The Secretary — Mr. Dykman, Mr. Eggleston, Mr. Eisner, Mr. Endres,

Mr. Eppig.

Mr. Eppig - Here.

The Secretary - Mr. Fobes.

Mr. Fobes - Here.

The Secretary Mr. Fogarty, Mr. Foley, Mr. Ford.

Mr. Ford- Here.

The Secretary - Mr. Gladding.

Mr. Gladding - Here.

Mr. Green, Mr. Greff, Mr. Griffin, Mr. Harawitz, Mr.

The Secretary- Mr. Mereness, Mr. Mulry, Mr. C. Nicoll.

Mr. C. Nicoll - Here.

The Secretary - Mr. D. Nicoll.

Mr. D. Nicoll - Here.

The Secretary — Mr. Nye.

Mr. Nye Here.

The Secretary - Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Owen, Mr. J. S. Phillips, Mr. Quigg, Mr. Rosch, Mr. Ryder, Mr. Sargent, Mr. M. Saxe.

Mr. M. Saxe- Here.

The Secretary — Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Shipman.

Mr. Shipman - Here.

The Secretary - Mr. Slevin, Mr. E. N. Smith, Mr. T. F. Smith, Mr. Stanchfield, Mr. Tanner, Mr. Tierney.

Mr. Tierney-Here.

The Secretary - Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. Wafer, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Waterman, Mr. R. E. Webber, Mr. Weed, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. J. J. White, Mr. Wiggins, Mr. Williams, Mr. C. H. Young.

Mr. L. M. Martin - Mr. President.

The President - Mr. Martin will be recorded.

Mr. Dahm- Mr. President, I desire to be recorded.

The President - Mr. Dahm will be recorded. Mr. Deyo, Mr. O'Connor. Mr. E. N. Smith- Mr. President.

The President - Mr. E. N. Smith will be recorded.

Mr. F. C. Allen - Mr. President.

The President - Mr. Allen will be recorded.

Mr. Hinman - Mr. President.

The President Mr. Hinman will be recorded. Mr. Sargent.

One hundred and twenty-five delegates having answered to their names, a quorum of the Convention is present. We will proceed with the calendar of third reading. The Clerk will read.

The Secretary - No. 825, by Mr. Dow. To insert in the Constitution a new article in relation to the conservation of natural resources.

Mr. A. E. Smith Mr. President.

The President - Mr. Smith.

Mr. A. E. Smith-It was a matter of regret to me that I was unable to be present on the day this proposed conservation article was reported from the Committee of the Whole to the Convention for passage.

I believe that this is a mistake. I believe that it is a very serious mistake for this Convention to make. It seems to me we are setting the clock of progress, in the matter of the development of our natural resources, back at least ten years by our action. I hold the Constitution should contain nothing except the bare statement, including in the report of the State Officers Committee, that there should be a conservation commission appointed by the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the make-up, membership and the details of how that commission is to be composed should unquestionably be left to the Legislature in order that it may deal with the new problems that arise from time to time.

There is a long history connected with this question of water power development in this State. It goes back to the year after the last Constitutional Convention. Beginning in 1895, it was the policy of the State, or, rather the State lacked a policy with regard to the treatment and the development of its water power resources. As a result of that lack of policy, from time to time the grants of water power in the Niagara river were such that in 1905 or 1906 it was necessary for the Federal government to step in and put its hands on Niagara Falls in order to prevent it from being despoiled by the water power interests of this State.

At the time the so-called Burton Act was pending in Congress, it was Horace MacFarland, I believe, the President of the National Civic Federation, that made the remark that New York State's record with regard to her water powers in the past was very bad; that the State itself had jobbed out all the sacred glories of Niagara for no return or recompense whatever to the people.

An instance of how some of the grants on the Niagara river were made can be imagined from one single grant that in the terms of the contract read that the quantity of water to be taken was that which would pass through an opening or a ditch two hundred feet wide by about fourteen feet deep. The agitations for the preservation of Niagara and the other water powers of the State were so great that Congress authorized a treaty between this

country and Great Britain, limiting or holding back the amount of water that could be diverted from the Niagara river for water power purposes. Immediately after the passage of the Burton Act, and the ratification of the treaty, the water power interests of the State turned their attention from Niagara Falls to the St. Lawrence river, and in 1907 there passed in the Legislature, and it became a law, what was known as the incorporation of the Long Saulte Development Company. Under the terms and the provisions of the charter they were permitted to dam the St. Lawrence river at the Long Saulte rapids. The conservation engineers conservatively estimated that at that point in the St. Lawrence river there was capable of development a million horse power, which, under the terms of our treaty with Great Britain, five hundred thousand of that horse power belonged to the State of New York, because the boundary line between this State and the Dominion of Canada was approximately in the center of the river.

The bill went down to Governor Hughes and he hesitated to sign it. He sent it back to both Houses for amendment, requiring that a certain percentage of the horse power therein developed was to be paid to the State New York.

He was entirely without knowledge of the subject, as were a great many members of the Legislature. Nobody really dreamed at the time that there was granted to this power development company 500,000 horse power, the return to the State on which was something in the neighborhood of $25,009 a year. Anybody who knows anything about hydraulic development can understand very readily the value of 500,000 horse power.

Mr. Clinton — Will the gentleman yield for a minute?
The President - Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. A. E. Smith

Mr. Clinton I would like to ask where you got the figures for a million horse power at the foot of the Long Saulte river?

Mr. A. E. Smith From the Conservation Commission.

Mr. Clinton - The Conservation Commission is utterly mistaken. I was on the International Waterways Commission when we examined the whole thing. It is about 40,000 horse power.

Mr. A. E. Smith - Well, with all respect to my good friend, Mr. Clinton, I have heard this thing discussed, and I have actually seen the reports on it, and I would sooner have their word for it.

Now, immediately after the signing of that act, Governor Hughes realized what he had practically given away to the water power interests, and he insisted upon the passage of a bill immediately after that which very clearly defined what was to be the future policy of the State.

The President - The Chair is obliged to enforce the five-minute rule, unless there is unanimous consent.

Mr. M. J. O'Brien Mr. President, I ask that unanimous consent be granted to allow Mr. Smith to continue.

The President - Unanimous consent is asked that Mr. Smith shall be permitted to continue. The Chair hears no objection. It will be taken out of the hour.

Mr. A. E. Smith - Chapter 569 of the Laws of 1907 was the first declaration of public policy on the part of the State in dealing with the hydraulic

development of water power. Here is the title of the act: "An act authoriz ing and directing the state water supply commission to devise plans for the progressive development of the water powers of the state for the public use under state ownership and control." There is the meat in the cocoanut, under State ownership and control. Thereupon the water-power interests in the State had quite a setback. They laid down quietly, and in 1913 the Long Saulte grant was repealed and the Court of Appeals sustained that repeal. Now, this year the Conservation Commission was reorganized. The Governor in his annual message recommended a single head, and he recommended three experts and three divisions under that single head: first, the division of lands and forests; second, the division of inland waters, covering water supply storage, drainage and navigation; and, third, a division of fish and game. And he insisted in his message that the heads of these different divisions in the Conservation Commission be trained experts along the line of their duties.

In the first draft of that bill, this was found in the bill: "No plan for the storage of water or the development of hydralic power shall be made by the commission or any of its powers exercised in respect thereof unless such a plan be approved by a majority of the members of a board consisting of the conservation commissioner, the attorney-general and the state engineer and surveyor." Right under that there was proposed to strike out of the conservation law the eligibility of men to be appointed by the Conservation Commission. Let us read what that was. It was copied from the public utilities act: "No person shall be eligible to or shall continue to hold the office of commissioner, deputy-commissioner, chief of the commission or secretary of the commission who is engaged in the business of lumbering in any forest preserve land or who is engaged in any business in the prosecution of which hydraulic power is used or in which water is distributed or sold under any public franchise," etc. That was in the first print of the bill. That language in the bill brought forth a storm of protest from all the people interested in State development and State ownership of water power, and it was stricken out of the bill before it went to the Governor, and the eligibility clauses were restored with regard to the chiefs of the division and the Commissioner himself. Now, that brings us down to to-day. Now, here we are setting back the hands on the clock, tearing up the accepted State policy with regard to water power, tearing up the eligibility clause that has been such a strong and vigorous platform, and right in the fundamental law, we are taking away the safeguards that have been thrown around the water power of the State since 1907, when Governor Hughes recommended the passage of that first State development act.

In fixing the duties here we say: "Subject to the limitations in this constitution contained, the department shall be charged with the development and protection of the natural resources of the State". That is all. No mention of the well-settled and the well-defined policy of the State to develop these water powers for public use, for the benefit of the people. It is true that on lines 20 and 21 it reads: "The Department shall exercise such additional powers as may be from time to time conferred by law." The power to formulate a plan for a State-wide development of water power will be again fought through both Houses before the people will feel safe and secure from the water power interests.

There is not one word of the qualifications mentioned here. The only qualifications contained in the article is that they shall all reside in different judicial districts. It also says that they shall appoint and may at pleasure remove a superintendent. No mention of his qualifications. It is directly opposed to the State policy. It is, in effect, tearing out of the statute law of the State the whole Conservation Article which seeks to give protection to the people against the men trying to obtain control of the water power in this State without any return to the people who are really the owners of it. Don't let any man that really believes in the conservation of our natural resources have the idea for a minute that he is helping the State with this amendment in the Constitution. Not by any means! He is taking away the centralized responsibility. He is placing the whole question in a board of men spread out all over the State. Some one said to me "That works well in the Education Department." Of course it works well in the Education Department. The Education Department moves along without resistance. There is no organized force in this State opposed to the education of children; of course not; it is an entirely different proposition. But there is some power in this State, some place—I am unable to say where that is interested in grabbing the water power of this State, and evidences of thir activity continually crop up here and in the Senate. This whole thing is a mistake. This question should be left to the Legislature. The Constitution should not tie the hands of the government for 20 years in dealing with this great water power question.

The terms of these commissioners expire one each year. There will be no fixed responsibility upon one man. The qualifications are removed, and I predict that no plan of any kind for the development of hydraulic power in the interests of the people of the State will ever come from a commission of mine. I think that if this House adopts this, it is a mistake and a serious mistake. If the men who wrote to the Governor meant what they said, that they were not in favor of the other plan-only six months ago the Board of Trade and Transportation, the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, the State Forestry Association, Empire State Forest Products Association, and the Camp Fire Club of America if those men meant what they said six months ago when they addressed the Governor, they ought to be against this Conservation Article because it is in direct opposition to the present conservation plan as comprehended in the conservation law.

Mr. M. J. O'Brien - Mr. President.

The President - Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. M. J. O'Brien - Perhaps this is the first time I have had to differ from the gentleman who has so forcibly presented the objections to this, but, when all is said and done, you will find that he is concerned with the question of waterways, which is but one branch of this great subject, connected with the natural resources of the State. As I understand his argument, it is not that there is any limitation of this proposal upon the carrying out of the State policy which has been fixed in the statutes of this State, but his objection goes to not having statutory regulations embodied in the Constitution, together with the principles which are here set forth.

There are three branches of this subject. The forests are a rather important part, and so are the birds and the game. We are met here now, after having heard for months from everybody who is interested in the sub