➊ Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps

Saturday, May 29, 2021 3:33:31 AM

Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps

On December 29 you advised him Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps go ahead and try to work it out on the basis of Senator Bankhead's bill, S. In the Soil Conservation Service the Department has an action agency, the program of which is designed Essay On Raising The Drinking Age reach every individual farm, to plan, aid in initiating, and cooperate in maintaining the best possible soil Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps practice on these farms, including Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps planting and culture Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps trees are suited to the need and possible to grow. In this region Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps a whole the Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps of the soil, loose sand, means that this kind Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps lumbering will produce a desert. Fried, Albert InSmith appointed Roosevelt to the Taconic State Park Commission, and his fellow commissioners chose Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps as chairman. You Tell Tale Heart Suspense course appreciate better than anyone else that full Administration endorsement and backing offers the only hope of obtaining Congressional action on Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps broad program, and particularly a program that contains controversial Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps such as public regulation. As he saw it, history, culture, and nature all played roles in the exceptional saga and unfolding legacy Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps the United States. If you want further Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps on growing trees and selling Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps, come and talk with me!

History Brief: The CCC

They formed separate companies; in Michigan there were at least five veterans' camps. Michigan veterans were also kept on the active list for state employment vacancies. Besides performing various forest duties, veterans in the CCC served communities near their camps as color guards and firing squads at funerals and on other occasions. An enrollee's day began with reveille at it A. After calisthenics came breakfast. CCC food was plain, nourishing and served in abundant quantities. CCC Director Fechner described camp food as "wholesome, palatable, and of the variety that sticks to the ribs. By A. Lunch was served in the field and lasted one hour. By P. After dinner, enrollees either attended classes or sought entertainment in nearby communities. There were no restrictions about leaving camp in the evening as long as the men were back for lights out at P.

During its first twenty-four months, the Michigan CCC constructed over 3, miles of truck trails, spent 54, man days fighting fires, assembled 8 lookout towers, built miles of firebreaks and reduced fire hazards on some 40, acres. Reforestation also required the establishment of nurseries. By , one million hardwood seedlings were ready for planting. Once it became certain that the CCC would be more than a temporary agency, Michigan officials undertook more complicated projects. Enrollees built two bridges, one feet long over the Muskegon River, and another feet long over the Manistique River. They improved hundreds of miles of Michigan game-fish streams and built log structures called deflectors to maintain pools for trout.

During the first three years of the CCC, over 75 million fish were reared in hatcheries and distributed in lakes and rivers. CCC activities extended to the Michigan state park system. The seemingly endless list of improvements includes a bathhouse at Ludington State Park, a byfoot limestone picnic shelter at Indian Lake State Park and a byfoot fieldstone caretaker's residence at Wilson State Park, which was equipped with running water, lights and other "modern conveniences. The Michigan CCC also conducted groundwater surveys on several million acres of Michigan land, prepared five hundred sample rock trays for distribution to Michigan schools and, in cooperation with Michigan State College, prepared twenty farm woodlots to show farmers how to properly thin wooded areas.

The Michigan CCC also engaged in numerous wildlife projects. At Camp Cusino near Shingleton, an extensive moose research project-the only one of its kind in the nation-took place. An experimental deer-feeding project was also conducted at Cusino. These members of Camp Germfask, the only U. Bureau of Biological Survey camp in Michigan, transformed 95, acres of marshland into a domicile for migratory wildfowl. A system of dams, spillways, ditches, dikes and pools was built, and hundreds of acres of millet, celery and wild rice were planted as food for birds. Most Michigan CCC camps were in either national or state forests. The state's only National Park Service camps were on Isle Royale, which had been designated a national park in Thomas, arrived off the island in Siskiwit Bay.

Forced to wade ashore, the men cleared a living area for the remainder of the company, which arrived later that month. The th completed Camp Siskiwit and performed general forestry work before returning to the mainland in October. On 23 July, forest fires fed by strong winds broke out on the island. They created so much smoke that vessels along the Keweenaw shoreline were forced to sound their foghorns.

In mid-August the conservation editor of the Grand Rapids Press, Ben East, who spent three days on the island, reported that the eighteen hundred men fighting the fires were doing a remarkable job against enormous odds. Described by East as "the largest fire army" to ever fight a single blaze in Michigan, the men faced numerous challenges. The island lacked roads, and its rocky terrain made plows and tractors useless in establishing firelines. The men dug one hundred miles of trenches by hand with axes and shovels. There was little available sand, and as East reported, "The soil is leaf mold and humus, lying in a shallow layer over clay and rock. The soil itself burns. Eighty-pound gas tanks were carried inland to keep the pumps running.

The CCC enrollees fought the fires in twelve-hour shifts. The day shift awoke at A. Except for a lunch break, the crew worked until relieved by the night crew at P. East noted that one crew of three hundred men had continued at this pace for nineteen days without a break. The fire fighters endured food shortages, rotting food stores and poor sanitary conditions that resulted in a mild dysentery epidemic. In spite of these setbacks, they checked the fires, which destroyed 35, of the island's , acres. According to East, without the efforts of the CCC men, "some of the finest scenic spots on the Island would have been laid bare.

One hundred men volunteered to spend the winter of on Isle Royale eliminating fire menaces. With the safety of winter snows, the men burned the slash and half-burned trees from the summer firelines. Although Isle Royale was blocked by ice for up to five months, the enrollees were not "utterly isolated. Working in the woods and around machinery was dangerous. Wallace J. Blair remembers the death of one of his buddies while they were dynamiting stumps at Camp Johannesburg on Bear Lake. Forest fires also took a toll. One foreman, Andrew D. Lindgren, and his men were trapped by the blaze. Lindgren directed his men to safety, but failed to escape himself. The CCC camps balanced work with recreation. Each camp had a canteen where enrollees could buy film, candy, razor blades, soda pop and 3.

Profits from the canteens were used for such camp extras as billiard tables. Each camp also had a library with an average of 1, books and magazines. In Camp Germfask boasted over 4, volumes. Most camps published a camp newspaper. Many camps fielded teams in basketball, baseball, six-man football, ice hockey and boxing. Near St. Ignace, Company constructed facilities for tennis, volleyball, horseshoes and track and field. The baseball team also tied for the championship of the Central League-an independent league "which played high class baseball. Black enrollees at Camp Walkerville in Bitely held Friday night fights that often drew crowds of up to 2, area residents.

Others from Fehler's camp skied in a local tournament with "several of the best jumpers in the world. And in the summer of the nine-piece Camp St. Martins Drum and Bugle Corps played at St. Ignace, Newberry and the U. State Fair in Escanaba. However, work projects forced it to decline this honor. Trips into nearby towns for Saturday night dances were such an integral part of CCC recreation that ballroom dancing was taught at the camps. Half of the enrollees entered the camps unable to dance.

There, nickel-a-glass beer sometimes heightened antagonism between local lumbermen and enrollees trying to impress the settlement's dozen eligible women. Since enrollees had no cars, they went to and from town by truck. According to Ralph Newman, "the most memorable thing about the trips was the awful cold and darkness sitting in the backs of the trucks without heat. Author Charles Symon tells of two Upper Peninsula enrollees who missed the truck back to camp and were still missing the next morning. A project superintendent and an officer found them stranded in a jack pine where they had "escaped from wolves. One enrollee jumped into the officer's car, and the other began to climb the tree again. Believing that CCC enrollees could become "better and more employable citizens" through training and education, President Roosevelt called for a nationwide, Washington-directed CCC education program in late to replace local camp efforts.

The new program added an educational advisor, usually an unemployed male teacher, to each camp. Fulmer's H. On the basis of the earlier bills the proposals were thoroughly studied by this office, and I advised the Secretary of Agriculture under date of December 29, that "the enactment of this legislation would not be in accord with the program of the President.

The Secretary's proposed report on H. While at that time this office had no knowledge of your aforementioned letter to Mr. Monson Morris, and although Mr. Fulmer may hold our advice on H. It embraces all forest land except that in Federal ownership, including 24,, acres of State, county, municipal and institutional forest and ,, acres of private land. Of the ,, acres of private forests and woodlots, some ,, acres are commercial forest in approximately 1,, ownerships. Of these 1,, ownerships 1, are of 5, acres or more, aggregating 68,, acres, and including of 50, acres or more, of , acres or more, and 51 of , acres or more.

This leaves some , commercial ownerships aggregating ,, acres, or an average of acres each. Woodlots are found on some 3,, farms and aggregate ,, acres, the average farm woodlot thus comprising 46 acres. The bill makes all of these ownerships eligible for participation in the program, subject to the organization of effective and economical administrative units. There is no satisfactory basis for predicting the ultimate extent of participation in such a program. Probably most of the non-Federal public forests and the larger commercial forests, except where intermingled with national forests, would remain under present systems of management. Among the 3,, farm woodlot owners and the nearly 1,, small commercial forest land owners there are doubtless some who would not voluntarily entrust the management of their property to the Government, and many more whose properties could not be grouped with others in practical administrative units.

To the majority of such owners, however, the program should be highly attractive, and administrative measures for extension of the plan so as to include them could be devised. The Department of Agriculture feels that the measure should be comprehensively amended before enactment, and will shortly submit through this office a draft of amendments providing, among other things:. Full recovery of Government costs from use of lands and sales of products on participating ownerships of more than acres. A straight leasing plan, giving the Government all rights of possession, with cooperative agreements eliminated. With your approval, I propose to advise Chairman Fulmer that H.

The apparent need for revision to eliminate the mixture of woodlot management and commercial forestry. Your desire to avoid further important additions to the regular budget while the necessity for extraordinary national defense expenditures continues. In the judgment of this office, the soundness of this forest-land-leasing plan is not sufficiently clear to warrant its early adoption as a major action program, even if confined strictly to farm woodlots. The estimates of necessary Government outlay are believed to be too low; those of the amounts likely to be recovered, extremely high.

If participation in the plan is confined to ownerships where revenues from sale of products may reasonably be expected to meet Government repayment requirements within any reasonable period, the social value of the plan will be very small. If the plan is generally applied to reach even a majority of the farm woodlots, the Government subsidy will be much larger than has been indicated. In practical effect the plan means adding to the national forest system the acres leased. Such additions might ultimately total ,, acres. Private initiative and responsibility for management of the woodlot portions of our farms would disappear.

The prospects for profitable employment in woods work are overemphasized in view of present and probable future market limitations. The plan is but one feature of a very comprehensive forestry program recommended by the Joint Committee on Forestry, the adoption of which will require heavy additional Federal appropriations. This plan is of relatively low priority in the general program. Fully effective fire control should be the first objective. Present major agricultural action programs already bring numerous units of the Department in frequent, direct contact with farmers. Excessive organization is a frequent complaint. The Soil Conservation Service and Extension Service have both legislative authority and funds for service to farmers in woodlot management. AAA pays benefits for proper woodlot management practices.

The Farm Security Administration serves its clients with all-round farm management planning. It is suggested that the Forest Service should not get into farm management. I would recommend that if any leasing plan is to be made operative, it should first have a five-year test period on an experimental scale. It is printed ante, Everybody should draw a line between the man and the corporation which owns land and uses it primarily for farming, and the man or corporation which owns land and uses it primarily for growing or raising or cutting trees.

It is essential to accentuate the word "use. The reason that what is known as woodlot forestry has never worked is that the farmer does not know how to dispose of his timber. Nobody has ever told him how. This would involve taking the lumber in the log because the woodlot forestry farmer, who has a small acreage, cannot afford and has no facilities for cutting his logs into boards or square lumber, nor does he know how to dispose of his smaller stuff.

Another wholly different class is the commercial, private lumber company or the company which buys stumpage on fairly large tracts and lumbers this stumpage. Those individuals or companies are not farmers. They are lumbermen. They should not get any Government subsidy because they are primarily in the lumber business. They should receive all kinds of advice on fire-prevention, re-seeding, re-planting, etc. In regard to H. If you want further instruction on growing trees and selling them, come and talk with me! SECRETARY: I doubt the proper availability of present appropriations for a study of the migratory course of seals from and to the Pribilof Islands, and their food habits while en route, referred to in your letter of March 7, In view of the need of the State Department for such data, this study seems advisable.

Probably an early supplemental appropriation would provide funds sufficiently soon to effectively carry on the work for the first year. Smith, in whose agency this letter was drafted. Reduction in the number of camps as provided in the budget, the assignment of camps for work on military reservations and the further development of training of enrollees as provided in Section 38 of the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act will necessarily reduce the amount of work that may be devoted to conservation projects.

As reductions are made in the number of camps available for conservation work, I agree that selection should be made in favor of the most effective type of projects, with respect to both training of enrollees and value of conservation work done. I am sure that the Federal Security Administrator and the Director of the Civilian Conservation Corps will give full consideration to these factors in any apportionment of camps between the cooperating agencies.

Smith, in his letter to Roosevelt enclosing the draft, April 30, OF , said that the Agriculture Department "should realize that during this emergency period they cannot expect to continue conservation and other programs on the scale which has been in effect during the past few years. The Kings River and the Kern River projects are dominantly irrigation projects and as such they should be built at the appropriate time by the Department of the Interior through its Bureau of Reclamation rather than by the War Department through the Corps of Engineers. My letter to the Secretary of the Interior of May 29, , which is published in Part 2 of House Document , 76th Congress, 3d Session, clearly stated my decision on the policy which should be applied to the Kings River project.

I do not consider it wise to authorize these projects, or any project dominantly for irrigation, for construction by the Corps of Engineers. Copies of this letter are being sent to the Secretary of the Interior, to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and to the Chairman of the National Resources Planning Board for their information. Stimson replied May 15, OF , that all War Department activities in the field of civil works were "initiated and conducted in strict accordance with specific Congressional directives. That letter is included in Part 2, House Document No. It appears from an examination of the reports [by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation] 2 that they are in agreement, except as to questions of policy as follows:.

Should the development of power be initiated as a part of the irrigation improvement, or should provision be made for future development under license by the Federal Power Commission? Should the project be constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Corps of Engineers? Should the irrigation beneficiaries repay their share of the cost in a lump sum or by 40 annual payments? Should the Federal Government or local interests operate the completed project? If operated by the Federal Government, by what agency? With respect to these matters, it seems to me that the project is dominantly an irrigation undertaking and is suited to operation and maintenance under the reclamation law.

It follows, therefore, that it should be constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation, and that the portion of the project cost to be charged to irrigation should be financed on the basis of the prevailing Federal policy of 40 annual payments by irrigation beneficiaries. The project should be maintained and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, but operation for flood control should be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War. That was written with respect to the Kings River project in Good administration continues to demand that projects which are dominantly for irrigation should be constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, and not by the Corps of Engineers, War Department. The Kings River project is authorized for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation at this time.

The proposed project on the Kern River, which also has been under consideration by your committee, is dominantly an irrigation project. If found wholly feasible from economic and engineering points of view by the studies that are now in progress, the Kern River project may be authorized for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation. Neither of these projects, therefore, should be authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers.

To do so would only lead to needless confusion. A good rule for the Congress to apply in considering these water projects, in my opinion, would be that the dominant interest should determine which agency should build and which should operate the project. Projects in which flood control or navigation clearly dominates are those in which the interest of the Corps of Engineers is superior and projects in which irrigation and related conservation uses dominate fall into the legitimate field of the Bureau of Reclamation. Gabrielson for the Okefenokee Swamp. You will remember that I had a bit of a controversy over this seven or eight years ago.

In regard to the timing of this, I think the expenditure should wait until the international situation clears up. In the meantime, every effort should be made to prevent fires, but new work should be delayed. I am in general agreement as to some of the defects of the report as outlined in the memorandum transmitted by Secretary Ickes. I believe that an appraisal of the report and recommendations can best be made by indicating the extent to which they measure up to desirable objectives. The ultimate objective of any really satisfactory Federal forest program should be the establishment and maintenance of a nation-wide forest economy in the broadest and most inclusive sense.

That the Committee recognizes this is indicated by the following quotation from its letter of transmittal to Congress: "The time is ripe for the establishment of a real forest economy in this country which, as an important segment of the broad agricultural economy, will put to constructive use one-third of our total land area. The establishment of a sound, enduring forest economy can help to solve existing social problems and prevent others. The Committee recognizes the condition, the cause, and also, somewhat weakly, the solution. From the ownership standpoint, the major problem in American forestry today centers in privately owned lands.

Private ownership has in the main failed to recognize and to redeem its social responsibilities and its natural resource responsibilities. The Committee clearly recognizes the problem of private ownership. Only two forms of attack on the private forest land problem afford positive assurance that the public interest in these forests will be safeguarded. The first of these forms is public regulation of forest practices. This is the most difficult job that has ever been faced in American forestry, and will require for successful consummation the full backing and, I believe, the full strength and authority of the Federal government. For example: The plan turns the job of regulation over to the States, with Federal financial cooperation and approval of standards.

The chief Federal penalty for failure of the States to act is the mandatory withdrawal of funds for regulation and for fire protection. Thus, in effect, the State must agree to put public regulation into effect in order to receive Federal funds for fire protection. In some States strong industrial interests control the State machinery, and these are ordinarily hostile to regulation of forest practices. Control by industrialists is most likely to be exercised adversely in heavily forested States where the need for regulation is greatest, and in such States the result in the end might well be neither fire protection nor regulation.

Congressman Pierce's bill H. My judgment is that this bill represents the minimum of Federal participation which will insure successful regulation. Congressman Pierce has also introduced another probably more desirable but less easily attainable bill, H. If public regulation is to succeed, it is essential also that various forms of public stimulation and aid and cooperation such as protection, extension education, credits, aid to small owner cooperatives, public leasing for development, research, etc.

The Committee has recognized the need for public cooperation in a fairly comprehensive way, although there is considerable room for improvement as to details. The second form of attack is public ownership. This, as stated in our recommendations to the Committee, requires large-scale public acquisition, and the high-grade administration of the forest lands acquired as well as those already in public ownership. For financial, among other reasons, a large share of this job will have to be assumed by the Federal Government. The Committee's recommendations on Federal acquisition are weak, more or less conflicting, and altogether inadequate.

In short, the Committee's report is weakest on the two most important forms of attack on the major forest problem of private ownership and the social maladjustments that have resulted from forest-land abuse; and most satisfactory on other important but less essential forms of action. In these and in a number of other respects, which I will not attempt to cover here, the report and recommendations of the Committee fall short of the recommendations the Department made to the Committee a year ago, and also fall short of what is necessary to attain the "forest economy" objective set by the Committee itself.

This analysis hits only the high spots. Since the report of the Committee became available we have been studying it intensively to form an opinion as to the extent to which the Administration can and should go beyond it to safeguard the public interest. In the immediate future I hope to give you more specific recommendations, and will also give you a more complete analysis if you desire it. My recommendations will use the recommendations of the Committee as a starting point and will represent my own judgment of the position which the Administration should take.

Unless we are satisfied to temporize, I believe that we must go considerably beyond the Committee recommendations. One aspect of the situation gives me real concern. I want to see a really comprehensive forest program on the statute books; we can not afford to pass up this opportunity. I sincerely hope, therefore, that it will be possible for you to endorse the legislation necessary to carry out the plan that I shall propose to you, so that the stage will be set for meeting post-war requirements and even war requirements as they arise. In the latter field I may want to recommend some emergency legislation. The drafting of the legislation is now nearly complete.

The fact that the Committee has submitted its report obviously raises questions of strategy in advocating something more comprehensive. Something can be gained by liberal interpretations of Committee recommendations. Furthermore, despite various weaknesses in its recommendations, the Committee has not recommended against anything. I think that some of the more liberal members of the Committee will welcome the opportunity to go farther than the compromises necessarily reached in submitting a unanimous report.

A complicating factor is an informal request from Senator Bankhead, the Chairman of the Joint Committee, for help in drafting a bill that will hew closely to the line in carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. In complying with the request, which we must do promptly, the difficulty will be to avoid the impression that the draft has Departmental and Administration support, and thus to advance a partly satisfactory measure when we really want something more far-reaching. You of course appreciate better than anyone else that full Administration endorsement and backing offers the only hope of obtaining Congressional action on any broad program, and particularly a program that contains controversial provisions such as public regulation.

Such endorsement should, I believe, be with the understanding that the program, if enacted into law, will be financed if and as funds become available. Walter M. Pierce Ore. Neither was reported from committee Cong. It was not reported from committee Cong. I agree with you and Ickes that the recommendations are on the whole pitifully weak. Furthermore, I cannot go along with any proposal which calls for any form of financial matching with any State Government. The poorer States which need the most done in them will give the least matching support. Just thirty years ago I undertook in the State of New York to encourage owners of farm wood lots to improve their wood lots under State direction, and to receive in return a form of tax rebate during the growing period of new timber.

It was all very attractive and was hailed as the greatest step ever taken in this country. In the course of the next ten years I think that seven or possibly eight farmers in the State took advantage of it. These two gentlemen can eliminate from their conference any reference to departmental or interdepartmental control in Washington, D. That is a different subject. Forty-three parcels of land totaling acres were brought under the act referred to and supplementary legislation enacted in between and The original law placed a maximum valuation on forested lands providing the owners adopted certain conservation practices; local assessors, however, defeated the purpose of the act by increasing valuations on the non-forested part of an owner's holdings New York State Conservation Commission, Annual Report, , Albany, , pp.

Further legislation along this line was enacted in ; see the Reports of the Conservation Commission for this year et seq. I think that it is imperative that Congress establish at this session a permanent administration for the federally owned developments on the Columbia River. I am willing to send up a bill for this purpose as an administration measure but I believe that it would be preferable if you and Senator McNary would introduce and assume the task of securing the enactment of this legislation. I know that you have thought a lot about this matter and that we agree on most of the essential points that are necessary to give the Northwest a federal authority that will vigorously prosecute the region's interests and at the same time discharge the responsibilities that the Federal Government has assumed on the Columbia River.

The Authority should be headed by a single administrator responsible to the Secretary of the Interior. As you know, the Secretary has set up in the Interior Department a new Division of Power which reports directly to him and is independent of any other bureaus or offices of the Department. The Authority should be responsible for the orderly marketing of available power and should encourage the development of suitable industries based on the resources of the Northwest. The Authority should be responsible for the management and amortization of the Government's investment in the power facilities in a businesslike manner.

The Authority should be in a position to aid the public agencies of the region in effecting acquisitions of private utility properties quickly and economically. The Authority should follow the present Bonneville policy of seeking the widest possible distribution of its power at the lowest possible rates, and to this end it should require that the resale of its power be at such rates and under such conditions as will assure these benefits to the people of the region.

Bailey, Bureau of the Budget. His efforts to secure acceptance of this idea are described in his Diary, III, , , , I am enclosing copies of these letters for your information. You and I have been together on so many power problems that I very much want to get your help on this matter. I do not ask you to assume the responsibility for the passage of such legislation, but I do want you to manifest your interest in this effort and to give whatever time and attention you feel that you can spare.

At least, if you feel that for any reason you cannot actively participate in the fight to consolidate and promote this great development, I hope that we will be able to proceed with the assurance that we have your sympathy and good wishes. I hope that you will agree in general with the points that I have outlined in my letters to Bone and McNary as being essential to any legislation that is passed for these projects. I know that you may differ to some extent with me about the desirability of the form of organization that I have suggested, but I think that if I can give you the picture as I see it you may find yourself in agreement with me. In the first place, I want you to know that I share with you a desire to see eventually in this country a series of regional conservation developments that will be responsible for the husbandry of the water and other natural resources of their respective areas.

These authorities should avail themselves of a great deal of local advice and participation, but they should also discharge the Federal Government's responsibility for the conservation and use of the resources of our Nation. In my opinion these authorities should pool their experience in a major Federal department that will be responsible for conservation, and that department should iron out inter-regional problems and should give them over-all guidance with respect to policy. This type of coordination is particularly important, as you know, in respect of developments in the western states where the reclamation program is, and for many years has been, of great political and social importance. That is the long-term picture. The present job is to establish regional agencies in those sections where we have major Federal developments, and to put these agencies on a sound basis.

I believe that the TVA is already well established and I would not propose to change its status in any way. In the Northwest, however, there is a tremendous public power movement that has been seeking to put local administrative units into the power business through the purchase of the private facilities in the area. This effort has been hamstrung by tremendous opposition. In my opinion these local people will need the strength and prestige of the Federal Government to effectuate their desires. The people with whom they are dealing are not local people. The process of negotiation is tedious and expensive; as is also the process of condemnation. The substitution of one negotiating agent for entire systems will result in substantial savings.

It is my hope that it will be possible to set up a strong public power area in the Northwest so that local people will be distributing the power that is sold to them by the Federal authority. When this partnership has been firmly established it will be impossible for any less progressive administration seriously to impair the work that we have done. You know the tremendous job that we have before us. If I must personally supervise the many authorities that you and I feel should be created, I am sure that I would need to ask that their creation be postponed.

But to postpone would probably be to lose any chance of accomplishing what we can now accomplish if we are diligent and work together. However, from both the immediate and from the long-run point of view, I believe that these agencies should be tied together in a Federal department. This department should also have jurisdiction over activities in the field of reclamation and the development of mineral resources. The Secretary of the Interior has established a Division of Power that is giving over-all guidance to the Bonneville Power Administration and to the power end of the Reclamation Bureau projects.

This Division reports only to the Secretary and is independent of any other bureau or officer of the Department. With this Division, the Department of the Interior becomes the logical bridge between these regional agencies and the Executive. I hope that you can see your way to be again at my side in this effort. Part of the first requisite you set forth in both of these letters is as follows: "The Authority should be headed by a single administrator responsible to the Secretary of the Interior.

With this statement I cannot agree. It is contrary to the fundamental theory upon which legislation of this character should be based. It is contrary to what I have always believed was your own philosophy. In my many conversations and conferences with you on the power question during the time you have been President, and in the correspondence I had with you while you were Governor of New York and before you became President, never once, as I remember it now, did you ever advance that kind of a philosophy. In my judgment, if any Governmental authority is set up for the control of the great power properties on the Columbia River, eventually failure will come if the authority set up becomes a part of any Department of Government.

If the authority becomes a Bureau of any Department, it will in time become a football of politics. It will degenerate into a political machine and will ultimately prove to be a stupendous failure. Please understand I am not making any criticism of Mr. Ickes, the present Secretary of the Interior. This has been the custom for many years and I presume it will always be the custom. A Secretary of the Interior is not selected because of his views on public power. He has thousands of other duties to perform. They are Nation-wide and they cover a multitudinous number of other things.

It is impossible for a Secretary of the Interior to give any concrete consideration to the proper control and management of great developments like the Grand Coulee and Bonneville projects. An administrator, selected and responsible to a Secretary of the Interior, will be, in fact, a "hired man. The Secretary may remove him at any time. After a study on the ground, he will not be free to act and to follow his judgment because he knows that his boss in Washington can, at any time, change any important conclusion he may reach and, if he desires, remove him from office entirely. The administrator will, therefore, be doing his work with a sword hanging over his head by a thread. It would be natural for him to always bear in mind that the first thing he should do would be to please his boss and, by so doing, make his job secure.

During your administration, you have seen the workings of the Tennessee Valley Authority. It has been a great success. History will show that it is one of the dominating accomplishments of your administration. It is now demonstrating its value to the people of the whole Nation. One of the great things responsible for its success is the independent nature of the machinery set up by the Tennessee Valley Authority Act. It is operated by a Board of three. I concede that the number on the Board is not fundamental. Men will differ as to how large the Board should be. Some want seven, some would have five, some believe three would be better, and some men, just as honest and as intelligent, think it should be managed by one man.

Under the law, no member of the Board can be appointed unless he believes in the theory of the law itself. It is then made impossible for politics to enter into the appointment of inferior officials or into their promotion, demotion, or removal. I was told a year or so ago by the General Manager of the Tennessee Valley Authority that he would not have retained his office for thirty days if it had not been for the protection of that part of the law. When the law was first passed, thousands of people of high standing all over the United States, in politics and public life, were seeking to get jobs for their friends. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives were recommending appointments by the thousands and, yet, the Board adhered to the law and every applicant for a position had to pass through the regular channels.

An investigation was made of each applicant and no consideration was given to politics. This General Manager told me if it had not been for this provision of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, no human being could have stood up under the political pressure, from powerful sources, to give positions to aspiring friends. This Authority is taking up all the time of three able men in giving effect to the law and, as far as I know, no difficulty of a political nature has ever arisen except from those in high standing who have recommended various appointments.

These people sometimes became very angry because their recommendations were not accepted as the final qualifications of an applicant. Info Alerts Maps Calendar. Alerts In Effect Dismiss. Dismiss View all alerts. Civilian Conservation Corps. CCC workers making adobe bricks. Last updated: October 6,

The hasty mobilization of the CCC Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps caught private industry unprepared, and manufacturers were swamped with demands for axes, hoes and shovels. Roosevelt also expanded Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps Hoover agency, the Reconstruction Finance Corporationmaking it a major source of financing for railroads and industry. On March 17,Roosevelt Uncle Tom Archetype Analysis Eleanor, despite the fierce resistance of Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Civilian Conservation Corps mother.

Current Viewers: