down there on the south, and the great Atlantic remains on the east,
just so long rainfall in the United States will be as voluminous on
the great cereal plains as it was when the first white man set foot
on the continent, and in its movement back to the sea the permeable,
cultivated soil of the unforested acres will doubtless as well
conserve and restrict its flow as the forests. We have over-estimated
the effect of the little scratchings upon the earth’s surface by
the activities of man. The coming civilization of the great West
is immaterial in causing an increase in rainfall. When you stop to
consider the enormous volume of the atmosphere above the surface,
whose vaporous contents must be materially changed and the thermal
conditions altered before you can detract from the rainfall, you
will realize how absurd are some popular theories. I do not agree.
I radically differ from some of my contemporaries in the Department
of Agriculture—but people may differ and still be friends. They may
differ in regard to the details of a great movement and still not be
inimical to its best interests. The man who differs and brings forth
the truth is the best friend of the movement, because nothing can
stand long that is not predicated on truth.
I am glad to see that in this movement your managers have brought
together so many independent lines of human activity. This great
movement is only at its inception. I predict that this Conservation
Congress will be one of the most potent factors in the Nation for the
developing and awakening of the people. You are willing now to have a
free forum, to have free discussion by those of differing opinions.
And at this time, Mr. President, when there is such great conflict
among the forces that make for civilization, we must not only protect
ourselves morally and mentally, we must with equal earnestness
attempt to conserve and protect the human individual. He is the
greatest asset we can have, after all. (Applause.)
A fair wage scale and reasonable hours of labor have done as much
to elevate the American citizen and furnish the ties that bind him
to home and State as have all the libraries and universities in the
land, and I say this without any disparagement of these magnificent
institutions for public good. But if you stop to think for a moment,
the library can only be used by those who have a reasonable leisure
to enjoy it; colleges have closed doors for those who do not receive
something more than a living wage. The welfare of this Nation depends
not on the accumulation of great wealth in the future; not upon the
palaces on Fifth avenue or the villas at Newport. It depends upon
the cultivation—upon the high average intelligence and prosperity
of those who actually do the Nation’s work, whether they labor with
brains or with brawn. (Applause.) And right here let me say to you
people who are considering these great problems, that we want brawn
developed by working hours that shall not warp and distort the image
of God; and we want technical and scientific teaching that shall
be as free to the sons and daughters of those who work as to these
who have their way paid to college. (Applause.) We must lift from
the bottom in any great movement; no movement gets very far that is
worked from the top down.
So I am glad to see this movement bringing into its counsels those
who are affiliated with the great labor movements of organized labor.
My sympathies go out to the man who works with his hands, as well as
to the man who works with his brain. I thank you. (Applause.)
Chairman WHITE—Professor Moore stated he did not know why he was put
down at the last end of the program. Perhaps it is not necessary to
remind him that there is an old saying that the best of the wine
is reserved for the last of the feast. (Applause.) But where all is
good, and where all is best, as has been the case with the program of
this Fourth National Conservation Congress, there can be no choice.
And again I am going to remind this audience that this Congress is
going to prepare a book containing every bit of the proceedings
of this meeting, and it will be one of the best publications of
proceedings that has been presented by any congress in the land, and
I want to impress upon you, delegates and visitors alike, to leave a
dollar for a copy of these proceedings.
While we are waiting for a final word from Governor Hadley, I
will call upon Mr. Walter H. Page, Chairman of the Committee on
Resolutions, who will present the report of that committee, which I
hope will be enthusiastically adopted.
Mr. Page read the resolutions (which will be found in full at the
beginning of this volume), and moved their adoption.
The motion was seconded, put and carried.
Mr. JOHN B. HAMMOND (Des Moines, Iowa)—I have a resolution to
present. It was referred to the Resolutions Committee, but somehow it
was lost in the shuffle.
Mr. PAGE—It was referred to one of the sub-committees, and,
presumably, was not accepted by the sub-committee. It was not
reported to the full committee.
Chairman WHITE—If there is no objection, it may be presented to this
body.
Mr. HAMMOND—
Whereas, The protection of womanhood and childhood is the heart and
center of the Conservation of “Vital Resources;” and, whereas, forty
states of the Union have prohibited the maintenance of houses of
prostitution, the market places of the white slave traffic and the
centers for the dissemination of the most dangerous and revolting
diseases; and, whereas, the city administrations of many of the
larger cities, in defiance of state law, have set apart districts
where the crime of prostitution is tolerated and protected;
Therefore, be it resolved that we condemn such policy of segregation
by city officials as contrary to sound public policy and
indefensible in morals, and recommend the absolute suppression of
the social evil in all its phases.
I move the adoption of the resolution, Mr. Chairman.
The motion was seconded, put, and carried.
Chairman WHITE—We will pass to the next order—the presentation of
invitations from the cities desiring the next Congress. This is
the usual way. These invitations are not acted upon, because the
Executive Committee will take three or four months to consider
everything and compare the different cities, looking to the welfare
of the next Congress. Mr. Don Carlos Ellis, of Knoxville, Tenn., I
believe has something to say.
Mr. ELLIS—Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: There is to be held
in the city of Knoxville, in September and October of next year,
the National Conservation Exposition. Its purpose and nature are
precisely parallel with those of this Congress—for the promotion of
the development, wise use and conservation of all of the natural
resources of this Nation. The Exposition is of national scope, but
is to have special reference to the Southern States. There are to be
buildings set aside for each one of the five divisions of our natural
resources—forests, minerals, soils, waters and vital resources. In
these buildings are to be shown, by example, as this Congress has
shown by precept, the various results accomplished by Conservation
by the Federal Government, the State governments and by private
individuals, and the possibilities of Conservation in the future.
The Exposition originated in Washington last February, when a number
of the leading spirits of Conservation met in that city and there
was formed an Advisory Board composed of the gentlemen whose names I
desire to read to you:
Gifford Pinchot, President National Conservation Association,
Chairman; Don Carlos Ellis, in charge Educational Co-operation,
United States Forest Service, Secretary; Philander P. Claxton,
United States Commissioner of Education; Miss Julia C. Lathrop,
Chief of the Children’s Bureau, United States Department of Commerce
and Labor; Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, Director of the Bureau of Foods,
Sanitation, and Health, of Good Housekeeping Magazine; W. J. McGee,
Soil Water Expert, United States Department of Agriculture; Senator
Duncan U. Fletcher of Florida, President Southern Commercial
Congress; Logan W. Page, Director United States Office of Public
Roads; Bradford Knapp, in charge Farmers Co-operative Demonstration
Work, United States Department of Agriculture; Jos. A. Holmes,
Director United Bureau of Mines; Representative Joseph E. Ransdell
of Louisiana, President National Rivers and Harbors Congress;
Senator Luke Lea of Tennessee; Charles S. Barrett, President
Farmers’ Educational and Co-operative Union.
These various members of the Advisory Board are to represent, in
the formation of plans for the Exposition, the various departments
of Conservation in which they are acknowledged leaders. They have
instructed me, as Secretary of this Advisory Board, to read to the
delegates the following letters:
September 23, 1912.
To the Delegates of the Fourth National Conservation Congress,
Indianapolis, Indiana:
We, the undersigned members of the Advisory Board of the National
Conservation Exposition, take this means of laying before you
an outline of the plans and purposes of the Exposition and of
respectfully recommending the adoption of the resolutions which
will be introduced at this Congress endorsing the National
Conservation Exposition.
This Exposition is to be held at Knoxville, Tennessee, in September
and October of 1913. It is an outgrowth of the Appalachian
Exposition, which has been held at Knoxville for the past two
years. Knoxville was chosen as the location of the National
Conservation Exposition because the Southern States are in great
need of education concerning the proper handling of their great
natural wealth; because Knoxville, while in the South, is readily
accessible to the entire East; because the State in which it lies is
in the transition zone between North and South and has more States
bordering upon it than any other State in the Nation, and all the
bordering States are southern; because the city is in the center
of the region where the National Government is establishing new
National Forests and carrying on other lines of work in Conservation
to a greater extent than in any other region; and because of the
city’s preparedness in being willing to turn over to the National
Conservation Exposition Company the excellent buildings and grounds
which had been acquired for the Appalachian Exposition Company
and to raise sufficient additional capital besides. A bill has
been introduced in Congress providing for a government building
and exhibit at the Exposition, and the Committee to which it was
referred has given assurances of a favorable report for a quarter of
a million dollars.
The purpose of the Appalachian Exposition was to aid in the
development of the Southern Appalachian Region. The new Exposition
is a national, not a local project. Its work is to promote the
preservation and development of the different forms of natural
wealth of the entire country. Its special field, however, is to
be the Southern States. The Exposition comes at a time when these
States are in the midst of a great awakening. It is to be devoted
in an especial manner to assist in this awakening and in directing
the course of this awakening toward genuine, permanent progress and
highest efficiency. The purposes are parallel with the magnificent
undertakings of the National Conservation Congress. The means only
are different. To every part of the Nation the Congress is sending
its message. The Exposition invites the people of the Nation to view
the tangible results and possibilities of Conservation on display.
All fields of the Conservation work will be represented, forests,
waters, lands, minerals, fish and game, and human efficiency
including health, child welfare, education, home economics, good
roads, and country life improvement. The Exposition is to be held at
a time when special efforts are to be made by such agencies as the
southern railroads and the Southern Commercial Congress to direct
the tide of passenger traffic through the South. During the same
period the city of Mobile, Alabama, is to entertain the Fifth Annual
Convention of the Southern Commercial Congress and to hold its
celebration of the opening of the Panama Canal, and plans are being
made to direct southern travelers of those two months through both
Mobile and Knoxville.
Expositions of the past have been commemorative and historical.
They have celebrated and glorified past achievements. The field
of the new Exposition is the future. It is to tell the progress
which we are to make in the coming years, which we are to enjoy
ourselves and to hand down to our children. It will be prophetic of
the development which is to come and of the permanent enrichment of
the country and its people. In the words of the late and beloved
Dr. W. J. McGee, “The change thus wrought in the exposition idea
is fundamental; the old exposition looked backward, the new looks
forward; the old exposition was solely material, the new is
essentially moral; the old was a proud boast of achievement, the
new a signpost to progress and an assurance of perpetuity. The
expositions of the past were as songs of achievement at the end
of a good day’s work, the new may well be as living and tangible
promises of a still more glorious tomorrow foreordained by the wise
action of today.”
GIFFORD PINCHOT, Chairman.
JOSEPH A. HOLMES.
PHILANDER P. CLAXTON.
JULIA C. LATHROP.
CHARLES S. BARRETT.
DUNCAN U. FLETCHER.
HARVEY W. WILEY.
BRADFORD KNAPP.
LUKE LEA.
JOSEPH E. RANSDELL.
MRS. ABEL.
DON CARLOS ELLIS, Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, Knoxville has empowered me to invite to that city,
to the Exposition, the fifth meeting of the National Conservation
Congress. The National Conservation Congress belongs to the whole
Nation, and the Nation is proud of it. For the past four years, since
its birth, it has held its meetings in the North and Northwest. The
South needs the Congress, particularly at this time, when it is in
a phase of its great industrial awakening, and it earnestly urges
that the Congress come within its bounds next year. If it should
come South next year, there is certainly no more fitting place for
its sessions than in that city which has done so much by its own
energies and industries for Conservation as has Knoxville. It will be
centering in Knoxville in that year and at that time all the forces
working for Conservation throughout the United States. Knoxville is
a smaller city than others in the South where the Congress might be
held, but it is a city of between seventy and eighty thousand people.
It has five excellent hotels. Two main railroads run through, and it
has shown its ability to handle large crowds of people by the way it
has taken care of the Appalachian Exposition for two years, with an
average of twelve thousand visitors a day.
The Exposition is moving along parallel lines with the Congress, and
it is in a way an offspring of the efforts of this Congress. It has
taken up the ideas that have been promulgated by this Congress, and
is going to apply them by showing at Knoxville the tangible, visible
results of Conservation. The people in that section of country are in
great need of instruction along these lines.
The plant already established for this other exposition is valued at
between one-half and one million dollars. Already several buildings
have been erected, and all this has been turned over to the new
Exposition as a foundation.
I have letters with me from the various commercial bodies of the
city, and this has been also heartily endorsed by the Governor of the
State.
In conclusion, I wish to offer a resolution made by the Advisory
Board:
Whereas, It is the sense of the Fourth National Conservation
Congress, assembled at Indianapolis, Indiana, October 1 to 4, 1912,
that the National Conservation Exposition, to be held at Knoxville,
Tennessee, in September and October, 1913, will be a strong factor
in the advancement of the Conservation and wise use of the national
resources of this Nation, and particularly of the Southern States;
and
Whereas, It is, further, the sense of this Congress that education
in the care of natural resources is particularly needed in the
Southern States, where the resources are of great value and their
development in a period of a great awakening, but their Conservation
at a low ebb; therefore, be it
Resolved, That the National Conservation Congress hereby signifies
its gratification that the National Conservation Exposition is to
take place, and its earnest hope that all persons and institutions
interested in the Conversation of any of our natural resources will
give to the Exposition their cordial support and co-operation.
I move the adoption of this resolution.
Hon. R. M. AUSTIN, Congressman from Tennessee—I wish to second
this as a citizen of that progressive city, and I wish to join in
the invitation extended by Mr. Ellis, not only to the delegates to
this National Conservation Congress, but also to the citizens of
this great capital city of Indiana. I hope this invitation will be
accepted and this resolution just read will be passed. We will be
happy to see you all when you come to sunny Tennessee, away up in
the mountains, and this little city of ours of about eighty thousand
people, which nestles at the foot of the Great Smoky Mountain. We
will show you the richest mineral and timber section in all the
Union. There are ten counties in this Congressional District. Five
have coal, six iron, six marble, five zinc, two copper, and the
largest amount of hardwood timber now existing on the American
continent. It is an ideal location, not only for a Conservation
Exposition, but an ideal place for a meeting of this great and useful
organization, the National Conservation Congress of America, and we
hope you will all come.
Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to open the doors of the Exposition
until we know that Captain White, of Kansas City, answers “Present.”
(Applause.)
I wish, while I am on my feet, to commend the very excellent report
from the Committee on Resolutions submitted by the able editor of
“The World’s Work,” Mr. Page, and to say that so long as I am a
representative in Congress I shall, by my influence, do all that
I can to carry out the principles set forth in these resolutions.
(Applause.)
The motion on Mr. Ellis’ resolution was put and carried.
Mr. A. M. LOOMIS (New York)—I wish, very briefly, to read the action
of the New York State delegation, adopted possibly before this matter
of the Knoxville Exposition had become known.
The New York delegation at this, the Fourth National Conservation
Congress, wishes to go on record in favor of asking the delegates
to this great body to hold the next annual meeting in the East,—to
be more explicit, in New York State. There is an urgent reason why
the work of the Congress at a point nearer the great centers of
the business and wealth of the country, and in the section of the
more crowded population would have wider effectiveness, and greater
force along lines of practical understanding of its work, and needed
legislation in favor of the great reforms for which it stands.
One point in New York State stands out in particular as the ideal
place for this Congress to gather, namely Chautauqua, the home
of the great Chautauqua Institution, on the shores of beautiful
Chautauqua Lake. At this point, in a little city in the woods,
are ample accommodations both for meeting places, exhibits, and
housing for a gathering of five thousand people. The Assembly houses
more than double that number for ten weeks each summer and has an
auditorium hardly excelled in America, seating more than eight
thousand people, as well as many other halls and buildings for
meeting places and exhibits.
This institution stands for all that the highest aims of this
Congress point to, in education, morality, and direction of human
effort. Its reputation is world wide, and its home offers an ideal
meeting place for the Conservationists, ideal in that for which
the two institutions stand, and ideal in location, accommodations,
railroad facilities and the economy with which a great meeting of
this kind could be conducted there.
The New York delegation unites in inviting the Congress to choose
Chautauqua, New York, as the place of its next meeting.
Chairman WHITE—The chair, in behalf of the delegates, wishes to thank
the representatives from New York who have invited us to Chautauqua,
as well as the representatives from Tennessee for inviting us to
Knoxville. This subject will be referred to the Executive Committee,
who will, in their wisdom, consider it all as it may relate to the
best success of our cause.
Is there anything more to be presented at this convention? If not,
the chair will state that the Fourth National Conservation Congress
is now about to pass into history. Tomorrow will be the beginning
of a new Congress—the Fifth Annual Congress, with the new President
and new officers in some respects—but with a great many of the old
ones, too—and we hope that all who are here will be present at the
next Congress, the Fifth National Conservation Congress, wherever it
may be held. And in the meantime the work will go on. It will begin
tomorrow and continue throughout the year. Everywhere any delegate
has influence, the cause will be heard and will be advanced.
The Chair wishes to thank this Congress and its delegates for the
kind consideration given him while he has been presiding, and for
the support he has received from every one. We now stand adjourned,
subject to the call of the Executive Committee. (Applause.)
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.
_FORESTRY SECTION._
Delegates specially interested in Forestry held section meetings in
the Turkish Room of the Claypool Hotel throughout the sessions of
the Fourth National Conservation Congress. The Standing Committee on
Forestry consisted of Prof. Henry S. Graves, Chairman; J. B. White,
Major E. G. Griggs, George K. Smith, William Irvine and E. T. Allen.
Chairman Graves, being unavoidably absent, delegated Mr. Allen to
arrange meeting facilities and represent him in an effort to further
the progress of forestry at the Congress.
The first session of the Forestry Section was held on the evening of
October 1, with about twenty-five foresters and lumbermen present.
(At later sessions the attendance increased to forty.)
Mr. Allen, acting as Chairman, announced that Professor Graves had
suggested that such preliminary meeting be called to determine,
first, if a section meeting on Forestry should be conducted, and if
so, the lines it should follow. Mr. Allen suggested the probable
advantage of formulating plans for more systematic forestry work at
future Congresses, and of utilizing the opportunity thus afforded
to exchange experiences and ideas on legislation, forest protection
and educational work. The meeting concurred in this suggestion and
determined to hold a series of meetings on Forestry at this Congress.
_Second Session—10 a. m., October 2._
Mr. E. T. Allen called the meeting to order, and Mr. D. Page Simons,
of California, was chosen secretary. The chair then presented a
tentative program for ensuing sessions covering publicity work,
co-operation in forest protection, needed forest legislation, and
organization for future Congresses. He described the educational work
conducted by the Western Forestry and Conservation Association, and
read a communication from Professor Graves, United States Forester,
emphasizing the need of a propaganda for more adequate and uniform
State forest legislation.
Mr. T. B. Wyman, of Michigan, representing the Northern Forest
Protective Association, then described the co-operative effort by
Michigan lumbermen covering a territory of seven and one-half million
acres. He told how they had been enabled to maintain a patrol service
and that their association had made a careful study of fire causes.
In the campaign of public education, he said, they had utilized
modern advertising methods.
Major E. G. Griggs, of Washington, President of the National Lumber
Manufacturers’ Association, pointed out the necessity of united
effort in a campaign of education which would bring about a better
understanding, on the part of the public, of all phases of forest
industry. He emphasized the need of continuous effort throughout
the year, and said that he believed there should be some national
frame-work or organization which would unite the foresters and
lumbermen for such continuous and concerted action. Major Griggs also
praised the work of the United States Forest Service.
Mr. Charles Lathrop Pack, of New Jersey, concurred in Major Griggs’
suggestion and said that he believed the Conservation Congress,
meeting annually, illustrated the need of a Committee on Forestry,
which would be active throughout the year. He said that he believed
that other features of the Congress had been much better advertised
and organized and that he hoped that before another year the work of
the Forestry Committee, particularly, would be on a systematic basis
with the necessary funds to carry forward its work.
Chairman Allen pointed out the need of local publicity as was
illustrated by the difficulties experienced in obtaining adequate
State legislation.
Mr. I. C. Williams, of Pennsylvania, Deputy State Forest
Commissioner, said that taxation and not fire protection was the
big forestry problem in Pennsylvania. He said that a campaign of
publicity for a yield tax measure had been unsuccessful owing to a
lack of organization among the friends of the measure to back up the
publicity.
Dr. Henry S. Drinker, of Pennsylvania, President of Lehigh
University, reported the distribution of a million circulars on
forest protection, modeled on those issued by the Western Forestry
and Conservation Association. He also endorsed the yield tax
principle.
Mr. E. A. Sterling, of Pennsylvania, emphasized the importance of
conducting a systematic campaign of publicity which would bring out
definite facts. Competent committees, he said, should be in charge of
such work so that the publicity would be in effective form and carry
weight.
Hon. John M. Woods, Mayor of Somerville, Mass., suggested the
danger of relying too much on education and not enough on practical
politics. In his judgment, forest legislation could best be furthered
by interesting the Governor and the Legislature.
Mr. Henry E. Hardtner, of Louisiana, told of the forest laws of that
State and of his effort to secure reforestation.
Prof. F. W. Rane, State Forester of Massachusetts, said that results
are a question of enterprising organization and that more system and
effective committee work will bring better results.
Col. W. R. Brown, representing the New Hampshire Forestry
Commission, said that he believed the American Forestry Association
offered facilities for the work under discussion and that means for
utilizing them could be devised.
Mr. F. A. Elliott, State Forester of Oregon, then outlined western
problems which he showed were peculiarly difficult because of a
lack of forest appreciation in a new country. He testified to the
efficiency of advertising propaganda to reduce fire carelessness.
Mr. Hugh P. Baker, of New York, said that the Empire State went on
the principle that people had to be shown and that, therefore, they
were making a feature of demonstration forests and of assisting
individual owners.
Mr. P. S. Ridsdale, of Washington, D. C., Secretary of the American
Forestry Association, then told of the educational policy of that
organization, and said that its magazine was devoting special
attention to all practical matters of interest to lumbermen.
After some further discussion along the line of desirable committee
action the Chair was instructed, by motion, duly seconded and
carried, to appoint two committees, each of which he should be ex
officio chairman, as follows: A committee of five on permanent
organization, and one of three to represent the Forestry Section in
a conference with the American Forestry Association and the officers
of the Fifth National Conservation Congress. It was also agreed to
appoint a Committee on Resolutions. These committees were appointed,
as follows:
Co-operation with Other Agencies—E. T. Allen, chairman; H. S. Graves,
and J. B. White.
Permanent Organization—E. T. Allen, Chairman; F. A. Elliott, Don
Carlos Ellis, T. B. Wyman, and F. W. Rane.
Resolutions—Dr. Henry S. Drinker, chairman; F. W. Besley, D. P.
Simons, P. S. Ridsdale, and H. E. Hardtner.
_Third Session—2:40 p. m., October 2._
Co-operative Forest Protection was announced for the topic for
discussion.
Mr. Hardtner told of the success of the Louisiana lumber associations
in securing legislation.
Mr. Wyman told of the co-operative patrol of the Northern Forest
Protective Association, in Michigan, and described briefly their
methods and the fire fighting equipment.
Mr. Brown explained the methods of the New Hampshire Timberland
Owners’ Association. There are four district chiefs, each in charge
of a patrol system. They utilize all modern devices, such as
telephones, lookouts, tool depots, etc. They have reduced the fire
damage one-half at a cost of seven-tenths of one per cent. of the
values protected. Mr. Brown urged that the adjoining States should
co-operate along boundaries.
Mr. Elliott told of the progress being made in Oregon under their new
law providing for syndicate co-operative patrol maintained jointly by
the Federal and State governments, the counties and lumbermen.
Mr. N. P. Wheeler told of the fight against forest fires by
Pennsylvania lumbermen.
Mr. D. P. Simons described the organization of the Washington Forest
Fire Association, which maintains over a hundred patrolmen and
protects nearly five million acres. This association also has been
very successful in publicity and legislative work.
The report of the Committee on Resolutions was then presented,
discussed by sections and adopted. (See resolutions of Fourth
National Conservation Congress—Forests.)
_Fourth Session—8:25 p. m., October 3._
Chairman Allen reported that the Committee on Resolutions of the
Conservation Congress, of which he was Secretary, had endorsed the
resolutions presented by the Forestry Section.
Chairman Allen then read the following report from the Section
Committee on Permanent Organization:
Your committee believes that the consensus of opinion of the
lumbermen and foresters assembled at the invitation of the forestry
committee of the Fourth National Conservation Congress is about as
follows:
1. That the Congress has not so far included satisfactory facilities
for securing for forest matters the attention they deserve at such a
meeting.
2. That the facilities to be desired should provide for two main
activities:
(a) The general discussion of forest Conservation needed to bring
its importance properly before the public.
(b) The meeting for mutual help, in practical constructive detailed
work of the men actually engaged in organized forest work.
3. That unless there is early assurance of such facilities hereafter,
the Congress’ support from forest interests is in danger.
4. That private, state and federal forest interests are anxious to
support the Congress and in turn to receive all benefit to be derived
from it.
5. That what is clearly needed is a greater recognition of forestry
upon its general program and arrangement for sectional forest work
outside the general meeting, both to be carefully planned in advance
so as to be practical, effective and without lost time.
6. That probably similar steps should be taken to provide for other
branches of Conservation work, so that all may unite in perpetuating
the usefulness of the Congress.
7. That the duty of your committee is to bring about the things
outlined above, or at least to suggest some means of doing so.
After careful consideration of what these seven points involve,
your committee feels that the very fact that inadequacy in the past
has prevented as wide an attendance as desirable, prevents us from
conferring at this time as fully with all agencies involved as would
be sure to get the best result, and that in particular we are at
a great disadvantage in being unable to confer with the executive
officers of the 1913 Congress not yet chosen.
For these reasons we recommend as our very best judgment that this
meeting correct us as far as may be necessary in stating its beliefs
and desires and then leave working out the detail until we can
offer the executive officials of the next Congress the courtesy of
consulting with them, with the understanding, however, that there
shall be no negligence or unnecessary delay and that long before the
next Congress all these matters shall be arranged in detail and given
the necessary publicity.
Your committee consequently recommends further either that it be
given instructions to act as suggested, or that it be discharged
and the duties outlined be added to those of the committee of three
already appointed to discuss similar questions. We believe that a
faithful attempt to work the matter out in this way will be more
satisfactory than trying to settle matters at this session. There is
ample time if we do not waste it, and less danger of error.
The report was adopted, following the suggestion that the Committee
on Permanent Organization be discharged and its duties imposed upon
the permanent co-operative committee, including E. T. Allen, Prof. H.
S. Graves and J. B. White.
Mr. Allen, being called out to assist in revising the resolutions
of the general Congress, asked Mr. Sterling to take the chair, and
suggested the reading of a paper sent by Chief Forester Graves,
outlining the policy of the Forest Service.
Mr. Graves’ paper (appearing elsewhere in the proceedings of the
Congress) was animatedly discussed, the meeting without dissenting
voice approving the Forest Service policy and deploring any attempt
to restrict its operation. Short talks urging its support by all
forest interests, State and private, including the Conservation
Congress, were made by Z. D. Scott, Minnesota; F. A. Elliott and
H. D. Langille, Oregon, and W. H. Shippen, Georgia. A resolution
was passed emphasizing the meeting’s endorsement of the resolutions
commending the Forest Service then before the general Congress (and
adopted the following day).
Mr. Langille spoke particularly against the turning over of the
National forests to State control and Mr. Shippen of the necessity of
Federal control of interstate watersheds.
A discussion of State legislation followed. Mr. Scott described the
effort of Minnesota under its new law. Leonard Bronson, Washington,
outlined the trend of attempted tax reform, dwelling particularly
upon the yield tax system proposed by Professor Fairchild of
Yale University, and urged concerted, harmonious effort by all
forest States. Dr. Drinker and Mr. Wheeler reviewed the proposed
Pennsylvania law for a nominal land tax and a yield tax from which
counties are to be reimbursed for taxes lost during growing period.
Upon motion of Mr. I. C. Williams, Pennsylvania, the meeting went on
record as considering tax reform to promote reforestation and better
forest management, the most important problem and the one most in
need of study and legislation of any before the forest interests of
the United States today.
The Forestry Section of the Fourth National Conservation Congress
then adjourned, leaving plans for more effective work in 1913 in the
hands of the committee of three previously mentioned.
REGISTER FORESTRY SECTION MEETING.
E. T. Allen, Western Forestry and Conservation Association,
Portland, Oregon.
Wm. G. Atwood, Chief Engineer L. E. & W. R. R. Representing American
Railway Engineers’ Association, Indianapolis, Ind.
Hugh P. Baker, New York State College of Forestry, Syracuse, N. Y.
W. E. Barns, Missouri Forest Service, St. Louis, Mo.
F. W. Besley, State Forester, Baltimore, Md.
F. H. Billard, Forester, New Hampshire Timberland Owners
Association, Berlin, N. H.
Leonard Bronson, Manager National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association,
Chicago, Ill.
W. R. Brown, President New Hampshire Forestry Commission, New
Hampshire Timberland Owners’ Association, Berlin, N. H.
L. S. Case, Weyerhaeuser & Company, St. Paul, Minn.
W. C. Darms, Wisconsin Forest Commission, Wisconsin.
Chas. C. Deam, Secretary Indiana Board of Forestry, Indianapolis,
Ind.
Henry S. Drinker, Lehigh University, South Bethlehem, Pa.
F. A. Elliott, State Forester, Salem, Oregon.
E. G. Griggs, West Coast Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, National
Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, Tacoma, Wash.
N. H. Guthrie, Indiana State Forestry Association, Franklin, Ind.
Henry E. Hardtner, Louisiana Forestry Association, Urania, La.
John W. Kellough, Ohio State Forestry Association, Mt. Sterling,
Ohio.
H. D. Langille, Oregon Conservation Association, Portland, Oregon.
William R. Lazenby, Ohio State Forestry Association, Columbus, Ohio.
Henry Nelson Loud, Au Sable, Mich.
Frank E. Mace, Forest Commissioner, Augusta, Me.
Mrs. Joan E. Moore, Indiana State Forestry Association, Kokomo, Ind.
John Oxenford, Indianapolis, Ind.
Charles Lathrop Pack, President Fifth National Conservation
Congress, 305 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, Ohio.
F. W. Rane, State Forester, Boston, Mass.
P. S. Ridsdale, Secretary American Forestry Association, Washington,
D. C.
Z. D. Scott, State Forestry Board, Duluth, Minn.
W. H. Shippen, Hardwood Manufacturers Association, Ellijay, Georgia.
D. P. Simons, Western Forestry and Conservation Association, Los
Gatos, Cal.
Geo. K. Smith, Secretary Yellow Pine Manufacturers’ Association,
National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, St. Louis, Mo.
E. A. Sterling, Forest and Timber Engineer, Philadelphia, Pa.
R. D. Swales, Union Lumber Company, Fort Bragg, Cal.
F. L. Throm, Forester, Wheeler & Desenburg, Endeavor, Pa.
William P. Wharton, Groton, Mass.
N. P. Wheeler, Pennsylvania Conservation Association, Endeavor, Pa.
I. C. Williams, Pennsylvania Department of Forestry, Harrisburg, Pa.
E. B. Williamson, State Foresters Office, Bluffton, Ind.
John M. Woods, Somerville, Mass.
R. C. Young, American Railway Engineers’ Association, Chief Engineer
Munsing R. R., Marquette, Mich.
THE PRESENT SITUATION OF FORESTRY.
Prof. HENRY S. GRAVES, United States Forester.
A review of the work of forestry in this country during the past year
shows that in many directions there has been substantial progress
and positive achievement. On the other hand, the continued organized
attacks on the National Forest system, and the efforts to break it
down or cripple it, present a situation of real danger which the
country should realize and vigorously meet. We have before us a task
of constructive activity in practical work, extending and building
on foundations already laid; we have also the task of preventing a
destructive attack upon National forestry.
During the past few years public interest in forestry has been
rapidly changing from a mere inquiry in regard to its purpose to a
vigorous demand for practical results. This more intelligent public
sentiment is now finding its expression in a growing appreciation
of the need of better forest laws, greater State appropriations for
fire control, and increasing interest in forest protection by private
timberland owners. It often happens that public attention is caught
only by the most striking new departments and developments, such as
a change in public policy or important legislation, while but little
is known of the steady advance in applied forestry. The past year
has been signalized not so much by new undertakings as by marked
accomplishment in the effective carrying out of work previously
inaugurated.
PROGRESS IN NATIONAL FORESTRY.
Every year shows increased efficiency in the administration of the
national forests. The most conspicuous advance has been in organized
fire protection. The disastrous year of 1910 taught many lessons.
While that disaster could not have been avoided in the absence of
better transportation and communication facilities and without a
larger patrol force than the Forest Service could put into the field,
it nevertheless showed how, even under the present conditions, the
work of protection could be made more effective. Full use was made of
the experience gained in that year, and during the past two seasons
the loss by fire has been kept down to a comparatively small amount
through the efficient system now in force. The problem, however, of
fire protection on the national forests is far from being solved.
There still remain to be built some 80,000 miles of trails, 45,000
miles of telephone lines, many miles of roads, many lookout stations,
and other improvements, before even the primary system of control
will have been established. The funds at the disposal of the Forest
Service are still inadequate to employ the patrolmen needed to meet
more than ordinary emergency. There is even yet danger, therefore,
that in the case of a great drought like that of 1910 some fires
might gain the mastery and a similar disaster follow.
An account of the progress of the work of the Forest Service in
the administration of the national forests would be an enumeration
of the different activities in which the work is going on with
constantly growing effectiveness. Many of the local difficulties of
administration are rapidly disappearing. This is due to the steadily
closer co-ordination of the interests of the Government with those
of the people living in and using the forests. More and more these
people are coming to appreciate that their interests and those of the
national forests are one. With a better understanding of the aims and
methods of the Forest Service, local difficulties are disappearing
and local support of the service is largely replacing opposition.
Those who are aiming to destroy the national forest system are not
the settlers and others who use the forests, but rather men who seek
for their own advantage special privileges to which they are not
entitled, and who wish to acquire for little or nothing valuable
resources for speculation and personal gain.
During the past year the Weeks law, authorizing the purchase of lands
on navigable streams, has been put into effect, and the Government
has already entered into contracts for the purchase of 230,000 acres
in the Southern Appalachian Mountains, and about 72,000 acres in the
White Mountains. These lands are being secured on the most desirable
areas, and it has been possible to obtain them for reasonable prices.
A special feature of the Weeks law is the co-operation between
the Government and the States in fire protection on watersheds of
navigable streams. The law provides $200,000, until expended, for
such co-operation; but this money can be used only in States which
have already inaugurated a system of fire protection under public
direction. During the year 1911 there were eleven States which
qualified under this law, receiving in the aggregate about $40,000.
During the current year sums varying from $1,500 to $10,000 have been
allotted to the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut,
New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and
Washington. There is still sufficient money left from the original
appropriation for substantial co-operation during another year. It
has been the aim of the Forest Service to spread the money over three
years in order that there may be a full demonstration of what can be
accomplished, and at what cost. It will then be possible to present
to Congress a satisfactory basis upon which to consider whether
Federal aid to the States should be continued.
The most urgent need of the national forest work is more ample
provision of the funds necessary for adequate protection of the
forests against fire. It is especially urgent that the work of
constructing roads, trails, telephone lines, and other improvements
needed for fire protection be extended much more rapidly than at
present.
PROGRESS IN STATE FORESTRY.
A very great obligation rests upon the State governments in working
out the problem of forestry. Organized fire protection under State
direction, the establishment of a reasonable system of taxation of
growing timber, honest and conservative management of State forest
laws, education of woodland owners to better methods of forestry,
and such practical regulation of handling private forests as may be
required for the protection of the public, are problems which require
the immediate action of all States.
While no State is as yet accomplishing all that it should, a number
of them are making very rapid progress, and are giving as liberal
money support as perhaps could be expected under the present
conditions. The feature of State forestry which stands out most
strongly is that a number of States have gone beyond merely passing
forest laws, and have begun to provide the funds necessary to achieve
practical results. At last it is beginning to be recognized that the
prevention of fire is the fundamental necessity, and that this can be
accomplished only through an organized public service. In order to
make laws effective there must be adequate machinery to carry them
out. The fundamental principle of fire protection is preparation. A
forest region must be watched for fires, both to prevent their being
started and to reach quickly and put out such as from one cause or
another may get under way. The new State legislation recognizes
this need, and already there has been inaugurated a measure of
watchfulness in the season of greatest danger, through patrol or
lookouts under State direction. During 1911, which was a banner year
in the enactment of State legislation, laws related chiefly to fire
protection were passed by Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin; while
Colorado created the office of State Forester. Since the beginning
of 1912 Maryland and New York have amended their forest laws, and
Kentucky has passed its first complete law.
It is exceedingly gratifying that substantial progress is now being
made in the South. Unfortunately, however, none of the Southern
States except Maryland has hitherto been able to qualify to receive
Federal aid and fire protection under the Weeks law. It is hoped that
during the coming year progress will be made in those Southern States
in which practically nothing has yet been done.
One of the matters to which the Conservation Congress and all other
educational agencies should devote their efforts is to bring about
the protection of private lands from fire and the extension to them
of forestry methods. While some may say that this is a matter for
which the owner is personally responsible, the fact remains that
private owners will ordinarily not work out the forestry problem on
their lands without the participation of the public in the form of
public regulations, co-operation and assistance. This is recognized
in some States, but others are doing nothing whatever in this field,
and a good many which have made a small beginning are abundantly
able to do vastly more than at present. It has usually happened that
the securing of good forest laws and the establishment of a State
Forest Service has been brought about by the efforts of a small
group of interested men, and frequently through the efforts of a
single individual who has been able to arouse the interest of the
people in his State. Enough States in different parts of the country
have initiated State forestry to make it comparatively easy for a
State contemplating new legislation to benefit by what has been done
elsewhere. All that is really required in the extension of State
forestry is to find the man or men in each State who will take the
leadership and follow up the matter until the Legislature acts. It
would seem that in the heavily timbered States the lumbermen are the
men who should be most vitally interested in the conservation of our
forests. In some States timberland owners have participated very
actively in bringing about State forestry, as for example, in Maine,
New Hampshire, Minnesota, and some of the far Northwest States. In
other instances the timberland owners have been indifferent and in
some instances proper State forestry has failed on account of the
attitude of the very men who should be foremost in promoting proper
legislation. We need in each State not so much advice from the
outside as a few patriotic citizens in whom the public has confidence
and who will devote time and real effort to this public task. If
the men can be found to do this preliminary work they will have no
difficulty in securing competent assistance from other States and
from the National Government.
THE ATTACK UPON FORESTRY.
At the same time that forestry has been making steady progress in
constructive work and in public esteem, hostility to the national
forest policy on the part of those who would substitute private for
public control of these resources has become more determined under
a new form. The early attacks upon this policy openly sought its
overthrow. They came to nothing because the country was emphatically
for the forests. At the present time those who attack the national
forest policy commonly profess allegiance to the Conservation
principle even while attempting to break it down. There is great
danger that the public may not understand what is involved in
measures whose purpose and inevitable effects do not appear on their
face. Two such measures are the proposal to require the elimination
from the forests of all lands capable of cultivation, on the plea
that this will increase settlement, and the proposal to turn all the
forests over to the States in which they lie, on the plea that this
will increase their benefits to the people of these States. In both
cases quite the contrary is true.
An amendment which was attached to the Agricultural Appropriation
Bill last June, and which passed the Senate but was rejected by the
House, would have required, had it become law, the opening to private
acquisition under the homestead laws of all lands “fit and suitable
for agriculture” within national forests, irrespective of their
value for other purposes or of their importance for public use. The
result would have been not to facilitate but to block agricultural
development. It would also have been to transfer to powerful private
interests timberlands, water power sites, and other areas, possession
of which would tend to private monopoly of resources now under public
control.
This measure is not called for in order that agricultural development
of lands in national forests may take place. The Forest Service
has consistently favored and sought to bring about agricultural
settlement of all national forest lands which can be put to their
highest usefulness by farming. It urged and obtained, seven years
ago, the law which now permits the opening of such land. Under that
law about one and a half million acres have been listed for entry by
over twelve thousand settlers; and more will be listed as it becomes
possible to list the land without defeating the very purpose of the
law.
To open land certain because of its superior value for timber,
water-power development, or other purposes to be absorbed by
speculators or powerful interests would not only defeat the purpose
of the existing law but also constitute a breach of public trust
and a betrayal of the fundamental principles of Conservation. That
principle has often been misrepresented as a policy of present
non-use for the sake of future generations. Its true purpose
is two-fold: to prevent monopoly of public resources, and to
secure their greatest use, both present and future, by scientific
development. The national forests are administered with a view to
securing, first, use of present resources; second, permanency of such
resources; and third, greater and more valuable resources for the
future.
Experience has amply proved that the elimination, under pressure,
of national forest lands locally considered or alleged to be
of agricultural value but in point of fact more valuable for
other purposes has led to their early acquisition by timberland
speculators, great lumber interests, water-power companies, livestock
companies, and others who desire the lands for other ends than
agriculture. In 1901 705,000 acres of heavily timbered land were
thus eliminated from the Olympic National Forest. Ten years later
only a little over one per cent of this land was under cultivation,
while three-fourths of it was held for its timber, mainly in large
holdings. Other examples might be multiplied. With a mandatory law
the pressure for opening land sought under cover of the claim of
agricultural value would be well-nigh irresistible in many cases.
Local agitation and political influence would in the end break down
all effort to maintain public control. Such piecemeal attack on the
forests would be made without any opportunity for the public to
know what was going on. In the end the dismemberment of the national
forests would be effected.
The only safety for the maintenance of the policy which now receives
and has long received the overwhelming support of public sentiment
lies in a correct knowledge by the public of the actual situation
with regard to agricultural lands in national forests. It must
be made plain that all but an entirely insignificant part of the
national forests is not susceptible of profitable cultivation. The
forests occupy the most rugged and mountainous parts of the West.
Topography, soil, and climate combine to make them natural forest
lands, not potential farm lands. The areas which form an exception
to this condition are not over four per cent. of the total; and such
areas are now being sought out by the Forest Service and will, under
the existing law, be made available for homestead entry as fast as
they can be opened without defeating the purpose of the law itself.
It is necessary that the country should understand the manner in
which bona fide settlement is being brought about in the national
forests, and also the motive of those who are trying to break down
the system of forest Conservation under the guise of promoting
settlement.
There has been during the past two or three years a steadily growing
movement to turn over the national forests to the individual States.
During the past session of Congress a rider to the Agricultural
Appropriation Bill was offered in the Senate, providing for the grant
of the national forests to the several States, together with all
other public lands, including “all coal, mineral, timber, grazing,
agricultural and other lands, and all water and power rights and
claims, and all rights upon lands of any character whatsoever.”
While the amendment was ruled out on a point of order, it received a
surprisingly large amount of support.
The proposition so far as the national forests are concerned is to
turn over to the individual States property owned by the Nation
covering a net area of over one hundred and sixty million acres.
This property has an actual measurable value of at least two billion
dollars, while from the standpoint of its indirect value to the
public no estimate on a money basis could possibly be made. These
are public resources which should be handled in the interests of the
public. Moreover, the problems involved are such that they should
definitely remain in the hands of the National rather than be turned
over to the State governments. The property belongs to the Nation as
a whole, and every citizen has an interest in it. The Government has
already made enormous grants to the individual States, but always to
further specific objects of national importance. There should not be
a moment’s consideration of the proposal to turn the forests over to
the States unless it can be clearly shown that the interests both of
the States and of the Nation are consistent with such action. In the
case of the national forests, public interests both of the Nation and
of the States require their continued retention and management by the
National Government.
The scope of this paper does not permit a full discussion of this
problem. It must suffice to mention a few cogent reasons for
government ownership:
1. The property is now owned by the Nation, and should be
administered from the standpoint of national as well as of local
needs.
2. The problem of protection from fire and of timber production on
the national forests is one of national scope and can be properly
handled only by the Government; its solution is a national duty.
3. The problem of water control is no less a national duty. Nearly
all of the national forests lie on headwaters of navigable rivers or
interstate streams. The Government is now purchasing lands in the
East on headwaters of navigable rivers because of the disastrous
results to the public which are following abuse under private
ownership. It certainly should not part with title to the same class
of lands which it now owns in the West. Every interstate stream
presents problems which can be properly handled only through the
Federal Government. The Government cannot permit the citizens of one
State to be damaged by the action or failure to act of citizens of
another State. It is of vital importance for this reason alone that
property at the headwaters of interstate streams be retained under
Government administration.
4. Not only are the interests of the individual States and
communities now fully protected, but in many ways far more is being
done for local communities than would be possible under State
ownership. In the long run, as the timber and other resources are
brought into use with improving markets, the States will receive from
the twenty-five per cent. of the gross receipts now allowed them
and the additional ten per cent. appropriated for road improvements
a larger amount than would come in from local taxes under private
ownership.
5. The States are not as well prepared, financially or otherwise,
to handle the national forests as is the Federal Government. If the
forests were owned by the States and handled in the real interests
of the public, there would be substantially the same system of
administration as today, at a greater aggregate cost for supervision
by a considerable number of independent State staffs of technical
men. The financial burden would be far too great for the individual
States to assume. The result would be either poor administration and
lack of protection, or a sacrifice of the public interests in order
to secure revenue to meet the financial needs.
6. The successful application of forestry demands a stable
administrative policy for long periods. This can be secured far
better under National than under State control.
7. A much higher standard of constructive and technical efficiency is
possible under National than under State administration. The value of
the forests to the public depends directly on the skill with which
scientific knowledge is applied to the task of developing their
highest productiveness. Both in ability to carry on the research work
required for practical ends and in ability to command professional
services of the first order the Government possesses a striking
advantage.
8. As largely undeveloped property the forests need heavy investments
of capital for their improvement. Their full productiveness can be
secured in no other way. The Government is now investing yearly in
the forests a considerable part of the appropriation made for them.
Even if the States did not seek to make them sources of immediate
revenue at whatever sacrifice of their future possibilities, they
would be reluctant to expend much for their development.
9. The States both lack the civil service system and standards of the
National Government and are exposed to greater danger of being swayed
by private interests. In the hands of spoilsmen demoralization would
quickly succeed the present high standards of the Forest Service,
while the intimate relation of the forests to the welfare of great
numbers of individuals would tend to make their administrative
control a highly coveted political prize. At the same time the value
of their resources would certainly arouse a cupidity which would be
exceedingly difficult to control. Scandalous maladministration might
easily follow. The Federal Government is better watched farther
removed from local influence, more stable, and better equipped with a
non-political system and machinery.
The underlying purpose of the proposed transfer of the national
forests to the States is really not to substitute State for Federal
control, but rather to substitute individual for public control. Its
most earnest advocates are the very interests which wish to secure
such control. The object of the whole states rights movement as it
affects the national forests is to transfer to private owners for
speculative or monopolistic purposes public resources of enormous
value. Retention of these resources under public ownership is
needed to protect the people from abuses which are every day being
demonstrated on lands over which the public has already lost control.
The proposition is one which the people as a whole would repudiate
in an instant if they understood what is proposed. The only danger
lies in the fact that some legislation adverse to the national
forest system may be passed when the public as a whole is ignorant
that it is planned or does not understand the meaning. Vigilance in
the defense of its interests and intelligence in the perception of
the true character of masked attacks upon those interests are of
fundamental necessity if the public is to protect itself.
_FOOD SECTION._
The Food Section of the National Conservation Congress met in the
Palm Room of the Claypool Hotel on the afternoon of October 1st. Dr.
H. W. Wiley, late Chief of the Bureau of Chemistry, as Chairman,
discussed the cold storage industry and pointed out that cold storage
is a great blessing to the country, in that goods are placed in cold
storage that they may be more evenly distributed throughout the year.
He showed that there is still room for the investigation of the
principles of storage and improvement of the industry. The condition
of food entering cold storage is most important.
Frank A. Horne, Chairman of the Commission of Legislation of the
American Association of Refrigeration, said there has been a
remarkable reversal of public opinion in the last three or four years
regarding the place cold storage and refrigerating has occupied with
regard to the high cost of living.
He declared the cold storage business has been unjustly assailed, and
that a series of investigations and hearings had demonstrated beyond
doubt that the popular notion and sensational newspaper attacks were
entirely unfounded and erroneous. He said these investigations showed
that the cold storage warehousemen performed a useful public function
in conserving perishable foods, preventing deterioration and waste by
means of a scientific method by which the great surplus production
could be wholesomely preserved for later consumption.
Before cold storage came into use a period of flush production meant
a glut in the market, and large quantities of spoiled and utterly
wasted foods. With cold storage at hand the contrary conditions
prevail.
At the general discussion on the subject afterward, Dr. Wiley said
the attacks made on the cold storage business five years ago were
justified by conditions. He said as a result of an investigation of
the business, the cold storage men themselves have joined with the
Government to improve conditions.
Charles H. Utley, President of the Quincy Market, Cold Storage and
Warehouse Company, Boston, said there would be no occasion for cold
storage or the use of any other means for preserving food if human
food was not to a greater or less extent perishable. If it were not
perishable it would be the practice of every individual to conserve
a sufficient amount of food as might be required. No better means of
preventing waste of food is known at the present time than by the use
of cold storage, and the use accomplishes most desirable results,
advantageous to both consumer and producer, by the conservation of
food, which is just as desirable as the conservation of our natural
resources.
Dr. William A. Evans of Chicago, discussed the capacity of milk for
doing harm even when it looks, tastes and smells right. He said milk
is a great carrier of disease germs, and that for this reason it
should be produced close to the point of distribution. The nearer
the baby gets to the cow the more natural it is. Certified milk is
all right when it is really certified by a noninterested person, but
properly pasteurized milk is probably the safest for babies.
Dr. H. E. Barnard, Food and Drug Commissioner of Indiana, referred to
the fact that Indiana was the first State to pass a cold storage law.
He introduced resolutions pertaining to the conservation of food,
which were unanimously adopted. The resolution follows:
Whereas, The Conservation of the food products of our country is of
the greatest importance to our people, in order that they may have
available the maximum supplies of wholesome food; and
Whereas, The subject is deserving of serious consideration, so that
production may be encouraged and waste decreased; and
Whereas, The important function of the process of refrigeration is
enlarging and diversifying the supply of perishable foodstuffs, as
applied in the preparation, transportation and distribution of these
goods, thereby giving consumers a larger and more wholesome supply,
preventing deterioration and waste, is recognized as being desirable
and necessary; therefore, be it
Resolved, That any legislation or administration restrictions or
regulations that may be required to properly control the business
and protect the public health should be uniform in the several
states of the Nation, and be it further
Resolved, That the Congress recommends that the succeeding food
committee of the National Conservation Congress be specially charged
with the duty of studying the questions involved in the production,
collection, sanitary preparation, transportation, preservation
and marketing of perishable foods, and to report its findings to
the succeeding Congress to the end that such report may be made
the basis of measures to better conserve the perishable foods of
the people, to improve the quality of such foods, increase their
production, and to promote such relations between the producer,
handler and consumer as will bring about a more nearly uniform price
through each year.
FOOD CONSERVATION BY COLD STORAGE.
By F. G. URNER, Editor, New York Produce Review.
The conservation of food may be considered from two points of
view—first, the safeguarding and preservation of the food currently
produced; second, the maintenance of those elements of fertility
upon which continuous production depends, and the improvement of
methods of production to the end that maximum yield may be realized
from the labor and material expended. Both considerations are of the
utmost importance in the present conditions of changing relation
between the domestic supply of food and the needs of nonproducers. In
both progress toward higher ideals is dependent upon an increase of
knowledge, and worthy of such educational forces as can be brought
to bear by a wise government. In both directions the United States
Government, through the Department of Agriculture and otherwise,
is endeavoring, by investigation, study and the dissemination of
ascertained fact, to foster progress for the common good.
In the United States the development of food production to keep
pace with the needs of a population increasing at a rate beyond
all precedent, has been crude and wasteful. Beginning with virgin
soils the stores of primitive fertility have been drawn upon with
little regard for their steady depletion. Methods of careful and
conservative agriculture that have been forced upon older communities
have been largely ignored until comparatively recent years, when an
appreciation of the near approach of the inevitable results of waste
has turned forceful educational efforts toward a reformation—efforts
which, however, have been handicapped by the necessity of overcoming
the prejudice of ignorance and long established habit of carelessness.
Considered broadly, the question of conservation of food is
far-reaching and extends to innumerable details. It is the purpose
in this paper to discuss simply some of the general principles
underlying the subject from the first mentioned viewpoint—the
safeguarding and preservation of the food produced—particularly in
respect to preservation by cold storage.
It is hardly necessary to enlarge upon the general requirement of
food preservation. In northern latitudes, where months of production
are, in respect to a large part of the food supply, followed by
months of nonproduction, this necessity is evident not only to
maintain a satisfactory variety of food but to secure a sufficient
quantity. In the United States differences of climatic conditions,
although giving an almost continuous production of certain vegetable
foods, do not serve to furnish an uninterrupted supply of fresh
products of many staple kinds, nor are they sufficient to remove the
necessity for utilizing the productive power of the colder regions
far beyond the consumptive needs during the comparatively brief
seasons of harvest. The practice of food storage from the season
of natural production through the season of nonproduction is, of
course, to some extent, as old as life itself; but the methods of
preservation have shared in the improvements that have characterized
a modern civilization. And the development of these advanced methods
has brought into the question of food preservation new problems, some
of which it is the purpose in this paper to discuss.
Methods of food preservation may be broadly divided into two
classes—first, those which accomplish their purpose by changing
the physical condition of the food, as by drying, or cooking and
hermetical sealing; and second, those which preserve the articles
in such manner that, when used, they shall be practically in their
original condition. The latter methods depend for their effectiveness
upon the provision of such environment as will check or retard the
forces of deterioration or decay, and it is in the ability to provide
such conditions by an artificial control of temperature and humidity
that the preservation of food in apparently unchanged physical
condition has been greatly extended.
So long as food products were chiefly preserved from the seasons of
production, or maximum production, to the season of nonproduction
by the use of somewhat primitive means, and largely by producers
themselves, or by methods familiar to the household, the food so
held was accepted by the people as a matter of course and recognized
necessity. Canned and dried foods were, and are, used with general
satisfaction as such; and such staple fruits and vegetables as could
be carried in their original condition through the winter months
were consumed with a general knowledge of their age, but with a full
appreciation of the necessity for such holding and of the comparative
excellence of the held goods. Butter and eggs also, when held by
producers themselves, even by primitive and inefficient means, were
accepted by consumers in seasons of natural scarcity with resignation
as to their comparatively poor quality under a general knowledge that
nothing better could be expected at prices within common reach.
These conditions remain unchanged today in respect to those forms of
preserved food whose character is evident either because of their
change of form or because of a popular knowledge that the articles,
though indistinguishable from fresh products, must have been held
from a crop harvested long ago. But the development of preservation
by effective artificial control of temperature has brought some new
elements into the situation.
Cold storage has enlarged the number of food products preservable in
their original condition and created a new industry; it has largely
removed the function of this class of food preservation from the
scattered individual producers to large central establishments and
thrown the business of accumulating and conserving surplus more fully
into the hands of tradesmen. It has permitted the preservation of
flesh foods in a raw state which were never before so preservable;
and it has so improved the quality of stored products whose current
production never ceases entirely that in many cases the held goods
cannot be distinguished from the fresh production.
These facts have led to a popular apprehension that cold storage,
being utilized largely by nonproducers and necessarily upon a
speculative basis, is made a tool for extortion or unjust profits;
also that deception is practiced, in respect to foods whose
production never ceases entirely, by the substitution of stored food
for fresh; and exaggerated statements as to the length of time foods
are held in storage have brought in question their wholesomeness and
created a popular prejudice.
It is important to know the facts in these particulars so that
the true function of cold storage in the preservation of food may
be understood, especially because legislative restriction of the
industry has been effected in some States and is under consideration
in others, as well as in the Federal Congress, in the enactment of
which mistaken views have resulted and may further result in public
injury.
COLD STORAGE ECONOMICS.
It is a self-evident proposition that, in respect to foods the
production of which is seasonal, the ability to preserve a part of
the yield to the period of nonproduction lessens waste and permits a
material increase of production, thus increasing the available food
supply. It is also evident that, supposing all the food produced to
be marketed and consumed, an increase in the supply of food tends to
a lowering of its average price. Apart from inevitable variations
due to climatic conditions the production of particular foods
increases or diminishes according to the relative profit realized
from that production; and it is evident that a profit sufficient
to induce production can be realized upon a much greater output if
the period during which consumption is possible can be extended. A
maximum production of any food can be realized only when the period
of its availability for consumption is constant; and it follows
that the maximum production of foods whose yield or greatest yield
is seasonal, can be realized only by preservation of a part of the
production for use during the season of natural dearth or deficiency
which ends only with the beginning of the following period of maximum
production.
Upon these simple truths rests the economic utility of cold storage
preservation. Practically its benefits in the conservation of food,
and in the encouragement of maximum production, are to be gained
only through the opportunity for profit, and while the business of
carrying foods from seasons of abundance to natural scarcity is open
to all it is naturally conducted chiefly by the tradesmen who are
permanently engaged in food distribution, and who are most familiar
with trade conditions and the varying relations of supply and demand.
An important fact bearing upon the practical use of cold storage
preservation as a feature of the distributing business is that no
profit can be expected by holding products beyond the succeeding
period of maximum production, when prices naturally fall to the
lowest point. The variations in selling prices at that period are
never sufficient to cover the cost of carriage of goods from a
previous season and the lessened value of long stored products in
comparison with fresh. There are occasional market conditions which
have induced the holding of perishable foods in cold storage beyond
twelve months in the effort to lessen a loss, but they are rare and
exceptional, so much so that a legal restriction of the period of
permissible holding to twelve months would have very little effect
upon the inducement to utilize cold storage from a commercial
standpoint. But so far as the purely economic interests of consumers
are concerned it would appear that no restriction of the period of
permissible holding of food in cold storage is either necessary
or desirable. The inducement to hold is profit, and profit can be
realized only by selling into final consumption. And when goods can
be carried to a later date and sold at a higher price it is evidence
that the relative scarcity which results in that higher price would
have been more stringent had the goods not been so carried. In
respect to the time of selling stored foods, therefore, the interests
of consumers (as a whole) and of owners of the food, would seem to be
identical; for it is the increased public need which results in the
higher price, and profit, considering storage operations as a whole,
depends upon a correct judgment as to that need.
There seems, therefore, no means by which tradesmen dealing in raw
foods can utilize cold storage preservation for their own benefit
at the cost of a public injury, but that, on the contrary, the
profitableness of holding surplus depends upon the performance of a
public service.
The ideal function of cold storage preservation is to carry just such
amount of surplus from the time of greatest yield as can be consumed
during the later period of relative scarcity at just sufficient
advance in value as will cover the cost of carriage and afford a
maximum satisfactory profit for the conduct of the business and the
necessary investment of capital. But it is impossible that this
ideal can be uniformly realized. Even if the operations of storage
accumulation and withdrawal for market were uniformly governed in
the light of the fullest possible knowledge and with the best of
judgment, it would be impossible always to determine the quantity to
be stored and the normal price thereof so that later deficiency at
corresponding prices would be exactly offset. For the extent of later
shortage can never be certainly known and the extent of demand at any
particular prices is variable and uncertain. As a matter of fact,
these operations of storage accumulation and later output, being
carried on by thousands of individual and independent dealers, in the
dim light of imperfect knowledge, even as to important statistical
facts that might be known, can never result in ideal effects.
Sometimes the quantity of certain foods stored at the prices paid
proves to be excessive and a part of the surplus, toward the approach
of the next flush season, has to be thrown upon the markets at heavy
losses; sometimes the quantity put away is insufficient to offset
the later scarcity and a part of the surplus, carried late, realizes
for larger profits than normal. But these conditions are, to a large
extent, inevitable, and while they show that the ideal function of
cold storage preservation can not always be realized, they do not
materially lessen its value. When a series of years is considered it
will be found that the average profits are comparatively small in
relation to the risks and the investment involved. And even when,
during the flush season of accumulation, prices are sustained above
the normal level by an amount of accumulation that later proves
excessive, consumers get the surplus later at correspondingly lower
prices. The reverse is also true, that when the quantity held is
deficient, leading to relatively high prices in a part of the season
of natural scarcity, a greater previous accumulation, sufficient to
prevent so much advance, would have resulted in higher prices during
the previous flush season.
The view that the economic effect of cold storage is to increase
production and to lower the yearly average price of food whose
production is variable is evidenced by such statistics as are
available. In the manufacture of butter, for instance, the months
of greatest production are from May to August, inclusive, and the
months of usual deficiency are from November to March. In the
New York market the average price of creamery butter from May to
August during the period from 1880 to 1892, before cold storage
preservation was generally used, was 21.9 cents. During the same
months in the period from 1902 to 1911, when cold storage facilities
were largely available, the average price was 23.4 cents. But while
this comparison shows an average advance of one 1½ cents during the
four months of normal accumulation of surplus the effect upon prices
during the normal season of shortage was very apparent; for in the
months November to March in the period 1880 to 1892 the average
wholesale price was 34.3 cents, while during the same months in the
period from 1902 to 1911 the average for fine fresh creamery was only
28.9 cents, and the average for fine storage creamery 26.7 cents.
THE QUALITY OF COLD STORED FOODS.
The quality of all perishable food products varies according to
the methods of their production and the care taken of them during
transit from producer to consumer. The more perishable foods, being
produced in a very wide territory by a vast number of producers, and
usually transported over long distances, are found in distributing
markets to be of extremely irregular quality and condition. Usually
qualities are best in the seasons of maximum production, and while
goods put into cold storage are also of irregular quality most of
those intended for long holding are selected, handled and packed
with especial care. The effect upon perishable foods of holding in
cold storage is various. It is less in respect to those carried
hard frozen, as meat, fish, poultry and butter, and upon durable
vegetables and fruit, as potatoes and apples, than upon animal
products that cannot be frozen, as eggs in the shell. Yet in all
perishable foods commonly carried in cold storage, quality, as
judged by popular standards, is preservable up to the limit of usual
commercial necessity, in a highly satisfactory degree. The more
durable fruits and vegetables, carried in properly corrected and
controlled atmospheric conditions, after months of holding, are often
indistinguishable in point of quality, from those marketed soon after
their harvest. Butter carried frozen for months loses very little of
its original flavor and character. Poultry, also, if of fine quality
and condition when frozen, may be so held for a long period without
noticeable deterioration. Eggs in cold storage gradually lose the
peculiar freshness of a new laid quality, but under proper conditions
they remain sound, sweet and acceptable when carried at about 30
degrees temperature for at least nine or ten months. Scientific
investigation conducted by the research laboratories of the United
States Department of Agriculture has given no evidence of any effect
of an unwholesome character upon the quality of perishable foods held
in cold storage up to the limit of usual commercial practice when the
products were sound and wholesome when stored.
The cold storage of surplus and the sale thereof in the markets adds
not at all to the irregularity in quality of our food supply. On the
contrary, the average quality of the supply is improved, for, without
the facility of refrigeration, freshly marketed products would
inevitably be poorer; they are now often poorer than similar goods
of much greater age properly carried in cold storage. Furthermore,
the length of time perishable foods are carried in cold storage is,
within reasonable limits, no criterion of their quality. Perfect
products, properly refrigerated for months, may be, and often are,
superior in all the elements of quality to imperfect goods, freshly
marketed or held only a short time. Again, because of the very widely
spread sources of our food supply, the necessity for collection at
innumerable points and transportation over long distances it is
hard to say what goods are “fresh.” Even when collected at interior
points, transported to distant markets and put into consumption with
usual promptness perishable products are often two to four weeks in
the transit from producer to consumer, and often under more or less
unfavorable environments.
Under these circumstances it is seriously to be doubted that there
is any real ethical foundation for the recent demand that, in the
sale of perishable foods, there must be a stated distinction between
so-called “fresh” and stored products, or for the feeling that
consumers asking for broiling chickens in the winter, for instance,
are deceived if furnished with acceptable goods frozen six months
before. And this doubt is intensified, no matter how scrupulous we
may be in standing for truth and fair dealing, when it is considered
how difficult will be the enforcement of laws compelling such
distinction in commodities of irregular quality and condition whose
age and previous environment cannot be known by examination, and in
respect to which a comparison of quality is often in favor of the
older goods.
The writer’s conclusion from the foregoing considerations, based upon
a long and disinterested observation of the practical use of cold
storage preservation, is that artificial refrigeration furnishes
the most important of all modern factors in the conservation of
perishable foods, leading to an increase in their production, and
to a consequent lowering of average prices. Also that governmental
attention to the industry would be more usefully directed toward
providing for continuous and frequent statistical information of
the rate of food accumulation and output, to the end that operators
may be guided by the largest possible knowledge, rather than toward
any undue restriction of the industry or the imposition of costly
and difficult requirements which, though seemingly designed to
prevent deception, are, upon analysis, found to be unnecessary and
impractical.
_NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION COMMISSIONERS._
This Association, consisting of Conservation commissioners and other
persons connected with various departments of State development, held
two sessions during the Conservation Congress. Several important
subjects were considered, but most of the time was given to a
discussion of the work done by certain departments connected with
public service.
The first session considered State Surveys, their work and
co-operation. As a result of this meeting an agreement was reached as
to the order or sequence of the surveys, the object being to secure
for the States the largest returns from each survey. The sequence of
the surveys and the leading points to be emphasized, as decided by
the commissioners, are as follows: (1) topography, (2) structure, (3)
drainage, (4) ground water, (5) local climate, (6) soil, (7) plant
and animal life, (8) social and industrial conditions. This order is
thought to be most helpful so far as the surveys are concerned. It is
also the natural order. It was plainly shown that several States have
wasted time and money in taking up the various surveys in a way that
does not develop these relationships. For instance, some States have
started industrial and agricultural surveys before they have mapped
the geology, topography and water resources. Such an order does not
bring the best results. Furthermore, it is wasteful.
Several prominent directors of State surveys took part in the
discussions of this session, among them being Dr. George W. Field,
Dr. A. H. Purdue, Dr. F. W. DeWolf, Professor Kay, Dr. C. E. Bessey,
Dr. C. H. Gordon, Dr. Frank W. Rane, Prof. George A. Loveland and
Hon. J. E. Beal. Among the other speakers were Hon. George Coupland,
Mr. Ellis, W. E. Barns, Henry A. Barker, H. E. Hardtner and Dr. H. H.
Waite. Dr. David White, of the United States Geological Survey, gave
valuable suggestions.
At the second session of the commissioners, the forest laws of
Louisiana were discussed by Hon. H. E. Hardtner, ex-Chairman
of the Louisiana Conservation Commission. Following this was a
general discussion of forest laws and forest management. Hon. W.
E. Barns, of the Missouri Conservation Commission, gave a talk on
the improvements of lumbering in the South. Prof. Earl O. Fippin
of the Agricultural College of Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.,
read a paper; subject, “The Soil Survey as a Means of Agricultural
Improvement.” This paper was followed by discussion, in which the
value of the soil surveys as it relates to State development, was
brought out with considerable detail.
The officers elected for the ensuing year were: President, Dr. G. E.
Condra, Lincoln, Neb.; Vice-President, Dr. George W. Field, Sharon,
Mass.; Secretary, Henry A. Barker, Providence, R. I.
_ACCIDENT PREVENTION SECTION._
On October 2, 3:30 o’clock, the section on “Accident Prevention” held
a large and enthusiastic meeting in the Auditorium of the German
House. The presiding officer was Mr. M. W. Mix, of Mishawaka, Ind.,
President of the Manufacturers’ Bureau of Indiana. At this meeting
the following resolution was adopted:
Resolved, That we appreciate the efforts now being made by
manufacturers of machinery for use in industrial plants to so far
safeguard their machines as to minimize the danger of personal
injury to workers; and that as manufacturers and individuals
interested in accident prevention we recognize the difficulty,
and in some cases even impossibility, on the part of purchasers
of individual machines to properly attach safeguards; and realize
that the original manufacturers of the machines by reason of their
wide experience and efficient engineers, are better able to develop
and provide proper safeguards for all machinery; and that it is
the sense of this meeting that any efforts along this line are
highly commendable and will be appreciated by all interested in the
Conservation of human life.
Resolved, further; That a copy of this resolution be sent by the
President to every machine manufacturer with a request for his
co-operation.
_CONSERVATION OF WATERS._
Report of the Standing Committee on Waters. W. C. MENDENHALL,
Washington, D. C., Acting Chairman.
To the public the Conservation movement seemed to rise suddenly in
the last few months of 1908 and the early part of the year 1909, but
what the people of the United States was really witnessing then was
not so much the origin of a movement as its organization. Through
a generation before that time Government bureaus, individuals, and
associations here and there had been methodically assembling facts,
and those who were familiar with these facts had been reaching
conclusions that were oftentimes disturbing in their tenor. These
individuals and groups were brought together, their conclusions were
given publicity of a most effective type, and what had been scattered
and disorganized recognition of a vital problem was given solidarity
and nation-wide recognition by the acts of President Roosevelt and
Gifford Pinchot in organizing the National Conservation Commission
and calling the Conference of Governors. The Forest Service, the
Reclamation Service, and the Geological Survey had locked up in their
archives the results of decades of research by their representatives,
and these results supplied the facts which were the stimulus and the
basis for the Conservation movement. Since that first great meeting,
the Conservation Congress, giving official expression to the movement
and formulating its doctrines and its platform, has served as a
medium for the exchange of ideas among those who are engaged in one
or the other of its manifold activities, for the subject-matter of
Conservation is as comprehensive as the materials with which humanity
deals. Furthermore, the term itself has been impressed upon the
public mind. It has passed out of the category of a cult for the few,
and has been taken up by statesmen and politicians, scientists and
divines, commercial organizations, manufacturing associations, and
has even invaded the realm of diplomacy. This proves merely that the
seeds were well sown by those who were sponsors for the movement.
Their work, the task of focusing public attention upon a theretofore
neglected but vital series of problems, was superlatively well done.
Years have passed since that time. It is appropriate that we review
the results of those years as it was appropriate in 1908 to make
our first inventory of the primary subject-matter of Conservation,
namely, our natural resources. The period of initiation, difficult
but well performed, is past. There remains a task that will never be
finished—the equally difficult and the infinitely slower process of
applying the principles of Conservation to our every-day activities.
Such an application must be practical, reasonable, and gradual so
that modes of life and industrial habits in which change is to be
affected can be given time and opportunity to adjust to that change.
How well have we, the workers in the ranks for these principles,
performed our task? In what fashion has the movement been carried on?
What real and creative steps have been taken in the public interest
to reserve for future generations without unnecessary suppression of
opportunity for the individual in the present or denial of his needs,
that share in our natural wealth which should be so reserved?
I shall confine myself to a brief and casual review of that phase of
the Conservation movement which deals with the one resource—water.
Even in dealing with this one item in the subject-matter of
Conservation, I shall have to leave aside for treatment by others,
and indeed by other organizations than this, that phase of the
problem of the waters which deals primarily with transportation and
its allied problems of river improvement and waterway construction.
There still remains a broad field, for water is the universal
resource. Doctor McGee has estimated that the ultimate control of
population in the United States will be exerted by the limitations
in its water supply. We cannot say that this limit in population,
even though it be placed at from five hundred to one thousand
million people, is one that does not concern this generation, for
we feel very keenly now in our arid and semi-arid sections the
handicap which lack of water places upon our growth. Irrigation
and dry-farming methods are attempts to overcome this handicap and
forces us to realize that the ultimate growth predicted by Dr. McGee
can be reached only through the most careful husbanding of the most
universal and important gift of nature—water.
Because the human body, like all other organic structures, is largely
water and because all of its nutritive and renewing processes are
exercised by the function of water as the solvent of other foods, it
has a primary value to man superior to that of any other substance.
Its secondary value, scarcely less important than the primary and
closely related to it in character, is as an aid in the production of
nearly all things which man uses. In the humid regions, the supply
is sufficient naturally so that the necessity of water is ordinarily
given no more thought than the necessity for air, although without
either we should instantly perish. Man’s use of water in crop
production, hence, is automatic and unconscious in the eastern United
States, but in western part, and especially in the arid districts, he
at once becomes conscious of its importance because plans and crops
fail without it. He establishes engineering works and conducts it
to the land in order that food may be grown upon the land. Here, in
the pioneer stages of settlement, comes the first great waste. Water
was and too frequently still is carelessly used in irrigation. An
equivalent of twenty or twenty-five feet in depth has been applied
annually to the land where four or five feet is ample. The excess is
sheer waste and in its application the land is ruined. Canals are
often carelessly constructed and half of their carrying capacity
leaks out before the tract to be irrigated is reached.
As settlement increases and demand becomes more intense, these
conditions are improved. Their improvement in our own arid West
and Southwest began under the pressure of necessity before the
Conservation movement was given a name, but that improvement
nonetheless represented the application of Conservation principles
and the movement centered attention upon this and similar wastes,
made men more generally conscious of them, and stimulated preventive
measures. This stimulus, acting upon the public mind, aided many
of the Government bureaus that for years had been combating such
waste. The Department of Agriculture has a Bureau of Irrigation
Investigations, which has systematically studied irrigation methods
in the West and Southwest and has published many valuable reports
calling attention to the losses of water in irrigation and suggesting
methods for its prevention. The Geological Survey in its series of
water-supply papers has repeatedly warned communities of the injuries
and economic waste resulting from bad management of water supplies.
The Reclamation Service, represented in its foundation a branch of
Conservation, established and made a practical working idea. Since
its foundation it has systematically continued the great work begun
by the passage of its organic act in 1902, and is reclaiming, by
careful and economic methods, millions of otherwise waste acres in
the public land States. It has reached the point where the building
of impounding reservoirs and of the canals by which the impounded
water is conducted to the lands has been brought to practical
completion on many of the projects so that its task is transformed
into one of inducing settlement, of inculcating principles of
economic irrigation practice in the minds of the farmers; of
increasing the duty of water and therefore its usefulness, to the
maximum; and of reclaiming through the establishment of drainage
systems, lands which have been ruined by over-irrigation under the
old systems absorbed by the reclamation projects. This movement is a
part of, has aided, and has in turn been aided by the propaganda. It
is practical Conservation of a high type.
I should like to diverge here for a moment to a collateral phase of
Conservation activity which indirectly bears upon reclamation by
irrigation. Our coal land laws provide for the sale of those parts of
the public domain underlain by coal deposits at prices of not less
than $10 or $20 per acre. Prior to 1906, this law was interpreted
as evaluating coal lands on the basis of the thickness, quality and
depths of individual beds, and basing sale prices upon these values.
Through the fruition of this policy, coal lands are no longer sold
at the minimum legal price unless they have minimum values. If coals
are of sufficiently good quality and exist in sufficient thickness,
they may now be sold at $40, $50, $100, $200, or even $500 per acre.
A recent sale in the Rock Springs district, Wyoming, of one section
of land at prices ranging from $370 to $410 per acre, netted the
Government one quarter of a million dollars more than would have
been received under the old policy of sales at minimum prices. This
increment of a quarter million goes, like all other receipts from
sales of public lands, into the reclamation fund and is there used
in the application of water to the arid lands in the West. The
Conservation phase of the present coal land policies is thus closely
related to the question of waters and their use. The valuation of
this natural resource and the sale at valuation prices was one
of the collateral movements which stimulated and led to public
recognition of the need of Conservation. It is a thoroughly practical
application of Conservation principles and is an excellent example of
governmental activity in this direction.
In one of the arid valleys of southern California in which irrigated
lands bring prices of from $500 to $3,000 per acre and in which the
limit to the number of acres to which such values are affixed depends
wholly upon the quantity of water available, there has of course
been earnest study of every possible means by which this quantity
could be increased or made to serve a larger acreage. Here, in 1909,
an interesting, practical step in Conservation was taken. Prior
to that period water users in this valley who derive an important
part of their supply from underground resources which, because of
excessive drafts, were becoming depleted, had adopted the unique
device of spreading flood waters which would otherwise escape to the
sea and be lost, over the rough alluvial lands at the base of the
mountain slopes in order that they might there sink and replenish
the underground resources. The lands best adapted to this purpose
had remained public lands because of their rough and uncultivable
character, although adjacent to them were privately owned lands
worth many hundreds of dollars per acre. In 1909 a law was passed by
which these public lands were set aside for use in the distribution
of these flood waters. They are now, and will remain, a permanent
public reserve devoted to the conservation of water supplies and
the increase of the quantity available for irrigation in a region
in which water for this purpose has perhaps a higher value than in
any other part of the United States. Here again is an example of
practical Conservation work accomplished through the co-operation of
private and governmental agencies.
The passage of the so-called Weeks bill in 1911 likewise marks a
great advance in the direction of Conservation legislation. This is
the bill which provides for the creation of an Appalachian forest
reserve by the purchase of privately owned lands in the Appalachian
Mountains. Its administration is in the hands of a commission whose
active agents are the Forest Service and the Geological Survey, and
one of the features of the bill is the clause which provides that the
Geological Survey must affirm that the purchase of the lands will
favorably affect the navigability of the streams on whose headwaters
they lie, before the purchase can be made. Thus the conservation
of waters is involved as well as that of the forests and of lands
through the prevention of erosion. Those of you who for years
advocated such a bill and assisted in its final enactment will agree
with me, I believe, in the statement that its passage would not have
been possible without the preliminary education of public opinion
accomplished by the great pioneer advocates of the Conservation
principles.
There is and will continue to be need for revision of the laws
under which the administrative officers of the Government work to
the end that these officers may administer our public resources
more economically, more effectively, with less waste and therefore
more thoroughly in the public interest. The enactment of laws does
not anticipate the need for their enactment. There must always
be widespread recognition of that need before public opinion
crystallizes into statute. For, after all, the enactment of a law
is nothing more nor less than the recognition on the part of our
lawmakers of a public necessity which you and I as citizens force
upon their attention. Until new laws can be secured, the task of the
administrative officer is to administer with the greatest efficiency
possible those laws that do exist. Under the stimulus of an active
public opinion an interpretation may be given old laws which will
enable them to fit the newer and changed conditions, for no enactment
is absolutely rigid in its terms. An example of this adaptation of a
law long upon our statute books to the passing of pioneer conditions
in the West and the substitution for them of those changed conditions
that result from augmented population, is that of the coal land law
to which your attention has been called. The statute has not been
altered since its passage in 1873, but coal lands are being sold
under it now at prices which are based upon real values instead of at
the lowest possible price under the law, as was true prior to 1906.
Under the stimulus of the changed character of public opinion, which
has resulted from Conservation agitation, all of our public land laws
are being carefully scrutinized to determine whether they do not
admit of an interpretation and of an administration that is more in
consonance with Conservation principles than the interpretation and
administration of the past. Among the statutes thus scrutinized is
the Carey Act, a law only less vital to the West than the Reclamation
Act. In general it provides that public lands may be transferred by
the Federal Government to the State in which they lie if that State
will enter into a contract for their irrigation, by the terms of
which they will eventually be delivered to bona fide homesteaders
in tracts of suitable size. Undoubtedly, there have been instances
in the past of careless administration of this law. The Federal
Government has considered that its responsibility to the settler
had ceased when the lands were turned over to the State in trust
to him. The State, in turn, has considered that its responsibility
ceased when the contract with the irrigating company was signed,
and this company has been left free to deal with its actual and
prospective settlers in a fashion that was intended too frequently
to bring profits to a promoting company rather than water upon arid
lands. It has thus happened that settlers, depending upon the State
and through the State upon the Federal Government for protection of
their interests, have found when the time came to apply for patents
to their lands that although they had paid to a company large sums
for water supplies, the water was not delivered, the land could not
be reclaimed as the law required, and they were therefore unable to
secure patent to it; but the irrigating or promoting company to which
their funds had gone had disappeared and was inaccessible under the
law. The genuine farmer, who at the sacrifice of hard-earned funds
and years of labor was intended to be the beneficiary of this law,
became instead its victim. This condition is believed to be past.
The Federal Government and many of the States are now exhibiting
a keen recognition of their responsibilities and of scrutinizing
with the utmost care the water supply of each proposed project, the
practicability of the engineering features of that project, and
the financial standing and responsibility of its backers. A recent
interesting example of this changed attitude occurred in one of
the Western States, which in the past has administered this law
carelessly, but I am glad to record is now exhibiting due care in
meeting its responsibilities. In this case, literature issued by the
promoters came to the attention of the Department of the Interior.
In this literature statements were made to prospective buyers as to
the available water supply and as to the acreage to which it would be
applied that were known from the departmental records to be highly
misleading. The attention of the Governor of the State was called to
this condition of affairs by an emphatic letter from the Secretary
of the Interior. The State in turn called upon the promoting company
for an explanation. The representatives of the company hastened to
Washington for a hearing. As a result of that hearing, the acreage
segregated in the project was promptly reduced, the company was
forced to agree to cease its sale of water rights to private lands
until the rights of the Government lands to which it was inviting
settlers were satisfied, and thus the situation so full of menace to
prospective settlers was promptly corrected. Other examples of this
type of action which represents closer, more careful administration
of old laws might be multiplied. Each of them marks a step in the
application of the principles for which the Conservation Congress
stands.
If the first use of water by man is in the direct sustenance of
life and its second is for the production of food supplies through
irrigation, perhaps its third most important use is the development
of power for all of those manifold purposes tending toward the
amelioration of life and the increase of its comforts, for which
power may be used. Cities are lighted; street cars are moved; ores
are smelted; manufacturing plants are supplied with their motive
power; homes are heated; and water is pumped for irrigation by the
use of hydro-electric power. No question has been the subject of
more bitter controversy than that of the control of this tremendous
resource. It has been energetically sought on the one hand by those
who seek opportunities for profit and desire that no control be
exercised over those opportunities by the power of the State. On
the other hand, public opinion, working largely through its State
and Federal representatives, has demanded that this resource whose
magnitude can be but rudely estimated, and whose future value but
guessed at, be so controlled that communities depending upon it shall
not be unduly taxed for the purpose of piling up private profits.
Here again, both public opinion and Federal officers have repeatedly
urged the enactment of new laws which will make possible the exercise
of reasonable control in the public interests and at the same time
properly safeguard capital which must be invested in order that the
resources now wasted may develop and become useful. Bills have been
introduced and debated in Congress; conferences have been held with
representatives of the public and of capital, but the plans thus far
considered have brought no fruition in amended legislation, although
some excellent bills are under consideration and it is believed will
soon become law. Here again, the task of the administrative officer
is to so interpret and apply the laws now upon our statute books,
pending the enactment of others more satisfactory, that development
may continue and the rights of the public of this generation and
the next be at the same time duly safeguarded. Here also there has
been progress in the interpretation of law. The responsibility for
the administration of the laws for the development of water powers
in the national forests lies in the Forest Service where it is
admirably exercised in the public interest. The law which provides
for the development of powers on the public domain, whether within or
without the reserves, is a permissory law, one that authorizes the
department having jurisdiction to permit the development of these
water powers under general regulations to be fixed by the Secretary.
After a thorough study of the situation, the Forest Service on
December 28, 1910, issued certain regulations providing for the
development of powers under this permissory law, the permit being
by the terms of the law itself subject to cancellation at any time
and the regulations under it providing for moderate charges upon the
developing company. With these regulations in force in the national
forests, and no similar procedure provided for on the public lands
outside the forests which are under the jurisdiction of the Interior
Department, applicants for the privilege of developing water powers
which lay in part within and in part without the forest reserves
found themselves under two jurisdictions without any provision for
uniform procedure. The problem as to the precise amount of control
that could be exercised on the Interior Department lands under the
act of 1901 has not been solved until recently; but as a result
of this final solution, there were approved by Secretary Fisher
on the 24th of August, 1912, regulations controlling the issue of
permits for power development outside of the national forests that
are in substantial accord with those heretofore in force within the
forests. These regulations provide for the exercise of the authority
of the Secretary in a definite, uniform, and systematic manner
that much more fully safeguards the rights of the public than the
policy heretofore pursued in relation to public water powers. The
situation, therefore, seems to be as well safeguarded as it can be
under the present statutes, at least so far as hydro-electric powers
on other than navigable streams are concerned, and this end has
been accomplished not by new legislation, which we all recognize
as badly needed, but by a proper interpretation and acceptance of
responsibility under old legislation.
An incidental phase of the effort to administer a law which provides
for no definite tenure of lands having power values has been the
constantly repeated attempt of interests desiring to acquire valuable
water powers to secure them under the irrigation laws, those laws
having great advantage from the commercial viewpoint of providing for
a grant instead of a revocable permit. Application after application
has been filed with the Department of the Interior in which it is
stated solemnly that the rights of way are desired for purposes of
irrigation, when it is perfectly obvious to the engineering advisers
of the Secretary that the power value is the dominant value and that
if the waters are used for irrigation at all, it will be merely in
order to effect a technical compliance with the law under which
they are acquired. Refusal to approve rights of way of this type
have been followed by appeals and by emphatic protests on the part
of the applicants. These protests take various forms. Among them
are attempts to influence public opinion through various congresses
similar to this Congress, and other attempts to secure the enactment
of special legislation which will grant to the applicant that which
he is unable to secure through the administrative officers. In a
particularly interesting case of this type recently acted upon by
the Department of the Interior, the acting Secretary expressed the
present policy of the department in these emphatic terms, which I am
sure will appeal to every member of this Congress. He said:
I consider it the imperative duty of every supervisory officer of
the Government upon whom any duty devolves to conserve the paramount
interests of the people, to protect these natural power sites from
exploitation under any law which successfully invoked would turn
them over to private interests charged with a perpetual easement
against the United States.
One other type of administrative action in connection with the
conservation of water resources has recently been inaugurated which
may well be brought to the attention of this Congress. This is a new
exercise by the President of the power of withdrawal conferred upon
him by the so-called withdrawal act, approved June 25, 1910, and
amended August 24, 1912. By this action those lands in arid States
upon which small water supplies essential to the control of the
adjoining range are situated are withheld from entry. Those of you
who are acquainted with the range industry of Wyoming, Utah, Arizona,
and New Mexico realize that the use and control of the ranges are
exercised not so much through the ownership of the range lands
themselves as through the ownership of small tracts which include
the springs and other watering places that alone make the ranges
accessible and of value. Literal war has been waged between rival
stock interests in parts of the West over the control of springs.
Large interests have frequently forced their rivals to abandon the
range in a particular area by acquiring through the application of
scrip or by a real or pretended exercise of homestead rights the
lands on which the springs that alone give value to the range are
located. Laws have from time to time been considered which will
provide properly for the disposition of those remaining parts of the
public domain that are chiefly valuable for grazing purposes. It is
recognized that the homestead and desert land laws are inappropriate
for the acquisition of range lands in that they do not provide for a
sufficient acreage to make the stock industry possible. If the time
shall come when such a law is placed upon the statute books, and at
that time all of the water supplies adjacent to the ranges shall have
been acquired by private interests, the Government will be unable
to dispose of its range lands even under a favorable law except to
those who already control the water supplies which are the key to the
situation. Recognizing this important condition and desiring likewise
to provide for fair play between rival stock men on the remaining
public lands, the President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary
of the Interior, has inaugurated the policy of withholding from entry
lands upon which these desert watering places exist, and in pursuance
of this policy the first desert water hole withdrawal was made in
March, 1912.
It will be realized from this brief review that the process of
translating the Conservation doctrines into action is well under
way. Before and since the First Conservation Congress met, Federal
bureaus have advocated practical measures for the proper use of our
natural resources, water among them. With the enlightenment of public
opinion dating from the organization of the National Commission and
the meeting of the Governors the work has been greatly facilitated.
It is advancing now not only through the medium of the unorganized
effort of individuals, associations, and isolated bureaus and
divisions in the public service, but by the organized efforts of
an enthusiastic body of supporters. Laws embodying its principles
have passed, proposed laws inimical to those principles have been
defeated, old laws have been re-examined and reinterpreted to accord
more fully with Conservation doctrines in the public interests. Party
platforms are no longer complete without a Conservation plank and
indeed it may almost be said that a new party has been founded upon
the Conservation idea. On the whole the country and this Congress
have ample ground for optimism in considering the great advance that
has been made.
_WILD LIFE PROTECTION._
Report of Standing Committee, Dr. W. T. HORNADAY, New York City,
Chairman.
The Committee on Wild Life Protection wishes to call the attention
of the Congress to the enormous losses that are being inflicted upon
the farming and fruit-growing interests of the United States through
the destruction of insect-eating birds. While the main facts of the
situation are known to many persons, the mass of the people of the
United States are sound asleep on this subject. The 5,000,000 men
and boys who are slaughtering our birds are levying tribute on every
American pocketbook. An immense number of birds of great economic
value are being slaughtered annually, and many of our most useful and
valuable bird species are on the toboggan slide toward extermination.
The destruction of our insect-eating birds means a great increase
in the armies of destructive insects, a great decrease in our
agricultural products, and a great loss to consumers and to farmers.
The value of the birds destroyed as “game” and for “food” is declared
to be not equal to one-thousandth of the value they would save to the
national wealth, if permitted to live.