Governor GEORGE H. DERN,

State Capitol Building,

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 15, 1927.

Salt Lake City, Utah.

California Representatives refused to consider amendments to protect Utah interest in Boulder Dam bill. Program is to take bill up in the Senate for consideration this coming week and a hearing on the application for a rule in the House has been arranged for the 20th. Utah Legislature should take whatever action it deems proper at once, but not later than January 19.

Then a wire was sent back by you:

REED SMOOT,
WM. H. KING,

DON. B. COLTON,

E. O. LEATHERWOOD,

Why is it important to repeal Utah's ratification of six-State compact before special rule is granted? Will not repeal any time before passage of bill be equally effective, and yet leave time for further California-Arizona negotiations that might result in ratification seven-State compact, and also give us opportunity to submit proposed amendments besides those suggested by yourself. To which Mr. Leatherwood replied to you by wire:

Repeal of Utah ratification of six-State compact would go long ways to prevent granting rule. If rule is granted nothing in my judgment can stop passage of bill. Granting of rule will enable California to block any upperState amendments offered on floor of House. Utah has ratified seven-State compact and should not repeal. Ratification of seven-State compact by Arizona and California would be hastened if California realizes she can not get six-State compact.

E. O. LEATHERWOOD.

Now, subsequently the bill was repealed by a bill introduced by Senator Auerbach, senate bill No. 1, an act annulling the ratification of the Colorado River compact upon ratification of the six States which have already ratified, and repealing chapter 64 of the laws of Utah of 1925, entitled "An act approving and ratifying the Colorado River compact upon similar action by the six States which have already ratified," etc., approved March 13, 1925, and reasserting Utah's adherence to and insistence upon article 11 of the compact as set forth in chapter 5, laws of Utah, 1923. And in your commufnication transmitting it to the Secretary of State you also sent this letter to the Senate:

To the Senate:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE,

Salt Lake City, Utah, January 19, 1927.

I have this day approved and forwarded to the Secretary of State, senate bill No. 1, by Mr. Auerbach, entitled "An act repealing chapter 64, laws of Utah, 1925, entitled 'An act approving and ratifying the Colorado River compact upon similar action by the six States which have already ratified,'" etc., approved March 13, 1925.

My action, like yours, was prompted by the urgent behest of our united congressional delegation, and we must assume that they had good and sufficient reasons for urging us to take this action.

The question I desire to ask, Governor, was and is, Do you know what amendments were referred to as being necessary to protect Utah's interests in the Boulder Dam bill which the California representatives refused to consider?

Governor DERN. No. I was not informed.

Mr. SWING. Then may I call your attention to the Utah amendments which were offered-what might be called the "Utah amend

ments," which were offered by Mr. Leatherwood in the House and which were accepted by the committee and put into the bill.

In the first section is the 160-acre limitation which was asked for by Mr. Leatherwood.

The second one is in section 4 of the bill, in which he asked to have this amendment inserted. The section began originally: "No work shall be begun and no moneys expended on or in connection with the works or structures under this act," until the legislature had ratified the contract. He then inserted this amendment: "No work shall be begun and no moneys expended on or in connection with the works or structures provided for in this act "-now comes the amendment-" and no water rights shall be claimed or initiated hereunder, and no steps shall be taken by the United States or by others to initiate or perfect any claims to the use of water pertinent to such works or structures until," etc.

Then there is the so-called Colton amendment, which subjugates the license and permits of the Federal water power act to the terms of the compact.

And finally there is the Utah amendment, which was suggested and asked for by Mr. Wallace in section 14, which provides that out of this money which this project borrows from the United States Treasury for the purpose of building this project there shall be taken the sum of $250,000 and used for prospecting for projects in the States of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Those amendments were offered by the upper basin States and were accepted by California and placed in the bill.

I now hand you the only other amendments which Mr. Leatherwood offered and which were presented to the committee by him and urged by him, but after a vote were voted down. Those amendments were declared by him to be for the purpose of taking the Government out of the power business and to make it impossible for the Government to build a power plant. Those were handed to me by the clerk of the committee as being the Leatherwood amendments. I make the statement to you now that my recollection is—if any member of the committee present has any different recollection I would thank him if he would correct me-that those are the only other amendments offered by Mr. Leatherwood to this bill, and were the only ones which were not accepted, and those relate, in my interpretation of them and the understanding of the committee after hearing them, to the power provisions in the bill. Did you know that at the time the legislature took this action?

Governor DERN. I had understood that Mr. Leatherwood's chief objection was on account of the Government power-plant feature. I have tried in my remarks before this committee to make it very clear that that is not my objection. My objection is on entirely different grounds, and I am not particularly interested in the past history on the subject. I have explained the situation as it stands to-day.

Mr. SWING. Referring again to the telegram on which your legislature acted" California representatives refuse to consider amendments to protect Utah's interest in the Boulder dam bill "—I ask you now, after all you have learned down to date, do you know of any other amendment, other than the ones which I have referred

to that are in the bill, and those which are now handed to you, relating to the power feature, which were offered and which the California representatives refused to consider?

Mr. DOUGLAS. May I make a statement?

Mr. SWING. Not yet.

Governor DERN. I had no knowledge of any amendments.

Mr. SWING. Then the fact is that those must have been the amendments to which this telegram referred, the amendments to take the Government out of the power business and to prevent the Government from building a power plant?

Governor DERN. I didn't know what the Leatherwood amendments were. I saw copies of the amendments after Congress adjourned. I think Mr. Leatherwood sent me a copy of them, and I can not say that I have read them yet.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Were those amendments accepted in this committee or the Rules Committee, Mr. Swing?

Mr. SWING. What do you mean by "those amendments"?

Mr. DOUGLAS. The amendments to which you referred as having been accepted.

Mr. SWING. The Rules Committee has no power to amend the bill. Mr. DOUGLAS. My understanding is that one of these was accepted by the Rules Committee. Have you finished?

Mr. SWING. Not yet.

Senator KING. My name was appended to the telegram which was transmitted and which has been read.

Mr. SWING. I am glad to have your explanation of it.

Senator KING. The amendments which I had in mind were those explained to me by Senator Smoot. I had some knowledge of the amendments tendered by Mr. Leatherwood, but there were other amendments which Senator Smoot referred to in his conversation with me, and I shall not go into it now because it would take too long, and those are the ones that I had in mind. The question of the Government building a dam was not the important one that I had in mind. when I signed that telegram. Notwithstanding my opposition to the Government going into socialistic and paternalistic schemes, the construction of power plants and all that sort of thing, that was not the amendment.

Mr. SWING. Will you tell us what the amendments were, Senator? Senator KING. I could not at this moment, I have not thought of them for a long time. I was very much concerned regarding giving Utah every protection possible, and that was the purpose of my speaking to Senator Smoot, because he had the negotiations with Mr. Matthews and other representatives from California, and with Secretary Hoover, and Senator Smoot stated to me what the amendments were, for which he was contending, and I accepted his statement because I did not have the opportunity of talking with my friend Mr. Matthews or Secretary Hoover or other representatives of the California delegation. I did say to Senator Johnson that the position taken by my esteemed friend from Utah, Congressman Leatherwood, was not my position.

Mr. HUDSPETH. Senator King, might I ask you this question: Were those amendments which you referred to suggested by Senator Smoot over in your committee room over there when the bill was considered?

Senator KING. No, I am not a member of the committee and I do not know what amendments were tendered there. My understanding is, however, that the amendments which Senator Smoot had in his mind and concerning which he talked with Mr. Matthews and Mr. Hoover, were not the ones to which my friend Mr. Swing has referred, and whether the ones that Mr. Smoot had in his mind and as to which he had the conservation referred to, were offered in the committee, I have no knowledge.

Mr. SWING. You do not know of any being offered in the committee?

Senator KING. My dear friend, I don't know what were offered in the committee. I was not a member of the committee.

Mr. SWING. I knew, Senator, that you were following it very closely. I saw you in quite frequent attendance at the meetings.

Senator KING. No; you are entirely in error, Mr. Swing. I was only in attendance once. That was when our distinguished gover

nor was there.

Mr. SWING. You made a statement yourself.

Senator KING. I made a brief statement when Governor Dern was there. I did not bother the committee.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Swing has, very properly, I think, read a great many long statements into the record here on my time and on the time of the opponents of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I will just say this, that since the Governor finished his statement, the time is running against the proponents of the bill, because they are occupying the time.

Mr. SWING. That is satisfactory.

Governor, since it could not have been the power company amendment that caused the legislature to withdraw, because you did not know of them, I will ask your indulgence while I call to your attention a report of a speech by Mr. Leatherwood at Salt Lake City July 15, 1926, reported in the Salt Lake Telegram, entitled "Solon firm on seven-State pact. Leatherwood fights Swing-Johnson bill. Is Kiwanis speaker. Enthusiastic in talk on Boulder Dam." It being as follows:

When the coal of Utah can be shipped to the industrial centers of southern California, and electrical energy produced by steam right on the ground cheaper than it can be generated at the proposed Boulder Dam on the Colorado and transmitted 300 miles over copper cables, why should the people of Utah in any sense ratify the present Swing-Johnson bill now in Congress?

Do you think that that idea was promulgated so widely that it had any effect on the legislature in repeating the six-State compact and opposing the Swing-Johnson bill?

Governor DERN. That was over a year after the legislature adjourned, was it not?

Mr. SWING. No.

Governor DERN. You say 1926?

Mr. SWING. This was just six months before your legislature met. This was July 15, 1926, and you made your repeal January 18, 1927, six months after.

Governor DERN. No: I don't think so. I don't think that question was agitated at all.

Mr. SWING. I will continue reading:

Furthermore, are the people of the upper-basin States of the Colorado going to permit the passage of the Swing-Johnson bill, which, under its present form, will grant to the Government of the United States the rights to the waters of the Colorado, the right to build the dam and the power plant and the right to sell that power in competition with privately-owned power companies?

Do you think that had any influence on the legislature, the part relating to power companies?

Governor DERN. To be perfectly candid, I think the only thing that had influence upon the legislature was the recommendation of our united congressional delegation that sent the telegram.

Mr. SWING. I guess you are right. Governor, I think you stated in the first part of your statement that you had received notice from the Governor of Arizona that he was ready to continue with the negotiations. Can you give me just that sentence, about the second page, where you said that the Governor of Arizona had given you notice that he was ready to continue negotiations?

Governor DERN (reading):

Immediately before my departure for Washington I received notice from the Governor of Arizona that negotiations were recently suspended by reason of the alleged indisposition of California to proceed.

Mr. SWING. Now, on that, Governor, did you receive a letter from the Governor of Arizona dated December 20, 1927, in which these statements are made?

Mr. DOUGLAS. Read the whole letter, so that we can be sure that we get the whole text of it.

Mr. SWING. I will read what part of the letter I choose. If you want the rest of it you are welcome to put it in.

Mr. DOUGLAS. If you will hand it to me I will do so.

Mr. SWING. And in your time.

Mr. SINNOTT. Did you use the word "choose"? (Laughter). Mr. ALLGOOD. What is the date of that letter?

Mr. SWING. December 20, 1927. I read this from it:

Our delegation to Washington will go there for the sole purpose of defeating the Swing-Johnson bill. We can not participate in negotiations for either a three or a seven-State compact under duress. If we form an alliance with other States, it must be voluntary and founded on justice, not induced by pressure.

I know that you, even in your earnest desire for an agreement, would not request us to act in the presence of oppressive bureaus and while being threatened by destructive legislation unless we accede to the demands of our adversaries.

We hope that when we have defeated the pending unfair legislation proposed by California that we may again seek your assistance in formulating an agreement in regard to both the water and the power of the Colorado River, etc. Governor DERN. Yes, sir; I received that letter.

Mr. SWING. Then, Governor, the situation is not that California is indisposed, but the governor is determined to pursue no more negotiations until the Swing-Johnson bill has been defeated. Isn't that the fair import of the letter he wrote you?

Governor DERN. Let me see if I have the letter here. I find I do not have Governor Hunt's letter here, but I have one from Mr. Talley, Robert E. Talley.

Mr. SWING. No; we don't want to deal with anybody less dignified than the governor of the State when we have the opportunity.