A. P. Davis." When he received the resignation in the above form he sent for me again, and objected to the statement that the resignation had been requested by him, and said he would prefer to have it in such shape that it would appear to be initiated by me.

I told him that such a statement would not be truthful and therefore not proper. He replied that no reference need be made directly to its origin, but that the resignation as it stood indicated that I had been "fired", and that I surely, he said, did not desire to advertise that fact to the world. I told him that I desired the world to know the facts whatever they were, and preferred the letter to remain in its present form. Upon further urging I finally said that if he would listen to my statement I would at the end thereof conform to his wishes, whatever they were, and I gave my reasons substantially as follows:

The Reclamation Service is unique in requiring the repayment of the moneys invested by those benefited and this makes the Service subject to the criticism of those trying to escape their payments, who seek to discredit the work and to make claims concerning understandings of long ago, which would tend to establish their right to exemption from the payments required by law; if these efforts were successful, the repayments would be checked or stopped, and by cutting off the revenues the reclamation work would be stopped. Under present laws with a large revolving fund the entire West susceptible of reclamation can be ultimately reclaimed if the law is carried out and the fund kept revolving, but if payments are not made the main source of revenue is cut off and the work accordingly stopped.

The large reclamation projects yet to be developed are so extensive that they form a very important part of the future development of the West. They are so difficult physically that they can not be carried out by private enterprise, which requires profits and interest on investment. Recognizing these facts the Congress has provided a revolving fund, which may be used principal is repaid. without interest provided that the closely watching the operations of the Congress is Act and when satisfied that repayment is not coming will probably withdraw the public assistance to reclamation and the development will be completely and permanently stopped.

For these reasons the faithful return of the Reclamation Fund as required by law is vital to the interests of the West, and of the country in general. Owing to my familiarity with the early history and progressive development of every project of the Service I am better equipped than anyone else to refute the false allegations and resist the efforts of the repudiators to achieve their ends. For these reasons I have not felt at liberty to leave the Service as long as permitted to remain, and have accordingly, mainly for this reason, declined several offers of attractive positions at higher salaries in the last few The real friends of reclamation have loyally defended me when attacked by the repudiators and others, and I do not feel like deserting the cause without consulting them.

years.

I told Secretary Work that I was not willing to change my letter, but after hearing me through he promptly decided that the clause should go out, and I returned to my office and redrafted the letter accordingly; but on reading it over I concluded that the intended deception would be improper and accordingly returned the resignation to the Secretary in the form above quoted, except that at his suggestion I inserted in the first sentence the word "respectfully". This

resignation was accompanied by the following letter:

"My dear Mr. Secretary:

"I have reconsidered my decision of this morning to eliminate from my letter of resignation the statement that it was made by request. I rewrote the letter in the form you suggested, but, after thinking it over concluded this would be making myself party to a public deception that would not only be ethically improper but unjust to the real friends of reclamation, who are entitled to the facts. am accordingly resubmitting my resignation as requested.

He brought great pressure to make me withdraw from this position. He offered me an appointment as Consulting Engineer, as a "promotion", whatever that might mean, and several times threatened me with attack if I did not accede to his wishes. His threats of defamation were so irritating that I informed him that I was not to be intimidated, and suggested he cease the attempt.

When his announcement was published in the Washington Star, it contained the following:

"Orders for the reorganization followed the Secretary's study of data gathered on his recent trip, when he personally inspected several of the most important projects.

At various points he met representatives of farmers interested in the Government reclamation operations and listened to complaints and suggestions from them."

some of them recently, insists that he made no unfavorable report.

When request was made on Secretary Work for definite charges, and the names of accusing parties, he simply disclaimed authorship of the item quoted but said he did have “a lot of evidence".

Twice, I have requested a written statement of the reason for my removal but this has been evaded with the statement that I am not entitled to such statement under the law, which is technically true.

The Civil Service law entitles one under its protection to a written statement of the reasons for his removal, but this does not apply when an office is abolished. To avoid this

obligation, he abolished the office of Director and created the office of "Commissioner", with like duties. Orally, however, he has quoted repeatedly his reason to be that he believed the Reclamation Service should be administered by a business man and not an engineer.

stated his conviction that every proIn one interview, in March, he ject, as soon as it was sufficiently constructed to be placed on an operation basis, should be placed under the charge of a business man and the engineer removed. This policy can be and, according to precedent, will be made an opportunity for creating jobs for two or three dozen politic

ians.

The statement given out by the Secretary's office that I was offered and refused an assignment as consulting engineer in the Reclamation Service is false. I have never refused such an offer, but, on the contrary, stated my willingness to serve in that capacity, if I could be really useful. but said I did not desire to be a figurehead nor have a paper position. He did, however, offer me such a position, provided, that I would join him in deceiving the public concern

ing my dismissal. I declined to do

SO.

I do not know the motives of the Secretary in taking this action but it seems improbable that the reason he gives is the only one and probably there are other reasons than the desire to make a political job. Various suggestions have been made and I have been quoted incorrectly on this subject from time to time. At least one plausible explanation is the desire to please a small but active minority of those indebted to the Government to escape their just charges for repayment of the investment made in reclamation work for their benefit.

Secretary Work told me that my dismissal had been determined upon more than two years before it took place. This dates back to an effort that was made in 1921 to create a demand in the West for my removal.

Mr. I. B. Perrine and a man named Spaulding went to Denver in

April, 1921, with plenty of money, sent twenty or thirty telegrams to various western friends, and requested the Denver Chamber of Commerce to pass a resolution requesting my removal, promising in return that the headquarters of the Reclamation Service would be removed from Washington to Denver.

The Chamber of Commerce referred the question to a committee of its members.

This committee submitted a comprehensive report decrying the suggested removal of the headquarters of the Reclamation Service to Denver and unqualifiedly supporting Mr. Davis.-Ed.

The committee also spread the news of the attempt to other western states, and many resolutions of protest, commending the Service and its Director were received by Secretary Fall, backed by members of Congress and Senators, and the Secretary finally pledged himself to make no

change, but he adopted a policy of "hen pecking", and opposition, seriously hampering the efforts of the engineers to maintain the efficiency of the service. This policy was continued by Secretary Work until it culminated in the dismissal of the Director. He was careful to do this suddenly, without warning, while Congress was out of Washington and the President and himself about to embark for Alaska, where they would escape the expected protests.

While the repudiation movement is responsible for some of the criticism of the Reclamation Service and its officers, it is not responsible for all. The West is dotted with attractive reclamation projects which ought to be built and which the western people desire should be built up at an early date. The Service already has in an incomplete state more than 20 projects which it will require $75,000,000 or more to complete, and in which are already invested large sums of money which are frozen assets until the works built can be fully utilized by the completion of the projects. Under these circumstances the Director has opposed the taking up of new projects but has been frequently overruled by Congress or the Secretary upon this point and this has led to indignant criticism from those who have not been favored. Some of them blame the Director and some, both in and out of Congress, have denounced him in emphatic terms for not favoring the adoption of new projects in their particular states, but it should be said that the majority of the members of Congress and of the western people appreciate that the

best order of development is to secure the early return of moneys invested before undertaking large new investments which cannot be made to pay for lack of early competition, and it is in the main true that the attacks on the Service are instigated and directed by the repudiation element.

The votes of the eastern members of Congress are essential to the continuation of the reclamation policy, and they are friendly to it. This is proved by the passage of the original Reclamation Act, the addition to its provisions of a portion of the receipts from oil lands, and by numerous amendments that have always carried by a large majority when Congress was convinced that they were necessary to the success of the scheme. In this way eastern members of both houses have confirmed their essential friendship by overwhelming majorities to the policy but if the West itself repudiates this policy, it cannot expect continued support from the East, and the policy must therefore fall.

My removal from the Service, while it removes many opportunities for usefulness, does not entirely deprive me of power to defend the interests of the West at this critical stage. Whether my services in refuting the arguments of repudiation shall be available depends entirely upon those interested in the subject. I am willing to do my part as one whose life has been spent in the development of the West and is still as intensely interested as ever in its future history.

July 11, 1923.