what the issue is, so far as I am concerned. So far as I know, the only issue that there will be before this committee, aside from the mere formal provisions of the bill, will be the advisability of enacting such legislation and attempting to build this dam ahead of the ratification of the compact. Personally I am not interestedwell, I will put it this way, I am always interested in hearing gentlemen who have a fund of information to give us, but as far as the action of this committee is concerned, I am not concerned about any testimony that will be given here. The question with me is a question of advisability. I represent a section of the country that is bitterly opposed to building the Boulder Canyon Dam prior to the ratification of the compact, or until something is devised which will amply protect them. If we can not get protection in Congress, we will get it in the courts; I am very frank to say that, gentlemen.

Mr. SWING. We believe that we could put some provision in this bill that would make your court action additionally effective.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. So that I am wondering what the object of carrying these hearings to great length and putting the Government to great expense for printing long hearings is?

Mr. SWING. I will be very frank to say that if the chairman will call the Reclamation Service officials, we will be immediately ready to close.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I will say that that is my hope.

The CHAIRMAN. I think one of the reasons for having these hearings is to gather information for the Members of the House who are not members of the committee.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, I concede that there would be some reason for that.

Mr. RAKER. Would it not be advisable for the chairman to send a telegram to Mr. Chandler and ask him when he will be here? I would like to have the chairman do that, if he will.

And then I would like to know about when Mr. Merrill, of the Federal Power Commission, will appear before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, he is out of the city for about 10 days. Mr. RAKER. Well, you will get him at the earliest date possible, will you?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. RAKER. And Mr. Hamele also?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; we will have him also.

Mr. RAKER. And Mr. Davis, the present director of the Reclamation Service?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. He is "in durance vile" now; he is sitting right behind you.

Mr. RAKER. No; I mean the present director.

Mr. SWING. You have asked for Mr. Hamele, have you?

The CHAIRMAN. We have not asked him specially, but we have let him know that he may be called.

Mr. SWING. But his name has been mentioned here several times. Mr. RAKER. Now, Mr. Chairman, in regard to what the courts might do, of course, we do not know anything about that. My only position as a member of the committee is, that we should get the facts relative to this proposed construction; and I have not partici

pated nor do I hope to participate, in any dragging, or even dragging out; but I do feel, as a member of this committee and a Member of the House, that a matter of as much importance as this, involving what it does, is entitled to a full, fair investigation by the committee, with evidence from those who can and will advise the committee upon the subject, to the end that we may have that knowledge necessary to act intelligently upon it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, do not misunderstand me, Mr. Chair

man

Mr. RAKER (interposing). No; I do not misunderstand you.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I have no personal objection to this hearing continuing through the entire session of Congress, so far as I am personally concerned.

Mr. RAKER. But I am not impressed with the idea that it is an unnecessary delay to properly investigate the bill in all its provisions before the committee acts. I have taken that attitude, and I wanted to explain

Mr. LEATHERWOOD (interposing). Judge Raker, may I ask you a question?

Mr. RAKER. Yes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. It may have something to do with the question of whether I might want to call some witness.

Mr. RAKER. Yes.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Is it your purpose, in calling the gentlemen whose names have been mentioned, and have been given here to the chairman, to bring out, or attempt to show, that the private power concerns have been trying to impede this particular piece of legislation, or legislation directed toward the same end; or is it your purpose to attempt to show that the private power concerns are, through the ordinary lawful channels, trying to get initiated and established, as it were, in the constructon of private power projects? Mr. RAKER. Well, as I understand the situation, there are two contending interests: First, various power interests, second, the Government contruction-Federal contruction. And that the power interests have made various examinations, and have concluded that it is practicable, feasible, and economical; and the Government has done the same, and it believes that it is; that therefore, the power interests having thus determined-if that is a fact, and we can show it-then comes the question of whether or not it should be given to the power interests to construct, build, and operate the development in the Colorado River, or whether the Government should do it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Well, I understand your position now upon one phase of the question. Upon the other, it is your purpose, directly or indirectly, to attempt to show that the private power concerns are opposing this legislation?

Mr. RAKER. Why, I think that will be demonstrated, if at all, in this way: That if they have thus determined as to the advisability or feasibility of it, they will use such means-and I assume legally: I place no charge against anyone-to prevent the Government's construction of this project as they think best.

92265-24-PT 2-11

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. That being true, Mr. Chairman, you are going to open up this situation on that

Mr. RAKER (interposing). I think I have stated it fairly, with

out

Mr. LEATHERWOOD (interposing). Then that will necessitate, perhaps, the going into the question before this committee with all of its ramifications as to what other interests have done to foster this legislation, or similar legislation, involving the expenditure of money, and all things of that kind, which have been done to secure the passage of this legislation.

Mr. RAKER. I would see no objection, so far as I am concerned: the door is wide open, and any effort made by the associations or individuals going to show the necessity or advisability of the Government construction of the dam-why, so far as I am concerned I would let the door be wide open.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Here is my position, Mr. Chairman: I have not a particle of interest on earth in any private power concern. My whole interest is on behalf of the people of my State and their agricultural development. But if the questions are to be gone into here as to what the power concerns are doing to impede the passage of this legislation-and I am frank to say that such charges have been made, even to the extent that this committee, it is claimed, is being affected in considering this legislation-then it is nothing more than right that the Congress should know what other people are doing to secure the passage of this particular bill or bills similar to this; what moneys they have spent, and how they have been spent ; and the whole question, I think, will be opened up, and it will necessitate a very long and expensive hearing.

Mr. RAKER. Personally, so far as I am concerned, I would invite it. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. I want to say to you, Judge Raker, that I think it is just as wrong for an irrigation company to spend large sums of money unnecessarily as it is for a power concern to spend large sums of money. I condemn both. And as one member of the committee, if one angle of this question is to be investigated, then I shall demand the right to investigate the other.

Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, may I offer an observation at this point?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, Mr. Leatherwood, any member of the committee may ask any question he wishes in a hearing of this kind.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Do not misunderstand me. I mean I shall probably cause witnesses to be brought before this committee that otherwise would not be.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes: I understand.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. The charge is made that large sums of money have been spent, and spent improperly.

The CHAIRMAN. Who made that charge? It is not in the record, is it?

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. No: that is not in the record. I say such charges have been bandied around-talk of checks and blank checks and such as that.

Mr. RAKER. So far as the expenditures of the irrigation district are concerned I put in the record here early in the proceedings the

names of the Members of Congress that visited that territory and others that visited it at the expense of the irrigation district. You gentlemen asked Mr. Rose to submit an itemized statement, and he said he would do it, and it ought to be in the record. So far as that is concerned it is public--it was made public; and I, as an individual, as a member of the committee, would court any evidence that would relate to this matter on either side.

Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this observation: The proposed project has merits and demerits. The committee has a duty before it by the bill being before it to investigate the merits and the demerits. The manner or modus operandi of presenting those merits and demerits is also being discussed; and, as has been suggested, the hearings if gone into should be very complete and will probably take quite a long time.

It seems to me that the committee might well separate the two propositions, determine the merits, engineering, and legal, etc., of this proposition; and then, if they want to--and I think it is entitrely proper for the committee to take up the investigation of the procedure which has been resorted to, by one party or both parties, to present the situation to the House or to Congress.

Mr. RAKER. Well, it has been conceded that, in all of these matters where there are great questions involved, the parties wanting legisletion have sent representatives here; they have invited the committees to go out there: their representatives have remained in Washington for months, trying to present their case, openly and above board: and that necessarily requires the expenditure of money for expenses, etc., while they are staying here to present those matters. Now, if there is anything in this connection to be brought out, then I say let them bring it out

Mr. SWING (interposing). Why, I say "Amen" to all sorts of committee investigations; it is the proper thing. But I would like to have the investigation conducted as a separate proposition, and not to have it injected into the hearings on the merits or the demerits of the project as proposed, and thus delay until the adjournment of Congress the completion of the hearings.

Mr. RAKER. Well, there is a hysteria abroad just now, and you can not separate the one from the other in the pending legislation. Mr. SWING. Mr. Chairman, I present Mr. Carr as a witness..

TESTIMONY OF MR. WILLIAM J. CARR, PASADENA, CALIF.

(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)

The CHAIRMAN. Please give your full name and your residence, Mr. Carr?

Mr. CARR. My name is William J. Carr. I live in the city of Pasadena. I am a practicing attorney, with an office in the city of Los Angeles.

I am an officer of the Boulder Dam Association, and a director of that association. Mayor Evans, of Riverside, has spoken of that. My expenses are paid by the Boulder Dam Association. I receive compensation from two members of the association, principally from the city of Pasadena, which is very directly interested here, and concerning the interests of which I shall address what I have to say this morning.

I had planned in addition to that, to speak of the compact phase of this legislation; but I think it was suggested by the chairman to Mr. Swing that it might be advisable to defer that until there was a full attendance of the committee, as it was assumed some of them might want to hear that.

But the Pasadena interest can very properly be presented this morning. That deals with the purely financial side of the project, as distinguished from the human interest side, which centers around Imperial Valley. Of course, Congress in authorizing a project of this kind should look at its financial aspects, and should determine as definitely as it may determine, whether the project is sound financially; whether the Government is to expend money from the Treasury that is to be returned or is not to be returned.

You have heard a good deal about the demands of the city of Los Angeles, which is a great city, and naturally is the biggest financial factor in the problem.

But it is not the only one. There are other communities that are interested, and the city of Pasadena is interested in a substantial way, both from the standpoint of power and from the standpoint of water for domestic use.

First, as to its purely power interest. Pasadena has had its own plant and generating works for something over 15 years. The plant started in a small way and has grown until at the present time it is a large business; successfully administered, very profitable, and with low rates.

At no time since 1909 has any rate charged by the city of Pasadena exceeded 5 cents a kilowatt hour. It is one of the very rare businesses which went through the period of the war with the inflation of prices at that time without increasing its prices. I am not sure but what there was a slight increase in one of the very lowest power schedules, but as far as the bulk of the people are concerned-I mean the people that get light, and this is a residential community and the bulk of the business is a lighting business-there has been no change since 1909.

Pasadena has been interested in this project for some time. When Congress passed the Kinkaid Act in 1920 and directed an appropriate body to investigate the problems of the lower Colorado River and made an appropriation, and it was found that that appropriation was inadequate to make a complete investigation contributions were made to the Government, without any strings attached to them, by the Imperial irrigation district, by the Coachella Valley, by the city of Los Angeles, by the State of Arizona. I believe is not that true, Mr. Hayden?-and the city of Pasadena also made a modest contribution; I think it was $2,500.

And two years ago the city of Pasadena sent me here to watch the legislation and to appear before the committee, with the idea that the rules of the game with regard to the allotment of power should be reasonably fair, so that Pasadena should have a reasonable opportunity to share in the benefits by paying for its proper share of the costs.

Pasadena does desire to secure some power that will be generated from that dam. It is easy, of course, for representatives a long way from Pasadena to state that desire in broad terms. I think it is more significant that when a congression party-members of this