page 58


page 58
Is Part Of,8
Full text
58Mr. MAXWELL. That is a subject that would take more time to explain than I have to give to it this morning. However, I would not at all hesitate to go into that matter if I had the time. Furthermore, I would gladly do so. I would not hesitate to say that when this matter was before the committee at a previous hearing, and these same questions arose in regard to the National Reclamation Association, that I called on the chairman of the committee in a personal way and showed him the book containing the membership of the association and the receipts and disbursements were available for his inspection. There was and is nothing private about this. I also called on our late friend. Judge Raker, who was well known for a great many years as one interested very much in the subject of irrigation and reclamation, and who had expressed an interest in the association. I showed him the same things I showed the chairman. I think that matter, however, is of lesser importance. I appreciate very much the kind words gentlemen of the committee have said on the subject.What I have said in reference to the National Reclamation Association was for this reason: It occupies a somewhat different position in this controversy than the Arizona Highline Association, and for that reason what I have to say may fit one and it may fit the other. The National Reclamation Association is fighting for only one thing. It is for the use of the waters in the United States without regard as to where or how it is used. It must be used in the United States of America.The Arizona Highline Reclamation Association, which is referred to in this letter to the California Legislature which has been presented here to the committee, is specifically advocating a certain plan which involves the construction of the Glen Canyon Reservoir, the Bridge Canyon diversion dam, and the Arizona Highline Canal as indicated on the map of Arizona on the back of that letter sheet.Another enormously important matter which has arisen since the last meeting is the new treaty between Japan and Mexico.Gentlemen, you just simply can not overestimate in your own minds the importance of that treaty to this country, independent entirely of the Colorado River. That treaty was not ratified by Japan until last May. It extends to the Japanese all the privileges of the people of the most favored nations. The Japanese can go into Mexico, become citizens of that country, and as such have every right after they become citizens to own property and lease property within the restricted areas. They have all the rights conferred upon any citizen of any other country. In other words, the rights that we have denied to them Mexico grants to them. There are those who believe that the Japanese have already acquired contractual rights to the stock in these Mexican corporations who own these lands, and that they are actually supplying capital for building the railroad which is now under construction in Mexico from Mexicali to some new proposed seaport city on the Gulf of California. However, I can not state that to be a fact. This committee could undoubtedly ascertain the facts in the case, and it ought to do so before conceding that the Colorado River shall be allowed to be so developed that it will go into Mexico and be used there instead of being used in our own country. Our antialien and antileasing

Cite this Item

When linking to this object, please use the following URL:,2348



Subscribe to recent comments

There are no comments yet. Be the first to comment below!