Mr. SIMMONS. What was done relative to the development of this project on the Colorado River?

Mr. Rose. There was just a discussion of that; no general conclusion was come to with those peple. With the Edison people there was a definite conclusion.

Mr. SIMMONS. What was that?

Mr. Rose. Well, after discussion and after showing us a map, they favored a development starting in at Boulder Canyon and building a dam, and then going further and further up, and finally winding up at the northern boundary of Arizona.

Mr. SIMMONS. What was going to build those dams?

Mr. ROSE. The Edison Co. And they made a definite proposition, that they would spend $40,000,000 a year until it was completed, if we would favor the construction; but

Mr. SIMMONS (interposing). Let me ask you this: What were you to favor?

Mr. ROSE. Favor their application to go on the river, rather than the Government construction.

Mr. SIMMONS. What else was the Imperial Irrigation District to do besides that?

Mr. ROSE. Lay off-keep from backing up the Government project. Mr. SIMMONS. What were you to get out of it?

Mr. Rosr. Flood control and water, etc.

Mr. SIMMONS. Was any proposition made as to the water that the Imperial Valley people were to get?

Mr. ROSE. Their contention was that they would only use the water for power, and it would be turned over to us.

Mr. SIMMONS. Without any charge?

Mr. Rose. Without any charge?

Mr. SIMMONS. Were you going to get any power out of it?

Mr. ROSE. NO. The only thing discussed as to power was that they told us they would like to have us as stockholders.

Mr. SIMMONS. They would like to have you as stockholders?

Mr. ROSE. Yes; but they were not discussing that. Here was the proposition: They showed us a map and plans; and when they finally finished, I asked them if they were willing to file a $10,000,000 bond; and I said, "You have made a big talk; are you willing to file a $10,000,000 bond guaranteeing that you will do all of those things?" Mr. Ballard said, "Oh, no, we could not do that. We would have to go to our stockholders." And I said, "You have put up a proposition to spend $40,000,000 a year. Have Have you put it up to your stockholders? And are you willing to put up a bond? So far, your discussion is hot air. You might not do anything. You might tie it up for 20 years, and have us standing on the end of the limb. What quaranty will you offer to us?" But they were not willing to give us any guaranty, and that practically finished it. Mr. SIMMONS. Was that proposition made to you in writing? Mr. ROSE. No.

Mr. SIMMONS. Where in Los Angeles was this meeting held? Mr. Rose. This meeting was held in the western portion of Los Angeles. I think I can give you the exact place of the meeting; and the exact names of the people there.

Mr. SIMMONS. Will you get that information and supply it to the committee?

Mr. ROSE. I will supply it; because our secretary was there and made notes of it.

Mr. SIMMONS. Was a part of the proposition from those people that you were to stop your agitation for the development of this project by the Government?

Mr. ROSE. We were there at their request

Mr. SIMMONS (interposing). I understand that; but was that a part of what you people were to do?

Mr. ROSE. Yes; and assist them in trying to get their application allowed.

Mr. SIMMONS. And the intent was this: That this bill should be killed if you went into that proposition?

Mr. ROSE. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. What effect would that have upon the distribution of electric energy in the Southwest? Would it give a monoply to those private corporations?

Mr. Rose. It would give them a monopoly, of course.

Mr. RAKER. And eliminate Government ownership and construction entirely?

Mr. ROSE. That is it. They did not want anybody else on the river but themselves, and they frankly said so.

Mr. RAKER. Can you not at this time give the committee the names of those who were present?

Mr. Rose. Well, I gave you the two principal men of the Edison Co.

The CHAIRMAN. He is going to telegraph for that information. Mr. Rose. I gave you Mr. Miller, the president, and Mr. Ballard, who is the general manager.

Mr. RAKER. What Miller is that?

Mr. MATTHEWS. John B. Miller.

Mr. ROSE. He was there; and Mr. Ballard was there, and their chief engineer was there. I do not remember his name.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. One more question: From what you have said, Mr. Rose, this morning, I take it that you do not agree with Secretary Hoover that the building of a dam should be delayed until the Colorado River compact is ratified?

Mr. ROSE. I do not think Mr. Hoover takes that attitude; and I did not so understand his testimony.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Mr. Hoover specifically stated that, in response to a question.

Mr. ROSE. I do not think he did.

The CHAIRMAN. The record will show as to that.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The record will show that; and does anybody challenge that statement?

The CHAIRMAN. I do not.

Mr. SWING. Well, I do not think you will find that in there. Your question was not, I think, directly answered in the way you asked it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. All right; I will ask the question again. Mr. SWING. I do not mean that. Mr. Hoover's testimony is in here and will show what he said. But I recall very accurately his

testimony given here last year, and he said that the legislation ought not to be held up pending the ratification of the compact

Mr. LEATHERWOOD (interposing). Just a moment. I am not referring now to what he said last year. Let me ask the question again

Mr. Rose (interposing). It does not show that.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Will you yield a moment and allow me to ask a question?

Mr. ROSE. Certainly.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I will thank you very much to do so. If Mr. Hoover testified before this committee that the dam should not be constructed at Boulder Canyon, or in that vicinity, until after the compact shall have been ratified, do you agree with that position? Mr. ROSE. No, sir; it might never be done in our lives.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else you wish to add? It is getting late.

Mr. SIMMONS. I would like to ask one further question: Were these two meetings that you referred to the only meetings that you have had with the Chandler interests and with the Edison people?

Mr. Rose. No, not with the Chandler people; with some representatives of the Chandler people I have had many of them. But with the Edison Co. that was the only meeting, except that I attended a meeting of the publishers of Los Angeles, in which Mr. Miller and Mr. Ballard were present, and Mr. Ballard stated his position in the matter; and he said at that meeting that he was opposed to this legislation. He said, "I am opposed to anything that would hurt the Edison Co., and this would hurt the Edison Co., and therefore I am opposed to it."

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, were there any other meetings than the ones you have described where the particular cause and object of the meeting was the river?

Mr. Rose. No; that was at a publishers' meeting. Those were the two meetings at which Edison officials sat in.

Mr. RAKER. Is that their attitude to-day relative to the development of the Colorado River, if you know?

Mr. ROSE. So far as I know. I have heard nothing to the contrary, and I believe it is.

Mr. RAKER. Have they, so far as you know, made any application, or is there any one here, that has come here, voluntarily or otherwise, to present their claim to this committee that they should be given the opportunity to construct dams in the Colorado River as against the Government?

Mr. ROSE. I know of no one that has been here since I have been here, except Mr. Hoxie; and I do not know what his business here is at all.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Rose. We will adjourn until Wednesday morning at 10 o'clock.

(Thereupon, at 12:40 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until Wednesday, February 27, 1924, at 10 o'clock a. m.)

COMMITTEE ON IRRIGATION OF ARID LANDS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Wednesday, February 27, 1924. The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Addison T. Smith (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. At our last meeting there was some question as to when a stream was navigable; and I have been supplied with some citations to decisions on that question; and probably it would be well to put them in the record.

Mr. RAKER. Who is the author of that memorandum, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. It came from the Chief of Engineers of the Army, and he cites several decisions, and gives the syllabi of them. I think they should go in the record.

Mr. RAKER. That is all right.

The CHAIRMAN. They are not very voluminous, and certainly they will be very informing if this question comes up again.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. What class of decisions does the Chief of Engineers cite?

The CHAIRMAN. They relate to the navigability of streams and contain four citations to decisions of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That is what I meant-whether they were court decisions.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, court decisions; and if there is no objection they will be inserted in the record.

(The memorandum referred to is as follows:)

NAVIGABLE WATERS AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

The Daniel Ball (10 Wall. 557).—A river is navigable in law when it is navigable in fact, and it is navigable in fact when it is used or is susceptible of being used in its ordinary condition as a highway for commerce over which trade and travel may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.

A river, or other waterway, that lies wholly within the limits of a State, and has no navigable connection with any waters outside the boundaries of the State, is a navigable water of the State, subject to regulation and control by State laws and does not come within the jurisdiction of Congress nor of the laws enacted by Congress for the preservation and protection of navigable waters of the United States.

A river, or other waterway, constitutes a navigable water of the United States, within the meaning of the aforesaid acts of Congress,, when it forms by itself or by uniting with other waters a continuous highway over which trade and travel is or may be conducted between the States themselves, or between the States and foreign countries.

The Montello (20 Wall. 430).-The true test of the navigability of a stream does not depend upon the manner or mode by which commerce is or may be conducted, nor upon the difficulties attending navigation. If this were so, the public would be deprived of the use of many of the large rivers of the country over which rafts of lumber of great value are constantly taken to market. It would be a narrow rule to hold that in this country unless a river was capable of being navigated by steam or sail vessels it could not be treated as a public highway.

The capability of use by the public for purposes of transportation and commerce affords the true criterion of the navigability of a river, rather than the extent and manner of that use. If it be capable in its natural state of being used for purposes of commerce, no matter in what mode the commerce may be conducted, whether in vessels propelled by steam, wind, cars, or poles, the stream is navigable in fact, and becomes in law a public highway.

21 Pickering, 344.-It is not to be understood however, that every ditch or inlet in which the tide ebbs and flows, nor every small creek in which a fishing skiff or gunning canoe can be made to float at high water, is a navigable highway; but to give it the character of a navigable stream it must be generally and commonly useful to some purpose of trade or agriculture.

DECISION BY UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Harrison v. Fite (148 Fed. 781).—To meet the test of navigability as understood in American law a watercourse should be susceptible of use for purposes of commerce or possess a capacity for valuable floatage in the transportation to market of the products of the country through which it runs. It should be of practical usefulness to the public as a public highway, in its natural state and without the aid of artificial means. A theoretical or potential navigability, or one that is temporary, precarious or unprofitable is not sufficient. While the navigable quality of a watercourse need not be continuous, yet it should continue long enough to be useful and valuable in transportation; and the fluctations should come regularly with the seasons, so that the period of navigability may be depended upon. Mere depth of water, without profitable utility, will not render a watercourse navigable in the legal sense, so as to subject it to public servitude nor will the fact that it is sufficient for pleasure boating or to enable hunters or fishermen to float their skiffs or canoes. To be navigable a watercourse must have a useful capacity as a public highway of transportation.

Mr. RAKER. The Reclamation Service ought to have a very illu minating brief on that, because they have been in a contest involving that question.

Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the discussion on this legislation has undertaken to cover three distinct phases:

One is to present evidence that there exists a problem necessitating river control.

Second, that there is a feasible solution of the problem; and the third is that if the Government undertakes the solution of the river-control problem, there is a method of recouping the Government for the money which it would be called upon to expend.

Under this last head, Mr. Ralph L. Criswell, for many years a member of the city council of Los Angeles, and at present chairman of the committee on public works, will speak along that line as to what the city of Los Angeles will be willing to do in the way of cooperation with the United States Government, to the end of assisting in the payment of the cost of the dam.

(The witness was sworn by the chairman.)

TESTIMONY OF MR. RALPH L. CRISWELL, CHAIRMAN PULIC SERVICE COMMITTEE, CITY COUNCIL, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. CRISWELL. My name is Ralph L. Criswell. I am now serv ing my fourth term as a member of the city council of the city of Los Angeles; and during all of my service in the council I have been the chairman of the public service committee of the council, the committee which has to do with all matters pertaining to the water and power projects of the city.

The city of Los Angeles is interested in this legislation from several angles:

First, of course, we are for the protection of life and property of the people of the Imperial Valley and the other valleys on the lower reaches of the Colorado River.