retical efficiency, it is possible to reduce the speed at the rate of 3%1⁄2 miles an hour for each second; but with the brake force now fitted to trains the reduction of speed of trains running over sixty miles an hour would, under favorable conditions, not exceed two miles for each second.

"Mr. Westinghouse pointed out, in that communication, that with a perfect brake acting on all wheels, a train running ninety miles an hour, at the end of ten seconds the train would still be moving at a little over sixty miles an hour, and would have traveled 1,130 feet. But the ninety-mile-an-hour train, under the best actual conditions of present practice, would, at the end of sixteen seconds, still be running sixty-one miles an hour, and would have traveled in that time 1,796 feet. In other words, 3,000 feet would be the least possible distance in which a train running at that speed could be stopped, on a level, on a dry rail, with quick-action brakes, getting full application at the end of the second second, and using 90 per cent of the weight of the train. Take, then, atrain that sometimes gets up to eighty miles an hour, often to seventy, and makes considerable distance at sixty. Such trains are to be found running in the United States to-day. Even assuming that you have such a re-enforcement of your braking power that the speed can be reduced at the rate of 21⁄2 miles an hour each second, then the eighty-milean-hour train would still be running at the end of fifteen seconds forty-two and one-half miles an hour; the seventymile-an-hour train would be running thirty-two and one-half miles; and the sixty-mile train would still be running twenty-seven and one-half miles an hour at the end of a quarter of a minute after the effort to stop was made. It does not require much imagination to develop the meaning of these figures."

Also:

"Brake apparatus is a necessary auxiliary to safe train service, and although it would require less trouble and expense to maintain the hand brake, yet a stubborn fact confronts us, viz.: that the real conditions of actual service de

mands the quickest and most powerfulacting practical brake, that we may have the greatest possible safety, and the least final cost of operating modern railroads.

"In view of these facts, it would seem to be the part of wisdom to neglect no avenue leading toward perfection in controlling facilities. With the engine truck unbraked, it is evident that a great factor of safety has been neglected. In commenting on an accident of comparatively recent date, the journal before quoted takes occasion to say editorially:

"Over and over again we have the lesson, in passenger train accidents, that it is the last twenty-five or thirty feet that kills.

none

"'And of the clearest of these was a famous accident in 1890, when twentythree people were killed, and would have been killed if the train had been stopped forty-five feet sooner; and it would have been stopped if the brakes had been up to the best standard of the time. Now we have a case of lives saved by a quick stop with good brakes.'

"Surely the evidence is sufficient." [Extract from report of committee on triplevalve tests, read at the annual meeting of the Master Car Builders' Association, June, 1901, page 69.]

Mr. Rhodes, assistant general superintendent of the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad in Nebraska, chairman of committee:

"Remember that your committee, after its two years' work with air brakes in 1886 and 1887, gave it as its opinion, and if it made a mistake it was a mistake which I think was justifiable under the conditions-it said that it did not believe that any air brake could be successfully operated on a fifty-car train. That was the result of its experience. They got brakes that went on in five seconds, but you could not ride in the rear end. Later investigations show that the committee was mistaken and that it was possible to operate air-brake trains with long trains successfully and with a minimum shock. But to do this the fiftieth car must apply with the lim

it of time; that is, in three and a half seconds."

STANDING RESOLUTION OF THE AMERICAN RAILWAY ASSOCIATION POWER BRAKE.

[From proceedings of October, 1901, page 432.] "That all cars on freight trains should be equipped with power brakes."

The Interstate Commerce Commission in its last annual report on this question says:

"It is not too much to say that the airbrake practice on the freight trains of the country has long been in need of a decided improvement. Trains have often been run with only a few cars air braked, taken but for insufficient inspection a very much larger number could have been made available. Cars have been often 'cut out' when with a little care the brakes might have been put in order and used.

"The accidental rupture or parting of a hose or its connections while is in motion is sure to result in a sudden stoppage of the train, and a sudden stoppage, with the car couplings in their present condition is quite liable to cause such shocks as to derail, damage, and crush one or more cars. In trains of which only a part of the cars are equipped with air brakes in use it often happens that a stoppage of this kind will result in hundreds of dollars damage to the unbraked cars in the rear of the train, and consequent danger to the trainmen. Injuries to trainmen from this cause have been somewhat common, and some of the injuries have been fatal.

"Improved maintenance of air brakes, making it possible to use a larger portion of the air-brake cars in each train, would, it is believed, diminish the annoyance, expense, and danger due to the breakage of wheels under the very heavy loads now carried. This danger has been the subject of serious inquiry of late, and there is little doubt that some of the trouble is to be found in the practice of cutting out too many cars, thus putting too severe a braking duty on those which are left in service, heating the wheels and increasing their liability to fracture.

"The running of trains partially air braked is a practice which is tolerated everywhere. To an extent this impairs the value of the air brake as a safety appliance, for an automatic application

of the brakes on a moving train, in consequence of the accidental rupture of a hose or breakage of a pipe-and the provision for automatic application in these circumstances is an essential element in, and train brake checks the speed of the air braked cars so very quickly that the unbraked cars, behind those braked, are by their momentum crowded against those in front with such force as often to crush and sometimes to derail one or more cars. The balance of economy is, probably, in favor of the running of trains partly air braked, rather than with no air brakes, in spite of the losses due to this cause; but the duty of doing away with such a dangerous condition must, nevertheless, be obvious to every railroad manager. Some companies, more particularly in the East, are still controlling trains on steep descending grades by the use of hand brakes. This is in disregard of the lessons of the experience of those railroads which have used air brakes on freight trains for many years in the West, and is contrary to the advice of expert air-brake engineers.

"But as there is no question that one of the main purposes of the safety-appliance act was to provide for the universal use of the continuous-power brakes on all trains, it is plainly the duty, and will be the purpose, of the Commission to pay particular attention to this feature of the subject. According to the best expert opinion the use of air brakes on all of the vehicles of every train is necessary for both economy and safety, and the efforts of the Commission will be directed to that

end.

"In making it unnecessary for men to be on the tops of high cars the power brake has thus far had only a moderate effect, partly because trains are still run with only a moderate proportion of the cars air braked."

As will be seen, in asking for the passage of this bill we are only asking for that construction of the law which harmoniously carry out the real purpose intended by Congress when it enacted this legislation. All legislation is speculative, and until it is put into operation its weak points are not discov ered, and what is true of other legislation is only true of the safety appliance law. Respectfully submitted.

H. R. FULLER, Legislative Representative.

E. E. CLARK, Editor.

In a recent number we mentioned editorially the objects of the National Irrigation Association and described the purpose of a bill known as the Hansbrough-Newlands bill, for redeeming a part of the arid lands of the west by irrigation. This bill was a sound measure and a step forward in the national irrigation movement. It was simply complete in all that the framers intended it to cover, viz.: That the land be sacredly held for actual settlers only upon which to build homes there and create prosperous communities. It was to provide for the growing population by redeeming land that needs nothing but water to transform it into a paradise of productiveness upon which homes, schools, churches and factories might be built.

Those who have personal interests at stake in these lands which they usurp for grazing purposes have brought influence to bear in securing a compromise bill which practically kills the original bill and renders the land redeemed by irrigation subject to the homestead laws.

When the bill came up for passage in the senate, Senator Hansbrough moved an amendment evidently framed with a view to prevent the abuses referred to which would have arisen under the Compromise Committee Bill if it had been enacted into a law, and the senate, be

fore it passed the bill, adopted the amendment.

The House Committee on Public Lands, however, although it adopted some of the other amendments made by the senate, did not adopt this most vital and important amendment, and the House Irrigation Bill, as reported from the House Committee on Irrigation by Mr. Mondell of Wyoming, is still as objectionable as the original Compromise Committee Bill.

In the February number of The National Homemaker three specific objections to this measure were set forth. These objections were:

First. It leaves the land open to speculative entry until the contract for the construction of the works is actually let, and long before then every acre of the public land proposed to be irrigated would be filed upon by scrip or desert land entries.

Second. The limitation that no one land owner should receive a water-right for more than 160 acres, would be easily evaded, and large areas of land in private ownership would be furnished with water without actual subdivision or settlement.

Third. The provision that state or territorial laws shall govern and control in the appropriation, use and distribution of the water, makes it impracticable for any inter-state project to be constructed or for the government to store water in one state on any interstate stream for use in another state, or to protect either the right of the settler to

water or the right of the government to a return of its investment.

The proposition that the government shall construct irrigation works, from which water may be supplied to lands in private ownership, and look for reimbursement from sales of water-rights on long term installments to the owners of such land, without giving the government the right, even to prescribe the rules and regulations which shall govern and control the use of the water from its own reservoir or from its own canal, is an absurdity on its face.

The first objection above stated is, however, the most serious and important. The abuses which have been committed under the land laws of the United States, and under which great tracts of government land have been absorbed into private ownership by fraud and perjury, are a disgrace to this nation, and an evil which cries loudly for reform.

In order that this may be made clearly manifest-so clearly that he who runs may read-The National Homemaker prints in full sections 3 and 4 of the bill reported by Mr. Mondell. They are as follows:

SEC. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, withdraw from public entry the lands required for any irrigation works contemplated under the provisions of this act, and shall restore to public entry any of the lands so withdrawn when, in his judgment, such lands are not required for the purposes of this act; that public lands which it is proposed to irrigate by means of any contemplated works shall be subject to entry only under the provisions of the homestead laws in tracts of not less than forty nor more than one hundred and sixty acres, and shall be subject to the limitations, charges, terms and conditions herein provided: Provided. That the commutation provisions of the homestead laws shall not apply to entries made under this act.

SEC. 4. That upon the determination by the Secretary of the Interior that any irrigation project is practicable, he may cause to be let contracts for the construction of the same, in whole or in part, providing the necessary funds therefor are available in the reclamation fund, and thereupon he shall give public notice of the lands irrigable under such project and limit of area per entry, which limit shall represent the acreage which, in the opinion of the Secretary, may be reasonably required for the support of a family upon the lands in question; also of the charges which shall be made per acre upon the said entries, and upon lands in private ownership

which may be irrigated by the waters of the said irrigation project, and the number of annual installments, not exceeding ten, in which such charges shall be paid, and the time when such payments shall commence. The said charges shall be determined with a view of returning to the reclamation fund the estimated cost of construction of the project, and shall be apportioned equitably: Provided, That in all construction work eight hours shall constitute a day's work, and no Mongolian labor shall be employed thereon.

It is becoming more apparent every day that we must look to the east rather than to the west for a final solution of the great problem of the reclamation of the arid public domain and its settlement by actual homebuilders.

So long as the theory prevails that the West must be united as a foundation to build on, just so long will western senators and members who desire to promote settlement rather than speculation be forced to make concessions which will either prevent the enactment of proper national legislation or result in the passage of loose-jointed laws, which will be so abused in their operation that they will create a revulsion of the favorable public sentiment which now exists and in the end destroy it.

A supplement to the National Homeamendments maker analyzes these offered by Mr. Mondell, and brings to light a proposition that is not only defective but deceptive as well.

The artful subtlety with which these sections have been drawn would deceive, and has deceived, the great majority of those who are interested in the passage of an irrigation bill. Nearly every one would assume, on reading the bill, that no one but a homestead settler could get any of the lands which it was proposed to irrigate by any irrigation works constructed under this act.

The exact contrary is the fact.

An analysis of the bill will demonstrate this to anyone who will give it the necessary attention.

Section 3 provides that the secretary of the interior "may withdraw from pub*lic entry the lands required for any irrigation works contemplated under the provisions of this act, etc.

This clause, however, refers only to the lands required for the works, such as reservoir sites, right of way for canals, and any lands necessary for the operation and maintenance of the irrigation works; but it does not include lands proposed to be irrigated from the works. These are not withdrawn from entry but are left wide open to speculative

location until the notice provided for in section 4 has been given.

The next clause of the bill refers to lands proposed to be irrigated, and says:

"That public lands which it is proposed to irrigate by means of any contemplated work shall be subject to entry only under the provisions of the homestead laws," etc.

But these lands proposed to be irrigated are now all open to entry under the desert land act or wlth scrip, and under the bill they are not withdrawn, nor is there any provision in the bill for withdrawing them from such entry.

Under section 4 the secretary of the treasury is required, at the time he lets the contract, to give public notice of the lands proposed to be irrigated, and when this notice has been given, and not until then, does the clause of section 3 become operative which limits the right of entry of land to be irrigated to entries under the homestead act.

A bill which is so drawn as to pretend in terms to provide safeguards which it does not in fact provide, should be much more severely condemned than a bill which frankly and fairly shows its defects upon its face.

The bill in question is not only defective; it is deceptive. And in the discussion of the bill in the western press editors who have commented on it have been deceived by its misleading provisions into a misapprehension as to the real effect of such a law.

It is true that in section 2 it says:

"That public lands which it is proposed to irrigate by means of any contemplated works shall be subject to en. try only under the provisions of the homestead laws," etc.

But this provision, so full of promise on its face, does not take effect until the secretary of the interior shall have actually let the contract for the construction of the works, and thereupon shall have given public notice of the lands irrigable under such projects, as provided in section 4 of the bill.

There can be no possible question or doubt that under this bill the lands are open to speculative entry during the entire period from the time the government surveyors first go in the field until the contract is let by the secretary of the interior, an interval of time which in the very nature of things must extend over a period of at least several months, and probably longer.

No man familiar with the methods of speculators in the public domain, of "sooners" and land-grabbers of all classes and kinds, can fail to realize that long before a pick was struck in the actual construction of a government irrigation system, the lands proposed to be irrigated, to the last acre, would have

They

been filed on by speculators. would shoe-string the canal on both sides with scrip, just as they have shoestringed all the natural water courses of the arid region.

Of course it goes without saying that there are in the west many men, and they are men of wealth and political influence, who want just such a law as this, and who do not want the government to do anything unless the land is left open for entry by those who will be under no obligation to live upon it.

You may go anywhere in the range country and find great stock ranches of thousands and hundreds of thousands of acres which have been acquired by the evasion or abuse of the spirit of the present land laws, and oftentimes by the most flagrant fraud and perjury.

The class of men who want to continue building up these great ranches or increasing their number, and who do not want the public lands broken up into small farms and dotted with a multitude of homes, will support this bill in its present shape with all their influence. But the very fact that the bill is so drawn that it suits their desires and accords with their plans for the still further absorption of the public lands into great ranches or speculative holdings, to the exclusion of small settlers, is the very reason why the people, not only of the east but of the west as well, who want the country settled up with a dense population, should insist upon a proper amendment of this bill before giving it their support. Unless it is amended it would be far better for the west that the bill should be defeated and the success of the national irrigation movement be deferred until its strength in the east is sufficient to overcome the evil influences of the speculative and land-grabbing element in the west.

The senate evidently saw the seriousness of this defect in the bill, and when it passed the senate it was amended so as to require the secretary of the interior to give the public notice designating the lands to be irrigated upon the determination by him that the irrigation project is feasible.

It was evidently the purpose of the senate by this amendment to prevent the very abuses which we have shown would arise under the bill. Even the senate amendment, however, does not go far enough. The secretary of the interior could not know himself, and consequently could not give notice as to what land would be irrigable under any given project until it had been surveyed, and he could not know whether the project was practicable until surveys in the field had been completed and maps and plans and estimates of cost thereafter prepared and submitted to