands bill, drafted and
presented by the distinguished representative from Nevada, now senator
from that State. Mr. Newlands was a prominent figure in the first Na
tional Irrigation Congress, held at Salt Lake in 1891. He was a mem
ber of the first National Executive Committee of the movement. And
from that day to this his relation to irrigation work on the floor of
congress has been clear and unmistakable. No fair-minded man can
deny that the long struggle of Francis G. Newlands to write the policy
of national irrigation first upon the statute books, and then upon the face
of the enduring earth,- stamps national irrigation as a Democratic meas
ure. Or, if any fair-minded man is to attempt to dispute the proposition
then we must pause at this memorable date, January 26, 1901, to argue
the question to a finish.
EPOCH-MAKING DEMOCRATIC MEASURE.
The original Newlands bill differed from all its predecessors in its
one central thought. This central thought was that the arid lands
should be made to reclaim themselves without taking a dollar directly
from the treasury, or increasing the burden of taxation upon any in
dividual or interest in the length and breadth of the United States. In
a sense, this was an adaptation of the original idea of ceding the lands
to the States, but the method was one which avoided all the dangers in
herent in the original plan. Why had not national irrigation been
realized earlier? For two reasons, each of which presented an apparently
insuperable obstacle.
First, because the men of the West could not unite on any propo
sition which went beyond mere investigation and provided for actual
construction. Naturally ensugh every locality was cheering "for the
old flag and an appropriation." , Colorado wanted to irrigate Colorado;
Wyoming wanted to irrigate Wyoming; Nevada wanted to irrigate Ne
vada. But on January 26, 1901, Mr. Newlands brought forward a great
measure of statesmanship which proposed to irrigate thirteen States
and three territories on terms of absolute justice. It was a, complete
realization of his views expressed in a speech in the House, 'on the 9th
of January previously, in which he said:
"The bill should be so framed as to make its operation automatic,
comprehensive and complete, to guard against improvident projects to
prevent land monopoly, to secure homes for actual settlers, and to pro
mote the division of the large tracts of land which under the unfortunate
administration of State and national laws, have been created in the
West."

It was another and a most striking instance of the Jeffersonian max
im — "Equal rights for all and special privileges for none." For it pro
vided by a single stroke for the needs of all the arid States and terri
tories, yet conferred no special advantages on any one of them. This
plan united the West almost instantaneously. "It was day-break every
where." Second, Eastern and Southern provincialism had stood like a rock
against the proposition to bring a new agricultural empire into com
petition with the farmers of the older States. Descendants of those
who reviled Columbus for discovering a new world insisted that it would
be a "national wrong" to tax the people of the East for the purpose of
enabling Arid America to destroy them. But this new plan disposed
of such arguments almost as suddenly as it had wrought the union of
discordant elements in the West. Here was no scheme for taxing the East
for the benefit of the West, but, rather, a plan of creating a revolving fund
from the proceeds of land sales, to be used in the discretion of the Secretary
of the Interior for the gradual reclamation of arid lands.
SOME PERTINENT QUESTIONS.
Now let me ask these questions:
1. Is it true, or is it not, that the bill introduced by Mr. Newlands on
January 26, 1901, was the first measure which embodied this practicable
plan of making the arid lands reclaim themselves?
2. Is it true, or is it not. that this idea became the basis of all sub
sequent attempts to solve the problem of national irrigation and that
it was finally adopted as the actual solution?
3. Is it true, or is it not, that Francis G. Newlands is » Democrat,
that he fought the battle through to a successful finish with the un
flinching support of his Democratic associates in the house of repre
sentatives, "over the dead bodies,'* so to speak, of the great Republican
leaders on the floor?
As to the nature of Republican opposition, this will plainly appear
in the course of the present article.
So far as I know, there is no possibility of answering any of the
above queries in the negative. It may be said that a committee of
Western senators and representatives held numerous conferences, in the
course of which they perfected and approved the measure.
Yes, but what they perfected and approved was the Newlands Bill,
with all its vital principles intact.
It may be said that Senator Hansbrough introduced the bill into* the
senate at the request of his Western confreres.
Yes, but what he introduced by request was the Newlands Bill.
It may be said that Republicans introduced various irrigation bills
at different times — that Senator Warren tried to bring about the ces
sion of the arid lands to the States, and in the closing hours of the Jong
session of the Fifty-sixth Congress made an unsuccessful attempt to tack
on an appropriation for reservoirs in Wyoming and Colorado; that Mr.
i

Mondell and other congressmen introduced bills at various stages of
the struggle to obtain legislation for the arid lands.
ROOSEVELT SIGNS DEMOCRATIC BILL.
Yes, but these things were "lights that failed." We are not talking
now about things that did not come to pass, however honestly and
earnestly they may have been proposed. We are trying to ascertain
which political party originated and carried through to success the
policy which has now become not merely the hope, but the solid . as
surance, of a day of economic greatness for the arid West.
It may be said that President Roosevelt lent his influence to the
measure and promptly signed it when it came to him from Congress.
Yea, but the measure which lie supported and sigrned was the
Newlands Bill. It was a bill "framed by a. Democrat, passed by
the Senate by «, non-partisan vote and passed by the House by a
vote, the majority of whieli was Democratic," precisely as set
forth in the St. Louis platform.
The Newlands Bill, as originally introduced, contained many important
provisions besides the one for the creation of a reclamation fund from
the proceeds of land sales, to be used over and over again until the
last acre of arid land susceptible of irrigation shall have been re
claimed. Stress is not laid upon the other provisions here because they
do not go so clearly to the question of the paternity of the law.
For instance, the plan of making the water right appurtenant to the
land was one of the features of the platform adopted by the Chicago
Irrigation Congress. There were other provisions which were vital
to the success of the law, but the keystone in the arch was the idea of a
reclamation fund obtained from the proceeds of land sales. This it was
which united the West, overcame the opposition of the East, and made
the early and complete triumph of the movement possible. And, as has
already been said, this plan was found in the Newlands Bill and no
where else.
REPUBLICAN AMENDMENTS REJECTED. <
Judge Barha-m, a Republican member from California, tried all
through the hearings to substitute his plan of investigations, with a
report thereon "within ten years," for the Newlands bill. He was beaten.
Senator Warren tried to substitute the so-called "State Engineers'
Bill." This plan sought to utilize Mr. Newlands' reclamation fund by
having it disbursed by the Engineering Department of various States.
This was also beaten.
Mr. Mondell finally accepted the reclamation fund idea, but wanted
the nation to build storage works, then turn the water into the streams
subject to appropriation by individuals, firms and corporations, under
locai laws. This was also rejected.
A REPUBLICAN'S GLOWING TRIBUTE.
Hon. George H. Maxwell, Executive Chairman of the National Irriga
tion Association, may be regarded as a disinterested witness on the

question under discussion. True, he is a Republican and has done yeo
man service for his party in former years, but he is first of all a national
irrigationist, and he was in a position to know precisely what occurred
while the now triumphant measure was pending before Congress. In
addressing the house committee on the irrigation of arid lands, Feb
ruary 7, 1901, Mr. Maxwell spoke as follows:
"I wish to speak of the Newlands Bill. I think a good name for
that bill would be the 'omnibus bill.' Under this bill the government
can begin construction immediately and I believe along lines which will
remove every reasonable objecton to the government undertaking the
great work of bringing about the reclamation of the . arid lands. The
first point which it seems to me is important in favor of the Newlands
Bill is that under it everything can be done which is suggested to be
done by each of the other bills now before this committee."
Mr. Maxwell proceeded to discuss the bill in detail and to commend
each of its several features as offering a complete solution of the sub
jects to which they applied.
Has it not now been sufficiently demonstrated that the present Na
tional Irrigation Law was a child of Democratic parentage? It cannot be
claimed, of course, that only Democrats desired to see the triumph of
national irrigation.
On the other hand, it cannot be successfully disputed that the
triumph came about through Democratic initiative and that the
actual measure which Anally passed was, in its most essential
features, a prod.nct' of Democratic statesmanship.
The measure received the earnest collaboration and support of such
sterling Democrats as Shafroth and Bell of Colorado; King of Utah;
Glenn of Idaho and Edwards of Montana, and of Senators Teller and
Patterson of Colorado, Dubois and Heitfeld of Idaho, Rawlings of
Utah, Clark and Gibson of Montana, and Turner of Washington.
REPUBLICAN LEADERS REPUDIATE PLATFORM. i
While the Newlands Bill was under discussion on the floor of Con
gress it was- strongly opposed by1 almost every Republican leader in
the House of Representatives. \
Among those who assailed it was Mr. Moody, of Massachusetts, now
Attorney-General: Mr. Cannon, of Illinois, now speaker of the House;
Mr. Payne, of New York, now Republican leader on the floor; Mr. Dal-
zell, of Pennsylvania, of the Committee on Rules ; Mr. Ray, of New
York, Chairman of the Committee on Judiciary; Mr. Hepburn, of Iowa,
and General Grosvenor, of Ohio. I quote a few of their utterances:
Mr. Hepburn — "If I were not one of. the most humble and polite
men in this House, I would take the liberty of saying that the proposi
tion involved in this bill is the most insolent attempt at larceny 1
have ever seen embodied in a legislative proposition."
Mr. Moody — "I look with grave apprehension upon the plan to re
claim the arid lands of the West."
Mr. Cannon — "In my judgment the pledge of the platform would be
substantially the settlement by Congress by the legislation I have in-
9

dictated. (Cession of the arid lands to the States.) If it would not be,
then I would not stand by that plank in the platform."
General Grosvenor — ."If this scheme can be carried into execution, I
would not give five cents on the dollar ten years hence for all the beet
sugar stock this side of the Missouri River. Why, sir, the evidence is
that the beet sugar men of Utah, California and Colorado can manufac
ture beet sugar almost a cent a pound cheaper than can be done without
tne application of irrigation."
General Grosvenor spoke of this bill as proposing "a great national
wrong" to be perpetrated upon the farming community of the entire
United States and as involving a competition that would "crush the
farming industry of the great central West and East." He quoted
freely from Republican newspapers of the East and central West, pro
testing against its passage.
It is plain now, first, that the Newlands bill was of Demo
cratic origin; second, that the West was brought together in its
support only after all attempts to destroy its fundamental char
acter by various Republican amendments had been defeated;
third, that it was the deliberate purpose of the great Republican.
leaders in the House of Representatives to repudiate the irriga
tion plank of the Philadelphia platform, while the Democrats
sought to comply -with a similar plank in the Kansas City plat
form, both in letter and in spirit. These are facts of history
which cannot be successfully controverted.
SENATOR NEWLANDS KEEPS UP THE FIGHT.
On September 15, 1901, Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to the Presi
dency. Prior to this date the Newlands Bill had been introduced in the
house by its author and in the senate by Mr. Hansbrough. It had been
widely discussed and was generally approved by the friends of irriga
tion. Its principles had been approved by both house and senate com
mittees. It had not come up for passage because of the shortness of
the preceding session, which ended on the 4th of March. It was again
introduced at the Fifty-seventh Congress, by Mr. Newlands in the house,
December 2, 1901, and by Mr. Hansbrough in the senate, December 4,
1901, and after full consideration by a committee of Western senators
and congressmen and after unsuccessful efforts had been made by Sen
ator Warren and Representative Mondell of Wyoming to amend it in
ways that would have destroyed its character as a national and public
measure, it was pushed on to triumphant passage, aided on the one hand
by President Roosevelt, who had supported national irrigation in a
vigorous message, and on the other by the Democratic Congressional
Committee, which passed strong resolutions in its favor as a measure of
needed domestic development.
In the senate there was no opposition. For years its strong Western
membership had been potential in shaping sentiment there. The fighting
ground was in the house, where the Democrats fairly took possession
of the bill, and Shafroth of Colorado and Underwood of Alabama, by
motions shortened debate and, forcing votes on the various sections when
10

the Republicans were playing for delay, forced the bill to a final vote
before the time limited by the committee on rules, which, if passed,
would have thrown "the bill into the limbo of unfinished business. All this
is graphically described in the Washington Times of June 14, 1902, as
follows :
"The Western Republicans joined hands with a majority of the Demo
crats in the House yesterday, overthrew the leaders and by a vote of 146
to 55 passed the Newlands , Irrigation Bill. An unsuccessful . effort was
made to talk the measure to death by offering a number of amendments
and discussing them at length. Mr. Underwood, however, sounded a
warning, calling the attention of the irrigationists that under the rule
adopted by the house for the consideration of the bill a vote must be
reached before the adjournment or the bill would die. If, he said, when
five o'clock came there was not a quorum present, the bill could not be
acted upon. After that the irrigation men took control of things and
proceeded to carry motions limiting debate on the amendments. Towards
the close discussion was limited to 30 seconds. The committee arose
and reported the bill to the house. Mr. Ray demanded the yeas and nays
on the passage of the measure. The result was favorable to the meas
ure— 146 to 55."
ROOSEVELT ACQUIESCES TO A DEMOCRATIC MEASURE.
Would the bill have passed without the President's support? No
man can say definitely, but I for one give him fullest credit foi' what
he did in behalf of our cause. In many published articles and speeches,
including those delivered while a candidate for Congress, I have given
the President most unstinted praise for his loyal support of national
irrigation. What I have said in the past I have no desire' to withdraw.
On the other hand, I reaffirm and repeat it.
But, what, after all, did he do? He gave the support of his great
office to a measure framed by a Democratic statesman, fought and reviled
by the great leaders of his own party, and dependent for its passage upon
a patriotic and conscientious Democratic minority bent upon making
good its solemn pledge to the West.
Here is the vote in the House of Representatives:
FOR.
Democrats  ?  '73
Silver  1
Populists  3
Republicans  69
Total  146
AGAINST.
Democrats  13
Republicans  42
Total ..'.  55
11

And so a Democratic minority gave a majority vote for the bill. But
admitting that the President's support wrung from a sullen and hostile
majority some of the votes which made national irrigation an accomplished
fact, does it follow that the arid region should go Republican because the
President separated himself from the leaders of his parly on this ques
tion and supported a Democratic measure? Does one Republican swallow
make a Democratic summer? And are Democrats on this ground to be
called upon to support him for re-election as against Judge Parker, who
stands on a platform confirmatory of National Irrigation and pledging his
and the party's best efforts to further promote it?

DEMOCRACY, A PARTY OF IRRIGATION.
THE PARTIES AND THE WEST.
In view of this record I think no Democrat should vote against his
party this year. The Democracy fulfilled its pledge to the West with ab
solute good faith and is certainly entitled to enjoy its full share of credit
for initiating the Newlands Bill, piloting it through the rocks and shoals
of a hostile majority in the Hoifee of Representatives, and presenting it to
a Republican Executive for his signature. God bless every man, say I, who
helped in any way to bring this thing to pass, but let no Democrat be de
luded into the mistaken notion that his own party did not do its full duty
to the West.
The Democracy is a good irrigation party. It evidently believes that the
best use to make of water, particularly in an arid region, is to put it on the
land. WHAT OF THE FUTURE?
So much for the past. What of the future? Much yet remains to be
done before the raw resources of the West shall be transformed into the
finished product of civilization. Do either of the great parties realize this
fact? Do either of them give any further pledge looking to the complete
development of this western land?
In its present platform the Republican party speaks of the subject
wholly in the past tense. It evidently thinks there is nothing more-
to be done for the West, for its only reference to the subject is in the fol
lowing words:
"We have passed laws which will bring the arid lands of the United
States within the area of cultivation."
No hint in that language of anything further to be done! What says the
Democratic platform:
"We call attention to this great Democratic measure as an evidence of
the policy of domestic development contemplated by the Democratic
party should it be placed in power."
Evidently the Democratic party realizes that the passage of the New-
lands' Irrigation Law was but the first step in the development of the
12

sixteen States and Territories which constitute the arid region and con
tain nearly all of the remaining public domain of the United States. We
have still to deal with the great problems of colonization, forest preserva
tion and extension, road building, disposition of the free range and ad
ministration of all the resources of the public domain. In a very im
portant sense, we have still to determine whether the vast quantities of
natural wealth which belong to all the people of the United States shall
be handled in u, way to give equal opportunities for all, or in a way to
confer special privileges upon a few.
DEMOCRATS PROMISE MORE.
The St. Louis platform furnished a key to the Democratic policy of the
future in the public land States. It refers to the Newlands Act "as an
evidence of the policy of domestic development CONTEMPLATED" by the
party. Precisely what does that mean?
It means that the nation's resources in the West shall be developed
for the benefit of the masses of men. The original Newlands Bill, which
became the foundation of all subsequent attempts at legislation in that
line and which was finally adopted in its essential features, destroyed
private monopoly in land and water with a single blow. It accomplished
this not only with regard to the public domain, but also with regard to
great private estates already in existence, so far as they are affected by the
national irrigation system, by limiting the sale of water rights for lands
in private ownership to small tracts, thus compelling the subdivision of
large estates.
In the original draft of the measure, Mr. Newlands provided that not
more than eighty acres could be taken by any entryman, and this only un
der the homestead law. He also provided that water might be sold to lands
in private ownership, but that no single owner could purchase water rights
for more than eighty acres. The bill was amended and the maximum in both
cases raised to 160 acres, but the spirit of the original bill survives in the
act icself. It is anti-monopoly legislation of the most pronounced character.
It preserves the land and water of the West for a great mass of small pro
prietors, and even compels the subdivision of great estates already in ex
istence, though without harm to their owners.
SAMPLE OF DEMOCRATIC GOOD FAITH.
And this is a sample of "the policy of domestic development contem
plated by the Democratic party." I sincerely believe the promise is given
in o-ood faith, and will be redeemed with the same -scrupulous fidelity with
which the platform of 1900 was redeemed by means of the Newlands Bill.
I believe we have only crossed the threshold in shaping new social and
economic policies for the development of the arid region in the true inter
ests of mankind.
The Democratic party promises to stay with us until the task
is finished. It has kept its word in the past; I believe it will keep
its word in the future, and one of the best guarantees of this is
the fact that vtherever you find great monopolies in natural re
sources, whether of gold, or coal, or land, or water,
13

Whether in Colorado or California, or anywhere between,
you find those monopolies supporting the Republican party and
fighting the Democratic party. They want no more legislation,
like the Newlands' bill, -which preserves the resources of the West
for the benefit of the masses and shuts the door in the face ot
private monopoly.
There is another reason for my belief that the Democratic' party is ab
solutely sincere in its pledge to go forward with the development of the
West on the lines of justice and equality. The Democracy is naturally and
constitutionality opposed to the exploitation of empire abroad. It believes
in continental solidarity, and by means of the Louisiana Purchase and the
acquisition of vast territories from Mexico, it made that solidarity possi
ble. The Republicans are fascinated with the notion of external expansion.
The logical antithesis of this policy is internal development and the build
ing of the republic at home.
REPUBLICAN MILITARISM OR DEMOCRATIC IRRIGATION-WHICH ?
The Republicans have spent $600,000,000 on the Philippine Islands and
are plunging forward with their dream of military empire at extravagant
cost. Think what $600,000,000 would have done for Arid America? The
work of reclamation, now actually begun in a few localities, might have
been inaugurated in every State and Territory west of the one hundredth
meridian. Other countries find useful ways of expending their surplus capi
tal for the benefit of their own people. For instance. New Zealand ad
vances money to worthy settlers at a very reasonable interest charge, so
that they may go forward with the improvement of their land and the
building of their homes without embarrassment. Canada lends money to
farming communities to start creameries, canneries and other small indus
tries closely related to the soil. That is one reason why 50,000 of the best
young men of the United States crossed the Canadian border last year to
makes homes in a foreign land. Belgium, Holland, France, Germany and
otfier European countries used public funds to promote the prosperity of
their people along similar lines. The Republican party does not hesitate to
guarantee the interest on the bonds of private railroads in the Philippine
Islands, but has no money to spend in opening up highways into portions
of the West now inaccessible to home-makers.
It is my sincere belief that it is infinitely wiser to spend our money in
building the West rather than to spend it in foreign adventures which,
at the best, are widely at variance with our national traditions and the
spirit of our institutions. I rejoice in the fact that if one party stands for
the growth of empire in distant seas, the other party stands for the oppo
site policy of developing our resources at home.
DEMOCRACY-THE TRUE FRIEND OF THE WEST.
I have considered my course in the present campaign with the single
desire to use my humble influence for the largest ultimate good of the West
and of the country. I have tried to look beyond party platforms and candi
dates to the elements which control the deeper tendencies of parties, and so
14

shape the events of the immeasurable future. I believe a great struggle
is Coming between mankind and money-kind — between those who believe the
earth and the fullness thereof belongs to all, and those, who stand for
special privilege.
I recall the stormy years which led up to 1896, when the tempest broke
on the silver question. I remember that then, as now, both parties told us
that they were the friends of the West. The only contention between them
in the mountain and Pacific states was as to which had done most and
which would do most when the supreme moment should come for a cause
then dear to the heart of every miner and farmer and business man be
tween the Rockies and the western ocean. And I cannot forget that when
tne crisis came one party "turned tail" and ran, while the other party stood
to its guns, kept its solemn pledges and went down to glorious defeat.
What we stood for is now, perhaps, a lost cause. But we honestly thought
we were right, and I can never forget those who stood by us at any and
every cost.
My faith is in the Democracy. It is the friend of the West, staunch and
tried and true. It is the only party which recognizes that there is yet
much to be done in building our civilization among these valleys and moun
tains, and along the western shore of the continent.
It has agreed to stay with us and fight the battle through on lines
which will preserve our undeveloped resources for the highest good of the
masses. It has kept its promises in the past. I believe it will keep its
promises in the future.
I am for the Republic as against the Empire. I am for the army of
peace as against the army of war. I am for digging ditches instead of dig
ging graves. I am for constructive, creative Democracy as opposed to im
perial Republicanism.

15

1995