OCR Text |
Show " CONGRESS 10 TAKE OP RECLAMATION THREE IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT DEVELOP-MENT MEASURES TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE SC3SION. There Is No Certainty That Any of the Plans Will Receive Approval, There Being Objections to Measures Meas-ures In Some Quarters. Washington. At last three concrete plans for irrigation development in the west, two of them soldier settlement settle-ment plans, will be brought before congress at the approaching session, all of them plans which have been studied by committees and which have reached stages where they may be taken up for consideration if there is sufficient sentiment and support behind be-hind them. The first Is the soldier bonus bill, which passed the louse last session, and is now in the finance committee of the senate. One section of this bill provides for the reclamation of arid lands, the draining of swamp lands and the recovery of culover lands to provide homes for soldiers. The second is the Borah bill, which is virtually the soldier land settlement feature of the bonus bill, with an important im-portant addition to the effect that the government shall not buy private lands for reclamation. The third Is the Smoot bill, ostensibly ostens-ibly to aid and encourage irrigation development with private capital, but putting the federal government back of such development in a way to insure Its success. The Smoot bill, in Its present pres-ent form, is not a soldier land bill. To each of the three plans there is substantial objection in some quarters, and advocates of soldier relief and of reclamation extension are not agreed among themselves as to which of the plans, if any of them, shall be pushed to ultimate passage. Indeed, there is no certainty that any of the plans will be passed during the short session. But the agitation will be renewed and each of the three bills will be brought to the front for discussion, if not for action. Both the bonus bill and the Borah bill contemplate the appropriation by congress of $300,000,000 over a period of ten years, and on this ground, because be-cause of the financial status of the government, the secretary of the treasury treas-ury recommended against both bills. He pointed out that such a drain upon the treasury would mean either additional addi-tional taxes or the flotation of new bonds or notes, and to this he was opposed. |