Mr. WEST. That was taken over years ago and later disincorporated.

Mr. SWING. The Corona Light & Power Co.

Mr. WEST. That was another that was absorbed years ago; it is disincorporated now-I do not know whether it is disincorporated or not, but it is not active.

Mr. LITTLE. In view of the gentleman's very extensive experience, I would like to have his views as to what would be the value of those lands in Imperial Valley 60 days after the all-American canal was completed?

Mr. RAKER. Let me finish, please, Mr. Little. Will you reserve that question?

Mr. LITTLE. I will; but I would like to have his judgment on that. Mr. RAKER. Under the laws of what State are these companies all incorporated? You have nine subsidiary companies, and then the holding company?

Mr. WEST. I can not tell you all of those. Some of them in Wyoming. The holding company, I believe, is a Delaware corporation; and some of these companies are incorporated in California. Mr. RAKER. Well, will you designate those in your answer, if you please?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. It takes a little time; but we can not help it.

Mr. WEST. Very well.

(The statement referred to will be inserted later.)

Mr. RAKER. Now, are these directors interlocked in practically all of these companies?

Mr. WEST. These companies, yes; these companies are controlled by a holding company. One group of stockholders own the whole thing-the stockholders in the California-Nevada Electric Corporation own all of these properties. There is no single share, outside of qualifying shares, that does not ultimately belong to the holding company; in fact, the qualifying shares of the directors of these underlying companies are held by them in trust for the NevadaCalifornia Electric Corporation. So that there is but one company, if you come down to ultimate ownership.

Mr. RAKER. And that is the Nevada-California Electric Corporation?

Mr. WEST. That is the Nevada-California Electric Corporation. Mr. RAKER. And the directors own practically all of the stock of that company?

Mr. WEST. They do not; not practically all. We have-I am not positive how many, but I think it is around 1,000 stockholders.

Mr. RAKER. What I meant to ask was that this holding company owns all of the stock of the other companies, the nine companies? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. But the Nevada-California Electric Corporation, that is held by various stockholders?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Is that a fairly close corporation, or is it somewhat scattered?

Mr. WEST. Well, it depends on how a comparison would be made.
I would like to ask Mr. Phipps how many stockholders we have?

Mr. PHIPPS. There are over 500 stockholders; and in addition to that, there are over 200 employees who are purchasing stock on the installment plan. There are at least 700 stockholders.

Mr. RAKER. I see. Who is your publicity agent, that Mr. Leatherwood would like to have me ask about, for all of these companies and the holding company?

Mr. WEST. We have a man named Stone, who handles our publicity work.

Mr. RAKER. What is his first name?

Mr. WEST. Frank Stone.

Mr. RAKER. And his place of residence?

Mr. WEST. Riverside.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. You do not have a man named "del Toro" in your publicity department, do you? [Laughter.]

Mr. WEST. No, sir.

Mr. RAKER, Who is "del Toro"? Is he one of the directors? Mr. LEATHERWOOD. He is prominent in another publicity matter, and I thought he might be in this.

Mr. ALLGOOD. Is that Frank Stone a writer?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Do you have a publicity man at Denver?

Mr. WEST. No, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Who is the head man of this holding company at Denver?

Mr. WEST. Mr. E. S. Kassler; he is president.

Mr. RAKER. Now, who is either your secretary or treasurer or manager? Who is the manager of the concern at Denver?

Mr. WEST. I do not think we have such an officer as manager at Denver.

Mr. RAKER. Who is the man that has his hand on the operation of this holding company at Denver?

Mr. WEST. Well, I should say Mr. Kassler, the president. Mr. RAKER. You maintain quite extensive offices in Denver? Mr. WEST. No; I would not say so, about three rooms there. Mr. RAKER. Is the policy of the company directed from Denver, of these other nine companies?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir; it is directed by the board of directors, naturally.

Mr. RAKER. Have you submitted this statement that you read this morning to the committee to your board of directors? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Which board?

Mr. WEST. I have submitted it to the president of the holding company.

Mr. RAKER. Which president?

Mr. WEST. Mr. E. S. Kassler.

Mr. RAKER. Had he read this statement that you read to the committee this morning?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. He agreed with it?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. And did the other directors?

Mr. WEST. I discussed it with Mr. Phipps and read it to him.
Mr. RAKER. Is he satisfied with it?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. LITTLE. He is satisfied with it?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Has your company, or the board of directors of the holding company, discussed the advisability of extending your development that you have described this morning in Nevada and California?

Mr. WEST. Of extending it?

Mr. RAKER. Yes.

Mr. WEST. I do not know that I understand you.

Mr. RAKER. That is, building more dams and putting more lines in?

Mr. WEST. Building more power houses?

Mr. RAKER. Yes.

Mr. WEST. We have to consider that all the time.

Mr. RAKER. This policy to develop all of the water that you can from the source that you are now working on?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. And what is the amount that can be developed that is not developed now under the plan that you have described, commencing with Rush Creek and Luvining Creek and the little lake up above? What is the name of that lake just north of Luvining Creek? You have a dam located up there.

Mr. WEST. Saddle Bags Reservoir?

Mr. RAKER. Yes; you have a power plant up there?

Mr. WEST. Yes; we have a power plant that will be brought in this year at the foot of Luvining Creek.

Mr. RAKER. Well, you have one farther up north?

Mr. WEST. The Mill Creek plant.

Mr. RAKER. You took that over from the hydroelectric company? Mr. WEST. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. That is the one that Mr. Chappell and Mr. Metson were in?

Mr. WEST. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. RAKER. Now, how much more horsepower can you develop under your contemplated development?

Mr. WEST. Oh, Judge, I should say that we would bring in at least

50,000 more.

Mr. RAKER. Fifty thousand more. And you have how much? Mr. WEST. We have about 75,000.

Mr. LITTLE. Will you please, Mr. Chairman, have the stenographer read the question that I asked a few minutes ago?

Mr. WEST. I think I recall the question.

Mr. LITTLE. My question was this: I said, in view of your broad business experience, I would like to have your judgment as to what this $100 an acre land would be worth after the all-American canal was built and put in operation? How much an acre, in your judgment, would it then be worth?

Mr. WEST. I do not think it would be worth as much as it is now. Mr. LITTLE. You do not think it would be worth $100 an acre? Mr. WEST. No. I think that the construction of that canal would be a handicap, instead of an advantage, to the lands in the existing

92265-24-PT 4 -8

district. Of course, I do not mean to say that the lands are not going to increase in value down there; as economic conditions improve, those lands will be worth more; they are very productive lands.

Mr. LITTLE. Your theory in your opposition to this canal is that it would do more harm than it would good to the lands?

Mr. WEST. Because it would cost too much.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, because there would be imposed upon the lands these additional costs?

Mr. LITTLE. He did not say that. Well, I suppose that is true. What has that got to do with what the land will produce? A man that buys the land has got to pay some taxes; and he will have to pay them anyway.

Mr. WEST. The cost of getting water to the lands and the amount of indebtedness incurred, stands as a charge against the lands; and that has a good deal to do with its value.

Mr. LITTLE. Well, the cost of getting the water would be less? Mr. WEST. That canal has not anything to do with producing the water; it only brings water into the valley.

Mr. LITTLE. Well, sometimes they do not get water enough into the valley now.

Mr. WEST. Well, I do not think this all-American canal will create any more water.

Mr. RAKER. Is it not a fact that the all-American canal will produce almost twice as much water.as the Imperial Valley is getting now, because of the fact that, as the water runs in through lower California, through various cuts, ditches, etc., it is being taken out of the canal; and therefore the all-American canal will have all of the water to handle, except just the remnant that is left over to them after it is used in this country; is that not the fact?

Mr. WEST. Well, it is the fact that they will be able to take water directly into the valley, assuming that that can be built-and I believe it can-without the possibility of any one diverting it. Mr. RAKER. Exactly.

Mr. LITTLE. You want this committee to understand that your opposition to the all-American canal is based on your claim that it will not give you as much water as you have now; is that your posi

tion?

Mr. WEST. Oh, no.

Mr. RAKER. No; he just said it would bring as much water again. Mr. WEST. No; not as much water again.

Mr. LITTLE. I thought he said it would not give as much water as they have now.

Mr. WEST. What I said was that you would remove the possibility of some of the people in Mexico taking away some of the water that you are entitled to. There is no question that that difficulty would be removed.

Mr. RAKER. I am taking the other point: That if the all-American canal was built, they would be in a position to take all of the water and run it all into Imperial Valley, and there would be no water taken out by Mexico. Now, assume that that is true; whether that is right or not, assume that it is. Then there would be as much water again going into the Imperial Valley from the all-American canal as there is now?

Mr. WEST. I will say that is physically possible.

Mr. RAKER. Exactly.

Mr. WEST. I do not say they would get twice as much water as they get now. It is physically possible to divert, say, 7,000 or 8,000 second-feet of water directly into the valley, without going through Mexico, and hence without running the chance of the Mexicans, we will say, taking the water.

But to-day, you can carry as far as the canal goes, and that present canal will take all the water that the present irrigation district will use. Now, I am not talking about bringing a lot more land in, over and above that; but I am saying that the present canal will carry 7,000 or 8,000 second-feet of water into the valley; and that is more water than the irrigation district can use.

Mr. LITTLE. I have promised to ask only one more question, and I would like to get it in: If you will convince me that this new canal will bring them less water, I would urge the people to let up on it; but I should like to see the data on which you base your judgment.

Mr. WEST. I do not state that it will bring them less water.
Mr. LITTLE. Well, will it bring more?

Mr. WEST. No; I do not think it will bring any more than would be available for the district. It does eliminate, as Judge Raker has brought out, the opportunity for Mexico to take same water that the district may be entitled to.

Mr. LITTLE. Are you against that?

Mr. WEST. No; naturally not.

Mr. LITTLE. You are in favor of that, are you?

Mr. WEST. That would be a valuable feature of that canal, from that standpoint.

Mr. LITTLE. That is nice to know that.

Mr. WEST. How valuable, I am not prepared to say. There is a contract between the district to-day, or between the Mexican company that the district operates, and the Mexican Government, that relates to the division of water between the Mexican lands and the United States. Now, whether that contract would be disregarded; whether the Mexicans have any rights that international equity would enforce, I am not prepared to say; I do not know.

Mr. LITTLE. No; the Supreme Court has decided against them as to that.

Mr. WEST. Well, I do not know as to that. It seems to me that that would be a matter that would not be decided by our Supreme Court; it would be decided by treaty, and if the two countries could not get together, it would be arbitrated.

Mr. LITTLE. Well, the Supreme Court passed on it.

Mr. LEATHERWOOD. Mr. West, the distinguished gentlemen from California and Kansas asked you very minutely with reference to the company that you represent, and all of the subsidiary companies; and you have either stated or are going to state the names and residences of all the various directors of the various companies and corporations.

I observe, however, that apparently they have overlooked one question, which I understand is a very dear one to their hearts; and that is, whether or not the corporation which you represent, or any of the subsidiary companies, have, directly or indirectly, con