grouped in multifarious communities overlapping and combining in such
wise as measurably to control the action of each individual and family,
and shape the character and career of the state. It is the essence of the
community that each surrenders some share of individuality for the common
good; and the benefits usually vary with the nearness of the constituents
in person and in interest. While endlessly protean, communities may be
classed by purpose as (1) for public benefit, (2) for class benefit, and
(3) for private benefit—of which the first and some of the second merge
in the state. Now, the community may be likened to a miller’s bolt, in
that it grades individuals according to characteristics, and in the
overlapping communities of the country each individual falls more or less
fairly into fit place according to the judgment of contemporaries. Yet
the customary flexibility of the community allows the less designing and
more generous constituents to lose position and permits the designing and
selfish to gain undue power—and partly for this reason the communities
for private and class benefit tend to multiply, while communities for
public benefit tend to become subverted to the ends of shrewd and
self-seeking leaders.
Despite primary dependence on individuals and families, the power
and continuity of the state are measured largely by the strength and
sagacity of its communities, especially those designed for public
benefit. Yet grave dangers lurk in that multiplication and subversion
of communities tending to subordinate public good to private greed. Two
current tendencies may be signalized as especially ominous: (1) through
an insidious legal fiction certain communities for private benefit (_e.
g._, corporations for profit) have come to be viewed as possessing the
property rights of individuals, whereby their constituents (partners,
stockholders, _et al_) enjoy dual privileges as actual persons and in
the pseudo-personalities of their corporations. So that privileged
classes are arising among us, despite a republican constitution under
which all are equal. (2) Through a development not sanctioned by the
constitution, and most solemnly denounced by that steady balance-wheel
of the constitutional convention, afterward First President, the form of
community known as “political party” grew up, and, though first designed
for public benefit, became subverted through self-seeking leadership
into the machine organization, diverting attention of citizens from
the public welfare and promoting graft and bribery and worse evils,
especially in cities—where the party “machine” is commonly a cover for
corruption. These two unrepublican forces have not unnaturally drawn
together, and often combine, interests in private behalf and against
the public welfare; and in them lies the chief menace to the Republic.
Clearly, maintenance of the integrity and power of the state demands
due regulation of these and other community forces. Largely through
the conservation movement, the public conscience and the spirit of
citizenship have been awakened as never before. Citizens are entering
on exercise of their rights as a sacred duty, and through such community
devices as municipal commissions, direct primaries and the gradual
adoption of initiative and referendum and recall, they are rapidly
restoring government of the people, by the people, for the people—the
only form of government assuring perpetuity to a great and progressive
country.
THE GROWTH OF ORGANIZATION.
In a republic such as this, the state (including commonwealth and nation)
merely sums the constituent individuals and families and communities,
and—theoretically—organizes the popular will. Now, the hardest lesson of
the long course of human progress is that of individual responsibility
for the general welfare, a responsibility first realized by the founders
of the Republic and fully realized today by few of our citizens. But
those are of the salt of the earth. Fortunately, our forebears saw the
way to develop a responsible citizenry united in popular government,
the chief requisite being the independent family home on land producing
the prime necessaries of life; and such was the real foundation of the
Republic. Later, manufacturing and transportation grew until a majority
of our electors became industrial dependents and only a minority were
primary producers. Still later, partly through the influence of a
great governmental department under the leadership of a great farmer
for fifteen years, agriculture has again become respectable, and the
tiller of the soil is once more the exemplar of that citizenship on
which the power and prestige of the Republic must ever depend. Thus far
the movement “back to the farm” is hardly shown in population figures,
though clearly indicated by farm values. During the decade 1900-1910,
the farm area increased only 4.2 per cent and the acreage of improved
farms only 15.2 per cent, while the acre value of farm lands increased
108.7 per cent and the aggregate value no less than 117.4 per cent. This
increase is connected with the high cost of living, especially in cities,
though the advance in prices has thus far benefited transportation and
trade rather than the primary producers. In 1900 we paid our railways
$1,650,000,000 and in 1910 about $2,750,000,000, 70 per cent of which was
freightage—an advance of 67 per cent. Considered as a tax on improved
land (justifiably, in that the cost of transportation limits production),
this was $4.00 per acre in 1900 and $5.76 in 1910, an increase of 44 per
cent, or as a per capita tax it was $21.74 in 1900 and $30.00 in 1910, an
increase of 38 per cent—all of which ratios of increase are far higher
than that of farm prices for farm products. Howsoever the factors of our
recent growth are arranged, it is clear that primary production, fallen
behind during recent decades, must be brought up—which can best be done
by fertilizing the acres with brains, and so controlling natural forces
and materials as to increase production both per acre and per worker.
THE FARMER’S RESOURCES.
It cannot be too strongly emphasized that if there be anything in the
lessons of past human progress or in modern science, this is feasible.
During the generations, natural productivity has been multiplied, and
today the sun-power with which the farmer plays is over 1,700 horsepower
per acre for each crop, so that the farmer has larger command over
natural forces than any other industrian. Nor can it be too strongly
emphasized, in the light of all human experience, that the needful
apotheosis of agriculture will at once revive individual and family life,
relieve the burden of living, and restore that independent citizenship
without which the free government in which we so justly glory may hardly
be conserved for the benefit of coming generations. Herein lies a sacred
duty; it is the duty of the whole people forming the Republic, but
especially of the farmer folk who furnish its strength.
This vast interior, of which the like is not to be found on earth, is the
bread basket and meat hamper of the country. The career of the Nation
is destined to be shaped largely by the teeming crops of its acres in
foodstuffs and clothing wares, and yet more largely by that richer crop
produced through union of man and earth, the strong manhood and gracious
womanhood and prepotent childhood of the highest type of humanity the
world has seen. Yet this consummation will not come without foresight
and effort. The resources must be developed conservatively; lower nature
must be further subjugated; sun-power must be better directed and water
supply better used. The spirit of free citizenship must be fostered
and the franchise exercised fully; tendencies of communities against
public welfare must be counteracted; transportation must be cheapened by
regulation and by proper use of the finest natural system of waterways
on earth. Statesmen in sympathy with the people—and in a republic he is
not a statesman who lacks that sympathy—must be developed in lieu of
pseudo-statesmen serving special privilege. Laws must be enacted and
executed in behalf of all the people, and special and class legislation
must be checked. Public utilities must be controlled in the public
interest and their conduct kept open to the public; corporations must be
given opportunity second only to individuals, but must not be permitted
to invade individuality, nor must partisan issues be allowed to delude
the unwary. These are among the requisites for the continued welfare
of this interior and for the perpetuity of this Nation. The duty and
the responsibility devolve directly on the people; and it is the aim of
conservation to fan and keep aflame the moral light behind the material
movement.
President WHITE—Ladies and gentlemen, we are now ready to adjourn the
morning session. We want you to be back here with all of your friends and
everybody that you can get to come, at two o’clock sharp. The afternoon
session is going to be a very interesting one. Everybody should be
present. The Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Walter L. Fisher, will speak
at 2:30. We stand adjourned.
_EIGHTH SESSION._
President WHITE—Ladies and gentlemen, delegates to the Third National
Conservation Congress, we will now come to order. Mr. Coburn will preside
this afternoon, and will now take the Chair. (Applause)
Chairman COBURN—Ladies and gentlemen, the meeting will be opened with
prayer by the Rev. Dr. Munro, of Kansas City.
INVOCATION.
Our Gracious God and our Father, we thank Thee for the
inexhaustible resources which Thou hast placed at our command.
We thank Thee therefore for the infinite possibilities that
are at our disposal. We pray, therefore, that we may use them
wisely, doing those things that will serve and in themselves
will glorify Thee. Not only do we seek Thy glory but we seek
the betterment of mankind and the advancement of humanity and
the elevation of our much loved land. Direct us therefore in
all that we shall undertake to say or do this afternoon. We
thank Thee that in order to make the best of what we have and
what we are and what we possess, even our very circumstances,
Thou hast sent Thine own dear Son to give His life for us that
we might thus be able to reach the holiest heights. Bless those
who speak to us, and direct us in all our deliberations, we ask
in Christ’s name and for His sake. Amen.
[Here Mr. Bryan entered the room and was received with loud cheers.]
Chairman COBURN—The first number on this program as presented to the
Chair is entitled “Practical Methods of Soil Cultivation,” to be
treated by Professor A. M. Ten Eyck, the very capable head of the
Kansas Experimental station at Hays. I have pleasure in presenting him.
(Applause)
[Prof. Ten Eyck’s address will be found in Supplementary Proceedings.]
Prof. CONDRA—I have in mind a resolution that I think this Congress,
representing more than 1,200 conservation delegates, would like to
adopt. There is a man in the far Northwest who has done much, in the
way of labor and leadership, for the cause of conservation. Let us send
greetings to the Hon. Gifford Pinchot. (Applause)
President WHITE—I second the motion.
Chairman COBURN—You have heard the motion, which has been duly seconded.
All of you in favor of its adoption please manifest it by saying aye. The
motion is unanimously carried.
Chairman COBURN—Conservation and the National Domain. We are fortunate
that this important subject is to be discussed here this afternoon by the
Honorable, the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Walter L. Fisher, whom I
now have the pleasure of presenting. (Applause)
Mr. FISHER—Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Delegates of the National
Conservation Congress: I am a conservationist who realizes that many of
the problems of conservation have not yet been rightly solved, but who
has no apologies to make. I am here by a very strenuous effort and the
cancellation of a number of important engagements, in order to express my
continued adherence to the general principles upon which this movement
is founded, and to offer my assistance, officially and unofficially, in
carrying those principles into execution. (Applause)
As I said a little while ago at another meeting, my statisticians who are
traveling with me tell me I have covered something in the neighborhood
of 16,000 miles in an effort to get a little better acquainted with a
portion of the Department of the Interior. I presume that many of you
would rather hear from me today about that country in the Far North, to
which allusion has already been made, and upon which national attention
has been so rightly concentrated. I refer to Alaska. However, it is my
opinion that in that, as in all other matters, wisest conclusions will be
reached when all the facts are known. I have spent a considerable amount
of time in traveling through that portion of Alaska in which the most
acute problems have arisen. I have been peculiarly fortunate in being
able to cover much more territory than I had believed possible. And I
think I have reached some general conclusions which, while they may be
wrong, nevertheless are the conclusions which I expect to present to the
President and to the Nation in proper time and form.
I would be perfectly willing to present them to this audience whose
interests in the question I recognize, were it not for the fact that
I am waiting for two reports upon the coal situation which I have not
yet been able to receive. One of these reports is from the geological
survey and one from the director of the bureau of mines, who is just now
returning from the largest and probably the most important coal field in
that country. I have gone over these matters somewhat in detail with the
President of the United States, and am gratified to be able to say to
you and to the public that there are no differences of opinion between
him and me upon those questions—that he is ready, as am I, to suggest a
solution which will at least recognize our obligation for constructive
recommendations upon this important matter.
For I believe that the thing which is most important for conservationists
to understand is that they cannot shirk their full share of the
responsibility for constructive legislation. Criticism is justly levelled
at a policy of inaction, and that criticism should be disarmed at once
by the conscientious and sincere effort of men who are identified with
this movement, to find a way out. (Applause) I believe that conservation
in its last analysis means nothing but wise development, in the public
interest. (Applause) And I believe that the first public interest is wise
development, but that the emphasis should be put on the character of the
development as much as upon development itself.
MISUNDERSTOOD AND MISREPRESENTED.
The difficulty with the conservation movement so far has been that it has
been both misunderstood and misrepresented. There are those who profess
allegiance to the principles for which you stand, and yet are quick to
find objection to every concrete suggestion for carrying those principles
into effect. There are those who find that the present situation presents
many difficulties, but who content themselves with insisting merely
upon sitting on the lid. I think the proper place for the conservation
movement is with neither of those parties, but with the men who genuinely
recognize that when we have worked out those principles under which
development can go forward without danger of monopoly and for the public
good, the conservation movement should get behind those policies and push
them with all the strength that the public sentiment which has already
been manifested to be behind this movement can exert. (Applause)
The topic which has been assigned to me, as was first suggested, is
“Conservation and the Public Domain.” It is a large subject, and as I
have had no opportunity whatever to do more than to make a few casual
notes on the train, you will have to pardon the informality and the
inadequacy of the address which I shall present.
I will probably make some mistakes in what I say; probably in the wording
of some things I shall not be quite as accurate as I would like; but I
reserve that right now, which I reserve at all times, to change my mind
tomorrow morning if I see things differently then. (Applause)
In the first place, the conservation movement is a thoroughly
non-partisan movement, and it should be distinctly so understood.
Perhaps the best evidence of that that occurs to me upon the moment
is that when the Conservation League of America was formed, at the
instigation of Theodore Roosevelt, then President of the United States,
he became honorary president, and Mr. Bryan and Mr. Taft became honorary
vice-presidents. (Applause) While the position of president fell to me,
John Mitchell and Gustave Schwab, perhaps representing the two extremes
of industrial interest, were vice-presidents of the organization. In
this way I think we presented in the organization of that particular
association a thing which I wish to bring home, so far as I can, to
the American people, namely, that there is no partisan politics of any
kind in this movement, neither industrial politics, nor any other kind
of politics, but that it is the interest of the people, and the whole
people, and of no one but the whole people, that is at stake.
The national domain naturally divides itself into the great subdivisions
of lands, minerals, forests and water. If you will pardon me for a moment
I will undertake to present, very candidly, some views of my own upon
each of these topics. Of course, the first to which I have referred, that
of land, embraces the entire subject, because, broadly speaking, the
land is supposed to include the mineral within it, the water which flows
over it, and the forests which grow on it. Nevertheless, there are many
problems included within the public domain which distinctly relate to
land as land, and contradistinguished from the other main subdivisions or
topics that I have mentioned.
NOT A NEW POLICY.
Now, there is a great hue and cry, in certain sections, that in some way
the Nation has departed from its ancient policies, with reference to
land. It is my personal conviction that no change has been made that has
not been necessitated by changed or different conditions. For instance,
when we started out in this country, the forest area as a whole was not
particularly valuable for lumber, but on the contrary it was an obstacle
to agricultural development. The forest had to be cleared before the land
itself could be put under cultivation, and that related particularly to
the most valuable land. It was covered with forests. As we got into the
central West that particular problem began to disappear. We had less
difficulty in removing forests. We found more prairie and upland ready
for the plow, and the result was that the question of forestry, the
question of the removal of the timber became of diminishing importance.
When we got into the extreme West we found a great subdivision in the
character of our federal domain. While we found forested areas in the
mountains, and in the more broken country, we found that the great
territory lying west of the Mississippi river was in the main free from
trees. But we have only recently learned that the land which never had
the tree upon it, which has upon it today nothing but the sage brush,
is after all the most valuable agricultural land which the Nation has
possessed. We have found that the great problem of today in the West is
how to get water upon the desert so that it may blossom like the garden
and may become the most fertile and most productive portion of our
national domain. As a result, the relative importance of the forest from
the agricultural point of view has diminished, and the problem in the
West today, as I have seen it during weeks of travel through irrigation
projects, Indian offices, land offices, is how to get the water on the
land, and the settler to follow the water. And I think if our friends
who are particularly concerned about excessive forest reservations would
devote their attention, first to getting settlers on those lands, which
are worth ten times what their forest area is worth for agricultural
purposes, the development of the West will go forward more rapidly than
in any other way. (Applause) There are, however, many special problems
connected with the land question that it is necessary to solve, and I
shall pass rapidly to some of them.
Let us take the question of coal. There is a large area of coal reserved
in the Western country from present entry. This coal land, under the
statute which now prevails, is rapidly becoming available. There is
considerable disappointment or disapproval of the policy of withdrawal
of coal lands in certain portions of the West. Usually, as I have found
by personal contact with the people of those areas, and by discussion
at public meetings, the disapproval is on the part of the people who
wish to exploit coal by getting it and holding it without present
development, in expectation of reaping the unearned increment from the
future growth of the country. Recently a letter was written to me, and
given wide publicity by a member of Congress, to which I intend shortly
to pay some attention, and I think perhaps at this time it would be just
as well to discuss one or two of the features that are embodied in this
correspondence. Congressman Mondell, of Wyoming, has written a letter in
which he complains that the present policy of classifying public coal
lands has resulted in increasing the price of coal to the consumer from
fifty cents to a dollar a ton; that it has created a monopoly in the
hands of the government, and that the prices are prohibitive.
SOME RESOURCE FIGURES.
I think that at this time, perhaps, it would be well to give some figures
upon these various points, and I shall take this opportunity to do so.
There are estimated to be, west of the 100th meridian, 620 billion tons
of anthracite and bituminous coal; 650 billion tons of sub-bituminous,
and 720 billion tons of lignite. The valuation which the Department
of the Interior, through its geological survey, has placed upon these
lands, is based upon the theory that the purchaser, instead of paying
a flat rate per acre, pays by the ton for the coal which he buys at
values graded according to the character of the coal. For instance, the
price of land underlaid by anthracite and high grade bituminous coals
is computed at the maximum of three cents a ton, whereas sub-bituminous
coal of only moderate fuel value is rated at one-half cent per ton. An
exception to the tonnage basis is made in cases of lignite in the lowest
grades of sub-bituminous coals. These are valued at the prices fixed by
law as the minimum prices at which coal land can be valued. No lignites
whatever have been given values of hundreds of dollars an acre, as has
been claimed, nor any value better than the minimum, $20, fixed by the
statute if within fifteen miles of a railroad and $10 if at a greater
distance. The tonnage value for coal sold in the ground, according to
the best information obtainable, should be in general from one-fifth to
one-half of the royalty value of the same coal if paid for as mined.
The classification prices used by the Geological Survey are, in fact,
lower—in some cases very much lower. It is plainly impossible that the
result of the classification policy has been to increase the cost of coal
to the consumer as much as fifty cents on a dollar a ton, as claimed,
since the maximum government price is only three cents a ton.