Produced by Bryan Ness, Stephen H. Sentoff and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
ADDRESSES AND PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
SECOND
National Conservation Congress
HELD AT
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 5-8
1910
[Illustration: BERNARD N. BAKER
Baltimore, Md.
President, Second National Conservation Congress]
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
Second
National Conservation Congress
AT
Saint Paul
SEPTEMBER 5-8, 1910
"Let us conserve the foundations of our prosperity"
(Declaration of the Governors, 1908)
WASHINGTON
NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS
1911
W. F. ROBERTS COMPANY
PRINTERS
WASHINGTON, D. C.
[Illustration: HON. J. B. WHITE
Kansas City, Mo.
Chairman, Executive Committee, Second National Conservation
Congress and Third National Conservation Congress]
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES FOR 1909-10
_President_
B. N. BAKER, Baltimore
_Executive Secretary_
THOMAS R. SHIPP, Washington, D. C.
_Secretary_
L. FRANK BROWN, Seattle
_Vice-Presidents_
JOHN BARRETT, Washington, D. C.
JAMES S. WHIPPLE, Albany
E. J. WICKSON, Berkeley
ALFRED C. ACKERMAN, Athens, Ga.
HENRY A. BARKER, Providence
_Executive Committee_
J. B. WHITE, Kansas City, Mo., _Chairman_
B. N. BAKER, Baltimore
J. N. TEAL, Portland, Ore.
A. B. FARQUHAR, York, Pa.
L. H. BAILEY, Ithaca
THOMAS BURKE, Seattle
HENRY E. HARDTNER, Urania, La.
W. A. FLEMING JONES, Las Cruces
Mrs PHILIP N. MOORE, Saint Louis
Mrs J. ELLEN FOSTER, Washington, D. C.
_Local Board of Managers for the Saint Paul Congress_
Hon. A. O. EBERHART, _Chairman_
FRANK B. KELLOGG, _Vice-Chairman_
J. S. BELL, Minneapolis
H. A. TUTTLE, Minneapolis
GEORGE M. GILLETTE, Minneapolis
B. F. NELSON, Minneapolis
L. S. DONALDSON, Minneapolis
JOSEPH H. BEEK, Saint Paul
GEORGE H. PRINCE, Saint Paul
REUBEN WARNER, Saint Paul
PAUL W. DOTY, Saint Paul
THEODORE W. GRIGGS, Saint Paul
W. C. HANDY, _Secretary_
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES FOR 1910-11
_President_
HENRY WALLACE, Des Moines
_Executive Secretary_
THOMAS R. SHIPP, Washington, D. C.
_Treasurer_
D. AUSTIN LATCHAW, Kansas City, Mo.
_Recording Secretary_
JAMES C. GIPE, Clarks, La.
_Executive Committee_
J. B. WHITE, Kansas City, Mo., _Chairman_
B. N. BAKER, Baltimore
L. H. BAILEY, Ithaca
JAMES R. GARFIELD, Cleveland
FRANK C. GOUDY, Denver
W. A. FLEMING JONES, Las Cruces
Mrs PHILIP N. MOORE, Saint Louis
WALTER H. PAGE, New York
GEORGE C. PARDEE, Oakland, Cal.
GIFFORD PINCHOT, Washington, D. C.
J. N. TEAL, Portland, Ore.
E. L. WORSHAM, Atlanta
_Vice-Presidents_
ALABAMA, Hon. Albert P. Bush, Mobile; ALASKA, Hon. James Wickersham,
Fairbanks; ARIZONA, B. A. Fowler, Phenix; ARKANSAS, A. H. Purdue,
Fayetteville; CALIFORNIA, E. H. Cox, San Francisco; COLORADO, Murdo
Mackenzie, Trinidad; COLUMBIA (District of), W J McGee, Washington;
CONNECTICUT, Rollin S. Woodruff, Hartford; DELAWARE, Hon. George Gray,
Wilmington; FLORIDA, Cromwell Gibbons, Jacksonville; GEORGIA, Hon. Jno.
C. Hart, Union Point; HAWAII, Mrs Margaret R. Knudsen, Kanai; IDAHO,
James A. MacLean, University of Idaho; ILLINOIS, Julius Rosenwald,
Chicago; INDIANA, F. J. Breeze, Lafayette; IOWA, Carl Leopold,
Burlington; KANSAS, W. R. Stubbs, Topeka; KENTUCKY, James K. Patterson,
Lexington; LOUISIANA, Newton C. Blanchard, Shreveport; MAINE, Bert M.
Fernald, Augusta; MARYLAND, William Bullock Clark, Baltimore;
MASSACHUSETTS, Frank W. Rane, Boston; MICHIGAN, J. L. Snyder, Lansing;
MINNESOTA, Ambrose Tighe, Saint Paul; MISSISSIPPI, A. W. Shands, Sardis;
MISSOURI, Hermann Von Schrenk, Saint Louis; MONTANA, E. L. Norris,
Helena; NEBRASKA, Dr F. A. Long, Madison; NEVADA, Senator Francis G.
Newlands, Reno; NEW HAMPSHIRE, George B. Leighton, Monadnock; NEW
JERSEY, Charles Lathrop Pack, Lakewood; NEW MEXICO, W. A. Fleming Jones,
Las Cruces; NEW YORK, R. A. Pearson, Albany; NORTH CAROLINA, T. Gilbert
Pearson, Greensboro; NORTH DAKOTA, U. G. Larimore, Larimore; OHIO, James
R. Garfield, Cleveland; OKLAHOMA, Benj. Martin, Jr., Muskogee; OREGON,
J. N. Teal, Portland; PENNSYLVANIA, William S. Harvey, Philadelphia;
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Maj. George P. Ahern, Manila; PORTO RICO, Hon.
Walter K. Landis, San Juan; RHODE ISLAND, Henry A. Barker, Providence;
SOUTH CAROLINA, E. J. Watson, Columbia; SOUTH DAKOTA, Ellwood C.
Perisho, Vermillion; TENNESSEE, Herman Suter, Nashville; TEXAS, W.
Goodrich Jones, Temple; UTAH, Harden Bennion, Salt Lake City; VERMONT,
Fletcher D. Proctor, Proctor; VIRGINIA, A. R. Turnbull, Norfolk;
WASHINGTON, M. E. Hay, Olympia; WEST VIRGINIA, A. B. Fleming, Fairmont;
WISCONSIN, Charles R. Van Hise, Madison; WYOMING, Bryant B. Brooks,
Cheyenne; NATIONAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, Gifford Pinchot,
Washington.
_Standing Committees_
FORESTS--H. S. Graves, U. S. Forester, Washington, D. C., _Chairman_; E.
M. Griffith, Madison, Wis.; E. T. Allen, Portland, Ore.; J. Lewis
Thompson, Houston.
LANDS--Governor W. R. Stubbs, Topeka, _Chairman_; Dwight B. Heard,
Phenix; J. L. Snyder, Lansing; Murdo Mackenzie, Trinidad; Charles S.
Barrett, Union City, Ga.
WATERS--W J McGee, Washington, D. C., _Chairman_; E. A. Smith, Spokane;
Henry A. Barker, Providence; J. N. Teal, Portland, Ore.; Herbert Knox
Smith, Washington, D. C.
MINERALS--Charles R. Van Hise, Madison, _Chairman_; Joseph A. Holmes,
Washington, D. C.; D. W. Brunton, Denver; John Mitchell, New York; I. C.
White, Morgantown, W. Va.
VITAL RESOURCES--Dr William H. Welch, Baltimore, _Chairman_; Professor
Irving Fisher, New Haven; Dr H. W. Wiley, Washington, D. C.; Dr J. H.
Kellogg, Battle Creek, Mich.; Walter H. Page, New York.
[Illustration: HENRY WALLACE
Des Moines, Iowa
President, Third National Conservation Congress]
CONTENTS
PAGE
CONSTITUTION ix
OPENING SESSION 1
Invocation by ARCHBISHOP IRELAND 1
Greeting from CARDINAL GIBBONS 3
Address by GOVERNOR EBERHART 3
Welcome by MAYOR KELLER 13
Address by PRESIDENT TAFT 14
SECOND SESSION 34
Induction of GOVERNOR STUBBS as Chairman 34
Address by SENATOR NELSON 35
Address by GOVERNOR NOEL 48
Address by GOVERNOR NORRIS 52
Address by GOVERNOR DENEEN 59
Address by GOVERNOR HAY 64
Announcement by PROFESSOR CONDRA 71
Address by GOVERNOR BROOKS 72
Remarks by GOVERNOR STUBBS 75
Address by GOVERNOR VESSEY 77
THIRD SESSION 79
Appointment of Credentials Committee 79
Action on Constitution of
the National Conservation Congress 79
Remarks by DIRECTOR-GENERAL BARRETT 80
Remarks by GOVERNOR STUBBS 81
Invocation by REVEREND DOCTOR MONTGOMERY 81
Address by EX-PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT 82
FOURTH SESSION 93
Address by MISS BOARDMAN 94
Address by COMMISSIONER HERBERT KNOX SMITH 101
Modification of Credentials Committee 106
Address by HONORABLE JAMES R. GARFIELD 106
Address by EX-GOVERNOR PARDEE 115
Remarks by DELEGATE HORR, of Washington 120
Address by EX-GOVERNOR BLANCHARD 121
Address by WILLIAM E. SMYTHE 127
Address by WALTER L. FISHER 129
Address by COLONEL JAMES H. DAVIDSON 132
FIFTH SESSION 134
Invocation by BISHOP EDSALL 134
Address by PRESIDENT FINLEY 135
Report of Credentials Committee 145
Address by SENATOR BEVERIDGE 146
Response by GIFFORD PINCHOT 152
Address by PRESIDENT MCVEY 152
Discussion by CHAIRMAN WHITE 158
Address by MRS WELCH,
of the General Federation of Women's Clubs 160
Address by MRS HOYLE TOMKIES,
of the Women's National Rivers and Harbors Congress 163
Address by MRS SNEATH,
of the General Federation of Women's Clubs 166
Report by MRS HOWARD,
of the Daughters of the American Revolution 167
SIXTH SESSION 168
Induction of SENATOR CLAPP as Chairman 168
Address by PRESIDENT CRAIGHEAD 168
Postponement of Call of States 171
Address by D. AUSTIN LATCHAW 171
Address by JAMES J. HILL 177
Discussion by HENRY WALLACE 188
Address by SECRETARY WILSON 194
Discussion by REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS 201
Address by PROFESSOR BAILEY 203
SEVENTH SESSION 213
Address by PROFESSOR GRAVES 214
Address by ALFRED L. BAKER 222
Address by FRANK H. SHORT 226
Address by DIRECTOR-GENERAL BARRETT 237
Address by HONORABLE ESMOND OVEY 243
Action on time for election and report of
Resolutions Committee 246
EIGHTH SESSION 246
Appointment of Nominating Committee 246
Induction of GOVERNOR EBERHART as Chairman 246
Address by DEAN WESBROOK 247
Address by WALLACE D. SIMMONS 257
Address by COMMISSIONER ELMER E. BROWN 264
Address by MRS SCOTT, President of
the Daughters of the American Revolution 270
Action in memory of MRS J. ELLEN FOSTER 276
Presentation by MRS HOWARD to GIFFORD PINCHOT 276
Response by MR PINCHOT 277
Address by FRANCIS J. HENEY 278
Address by GIFFORD PINCHOT 292
Expression by GOVERNOR EBERHART 298
Statement by PROFESSOR CONDRA 298
CLOSING SESSION 299
Commencement of Call of States 299
Response by DELEGATE HARVEY, of Pennsylvania 299
Interlude by E. W. ROSS, of Washington 302
Report of Nominating Committee 303
Nomination by CHAIRMAN WHITE 303
Second by GIFFORD PINCHOT 304
Election of and response by HENRY WALLACE as President 305
Election of other Officers 306
Resolution of thanks to retiring PRESIDENT BAKER 308
Response by MR BAKER 308
Report of Resolutions Committee 308
Adoption of Resolutions 312
Interlude by E. W. ROSS, of Washington 312
Remarks by DELEGATE HORR, of Washington 313
Ratification of Vice-Presidents 313
Resolution in memory of PROFESSOR GREEN 313
Resumption of Call of States 314
Response by DELEGATE PURDUE, of Arkansas 314
Response by DELEGATE BANNISTER, of Indiana 314
Response by DELEGATE MILLER, of Iowa 314
Response by DELEGATE YOUNG, of Kansas 314
Response by DELEGATE BAKER, of Maryland 314
Response by DELEGATE THORP, of Minnesota 315
Response by STATE GEOLOGIST LOWE, of Mississippi 315
Response by GENERAL NOBLE, of Missouri 315
Response by CHAIRMAN WHITE 316
Response by PROFESSOR CONDRA, of Nebraska 317
Response by a Delegate from New York 318
Response by DELEGATE NESTOS, of North Dakota 318
Response by DELEGATE KRUEGER, of South Dakota 319
Remarks by DELEGATE JOHNS, of Washington 320
Privileged statement by LAND COMMISSIONER ROSS,
of Washington 322
Response by DELEGATE FOWLER, of Arizona 324
Response by DELEGATE HUNT, of District of Columbia 324
Response by DELEGATE BARKER, of Rhode Island 324
Response by PROFESSOR WHITE, of West Virginia 325
Response by DELEGATE WORSHAM, of Georgia 325
Motion for adjournment by DELEGATE MARTIN, of Oklahoma 326
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS 327
Laws that should be Passed,
by SENATOR FRANCIS G. NEWLANDS 327
Conservation of the Nation's Resources,
by CHAIRMAN J. B. WHITE 328
Practical Aspects of Conservation, by A. B. FARQUHAR 331
Report from Arkansas, by SID B. REDDING 333
Report from Colorado, by FRANK C. GOUDY 334
Report from Florida, by CROMWELL GIBBONS 335
Report from Idaho, by JEROME J. DAY 336
Report from Indiana, by A. E. METZGER 336
Report from Iowa, by A. C. MILLER 337
Report from Louisiana, by HENRY E. HARDTNER 339
Report from Maine, by CYRUS C. BABB 341
Report from Massachusetts, by FRANK WILLIAM RANE and
HENRY H. SPRAGUE 343
Report from Missouri, by HERMANN VON SCHRENK 344
Report from Montana, by RUDOLPH VON TOBEL 345
Report from New Mexico, by COLONEL W. A. FLEMING JONES 347
Report from New York, by J. S. WHIPPLE 347
Special report from New York, by HENRY H. PERSONS 352
Report from North Dakota, by PROFESSOR WALDRON 362
Report from Ohio, by PROFESSOR LAZENBY 364
Report from Oklahoma, by BENJ. MARTIN, JR. 365
Report from Oregon, by E. T. ALLEN 367
Report from Rhode Island, by HENRY A. BARKER 368
Report from South Carolina, by E. J. WATSON 369
Report from South Dakota, by DOANE ROBINSON 369
Report from Texas, by WILL L. SARGENT 370
Report from Utah, by O. J. SALISBURY 372
Supplementary report from Utah, by E. T. MERRITT 372
Report from Vermont, by GEORGE AITKIN 373
Report from Washington, by E. G. GRIGGS 375
Report from West Virginia, by HU MAXWELL 376
Report from Wisconsin, by E. M. GRIFFITH 377
Report of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 379
Report of the American Automobile Association 380
Report of the American Civic Association 383
Report of the American Forestry Association 384
Report of the American Humane Association 385
Report of the American Institute of Architects 386
Report of the American Paper and Pulp Association 388
Report of the American Medical Association 389
Report of the American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance of Way Association 392
Report of the American Railway Master Mechanics'
Association 393
Report of the American Scenic and Historic
Preservation Society 394
Report of the Association for the Protection of
the Adirondacks 397
Report of the Carriage Builders' National Association 410
Report of the Delaware State Federation of
Women's Clubs 411
Report of the Farmers' Union of America 411
Report of the General Federation of Women's Clubs 412
Report of the Lakes-to-Gulf Deep Waterway Association 413
Report of the League of American Sportsmen 415
Report of the National Board of Fire Underwriters 416
Report of the National Board of Trade 419
Report of the National Business League of America 420
Report of the Missouri Valley River Improvement
Association 420
Report of the Upper Mississippi River Improvement
Association 421
Report of the Washington State Federation of Labor 422
Report of the Western Forestry and Conservation
Association 423
Report of the United Mine Workers 424
Timber Conservation, by GEORGE H. EMERSON 424
Forests and Stream-Flow, by WILLIAM S. HARVEY 428
The Conservation of Minerals and Subterranean Waters,
by GEORGE F. KUNZ, Ph.D. 429
The Question of Land Titles, by FRANKLIN MCCRAY 430
INDEX 431
[Illustration:
1. GIFFORD PINCHOT, Vice-President (1910).
2. JAMES R. GARFIELD, Vice-President (1910).
3. HENRY A. BARKER, Vice-President (1909-10).
4. A. B. FARQUHAR, Executive Committee (1909).
5. W. A. FLEMING JONES, Vice-president (1910).
6. E. L. WORSHAM, Executive Committee (1910).
7. GEORGE C. PARDEE, Executive Committee (1910).
8. J. N. TEAL, Executive Committee (1909-10).
9. WALTER H. PAGE, Executive Committee (1910).
10. L. H. BAILEY, Executive Committee (1909-10).]
_CONSTITUTION_
ARTICLE 1--NAME
This organization shall be known as the National Conservation Congress.
ARTICLE 2--OBJECT
The object of the National Conservation Congress shall be: (1) to
provide a forum for discussion of the resources of the United States as
the foundation for the prosperity of the people, (2) to furnish definite
information concerning the resources and their utilization, and (3) to
afford an agency through which the people of the country may frame
policies and principles affecting the wise and practical development,
conservation, and utilization of the resources, to be put into effect by
their representatives in State and Federal Governments.
ARTICLE 3--MEETINGS
_Section 1._ Regular annual meetings shall be held at such time and
place as may be determined by the Executive Committee.
_Section 2._ Special meetings of the Congress, or its officers,
committees, or boards, may be held subject to the call of the President
of the Congress or the Chairman of the Executive Committee.
ARTICLE 4--OFFICERS
_Section 1._ The officers of the Congress shall consist of a President,
to be elected by the Congress; a Vice-President from each State, to be
chosen by the respective State delegations, and from the National
Conservation Association; an Executive Secretary; a Recording Secretary;
and a Treasurer.
_Section 2._ The duties of these officers may at any time be prescribed
by formal action of the Congress or Executive Committee. In the absence
of such action their duties shall be those implied by their designations
and established by custom. In addition, it shall be the duty of the
Vice-Presidents to receive, from the State Conservation Commissions and
other organizations concerned in Conservation, suggestions and
recommendations, and report them to the Executive Committee of the
Congress.
_Section 3._ The officers shall serve for one year, or until their
successors are elected and qualify.
ARTICLE 5--COMMITTEES AND BOARDS
_Section 1._ An Executive Committee of seven, in addition to which the
President of the National Conservation Association and all ex-Presidents
of the Congress shall be members ex-officio, shall be appointed by the
President during each regular annual session to act for the ensuing
year; its membership shall be drawn from different States, and not more
than one of the appointed members shall be from any one State. The
Executive Committee shall act for the Congress and shall be empowered to
initiate action and meet emergencies. It shall report to each regular
annual session.
_Section 2._ A Board of Managers shall be created in each city in which
the next ensuing session of the Congress is to be held, preferably by
leading organizations of citizens. The Board of Managers shall have
power to raise and expend funds, to incur obligations on its own
responsibility, and to appoint subordinate boards and committees, all
with the approval of the Executive Committee of the Congress. It shall
report to the Executive Committee at least two days before the opening
of the ensuing session, and at such other times as the Congress or the
Executive Committee may direct.
_Section 3._ A Committee on Credentials shall be appointed, consisting
of five (5) members, by the President of the Congress not later than on
the second day of each session of the Congress. It shall determine all
questions raised by delegates as to representation, and shall report to
the Congress from time to time as required by the President of the
Congress.
_Section 4._ A Committee on Resolutions shall be created for each annual
meeting of the Congress. A Chairman shall be appointed by the President.
One member of the Committee shall be selected by each State represented
in the Congress. The Committee shall report to the Congress not later
than the morning of the last day of each annual meeting.
_Section 5._ Permanent Committees, consisting of five (5) members each,
shall be appointed by the President of the Congress on each of the
following five divisions of Conservation: Forests, Waters, Lands,
Minerals, and Vital Resources. These committees shall, during the
intervals between the annual meetings of the Congress, inquire into
these respective subjects and prepare reports to be submitted on the
request of the Executive Committee, and render such other assistance to
the Congress as the Executive Committee may direct.
_Section 6._ By direction of the Congress, standing and special
committees may be appointed by the President.
_Section 7._ The President shall be a member, ex-officio, of every
committee of the Congress.
ARTICLE 6--ARRANGEMENTS FOR SESSIONS
_Section 1._ The program for the session of each annual meeting of the
Congress, including a list of speakers, shall be arranged by the
Executive Committee. The entire program, including allotments of time to
speakers and hours for daily sessions and all other arrangements
concerning the program, shall be made by the Executive Committee.
_Section 2._ Unless otherwise ordered, the rules adopted for the
guidance of the preceding Congress shall continue in force.
ARTICLE 7--MEMBERSHIP
_Section 1._ The personnel of the National Conservation Congress shall
be as follows:
_Officers and Delegates_
Officers of the National Conservation Congress.
Fifteen Delegates appointed by the Governor of each State and Territory.
Five Delegates appointed by the Mayor of each city with a population of
25,000, or more.
Two Delegates appointed by the Mayor of each city with a population of
less than 25,000.
Two Delegates appointed by each Board of County Commissioners.
Five Delegates appointed by each National Organization concerned in the
work of Conservation.
Five Delegates appointed by each State or Interstate Organization
concerned in the work of Conservation.
Three Delegates appointed by each Chamber of Commerce, Board of Trade,
Commercial Club, or other local organization concerned in the work of
Conservation.
Two Delegates appointed by each State or other University or College,
and by each Agricultural College or Experiment Station.
HONORARY MEMBERS
The President of the United States.
The Vice-President of the United States.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The Cabinet.
The United States Senate and House of Representatives.
The Supreme Court of the United States.
The Representatives of Foreign Governments.
The Governors of the States and Territories.
The Lieutenant-Governors of the States and Territories.
The Speakers of State Houses of Representatives.
The State Officers.
The Mayors of Cities.
The County Commissioners.
The Presidents of State and other Universities and Colleges.
The Officers and Members of the National Conservation Association.
The Officers and Members of the National Conservation Commission.
The Officers and Members of the State Conservation Commissions and
Associations.
ARTICLE 8--DELEGATIONS AND STATE OFFICERS
_Section 1._ The several Delegates from each State in attendance at any
Congress shall assemble at the earliest practicable time and organize by
choosing a Chairman and a Secretary. These Delegates, when approved by
the Committee on Credentials, shall constitute the Delegation from that
State.
ARTICLE 9--VOTING
_Section 1._ Each member of the Congress shall be entitled to one vote
on all actions taken viva voce.
_Section 2._ A division or call of States may be demanded on any action
by a State delegation. On division, each Delegate shall be entitled to
one vote; provided (1) that no State shall have more than twenty votes;
and provided (2) that when a State is represented by less than ten
Delegates, said Delegates may cast ten votes for such State.
_Section 3._ The term "State" as used herein is to be construed to mean
either State, Territory, or Insular Possession.
ARTICLE 10--AMENDMENTS
This Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Congress
during any regular session, provided notice of the proposed amendment
has been given from the Chair not less than one day or more than two
days preceding; or by unanimous vote without such notice.
[Illustration:
1. D. AUSTIN LATCHAW, Treasurer (1910).
2. THOMAS R. SHIPP, Executive Secretary (1909-10).
3. JAMES C. GIPE, Recording Secretary (1910).
4. JOHN BARRETT, Vice-President (1909).
5. Mrs PHILIP N. MOORE, Executive Committee (1909-10).
6. FRANK C. GOUDY, Executive Committee (1910).
7. THOMAS BURKE, Executive Committee (1909).
8. E. J. WICKSON, Vice-President (1909).
9. HENRY D. HARDTNER, Vice-President (1909).
10. JAMES S. WHIPPLE, Vice-President (1909).
11. W J MCGEE, Vice-President (Editor of Proceedings).]
SECOND NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS
_OPENING SESSION_
The Congress convened in the Auditorium, Saint Paul, Minnesota, on the
morning of September 5, 1910, President Baker in the chair, and was
called to order on arrival of the President of the United States.
President BAKER--Mr President, your Grace, Ladies and Gentlemen: The
honor I have today in opening this great Congress is one that will
always be highly treasured, for I feel that what we are trying to do is
to make our country great and strong by men who see the Nation's wrongs
and are giving their time to this great object. We are meeting today for
the purpose of using our very best efforts to assist in protecting the
interests of this great country in a way that will best protect every
man and woman and child in his or her rights, with justice to all. That
our great National resources are in danger of being wasted and not fully
preserved for the future, I am satisfied is the thought of all the great
minds assembled here today to take part in this Congress.
There is a Great High Power that rules and governs for the best in the
world, and I now call upon His Grace, Archbishop Ireland, to open our
Congress with an invocation to that Great Power for help, guidance, and
direction.
INVOCATION
_Almighty and eternal God. We bow before Thee in deep humility. Accept
from us, we beseech Thee, from submissive minds and sincere hearts,
adoration, praise, gratitude, love, and the promise of abiding
recognition of Thy sovereignty and of loyal obedience to Thy laws._
_O God, all things are Thine; all things were made by Thee; no thing
that was made was made without Thee; "the heavens show forth Thy glory
and the firmament declareth Thy power, day to day uttereth speech, night
to night showeth knowledge," ever proclaiming that Thou are the Master,
that things created are the scintillations of Thy power and wisdom. We
are Thine, O God, Thee our Father and our Master; earth and skies are
ours through gift of Thy munificence. "Till the earth," was it said to
us, "and subdue it and dominate over the fishes of the sea and the fowls
of the air and all living creatures that move upon the earth." Earth is
ours, not, O Lord, that we use it at our will and caprice, but that
under Thy guidance we bid it turn to our best and truest welfare, to the
best and truest welfare of our fellow-men, Thy children all; over all of
whom spread Thy love and care._
_Grant to us, O Lord, this morning wisdom in our counselings and
deliberations, that the intents of Thy providence be our intents, and,
Thy will the inspiration of our counselings and our actions._
_We thank thee, O God, for the gift to us of America. As to few other
lands, Thou hast been prodigal to America of gifts rich and rare. In
America skies are serene and health-giving above us; beneath us fields
are verdant and fertile; nowhere else are forests more fruitful, hills
and mountains richer in imbedded treasure; nowhere else are lakes and
rivers endowed with higher grandeur or more ready to proffer to man
useful and ennobling service. Of America, through Thy munificence, O
God, we are the caretakers. May we be wise and prudent in our duty. We
pray that under Thy abiding watchfulness, through our intelligent
industry, America grows ever in fairness and in wealth, and be the first
and most beauteous of the stopping-places allowed to men in their
pilgrimage toward their abiding home in heaven._
_Bless, O Lord, America, and bless its people, that they be ever
faithful to Thy laws; bless its citizenship, bless its Government, that
the spirit of its freedom-giving institutions never die, never lessen in
sweetness and in power; that here liberty be ever encircled in order,
and order ever wreathed in liberty; that righteousness dominate and
permeate prosperity; that whatever the laws we form may be
scintillations of Thy own eternal laws--compliance with which is life
and felicity, forgetfulness of which is misery and death to men and to
nations._
_And we pray Thee, O God, send down Thy blessing upon the President of
the Republic, upon whose shoulders descends the chief responsibility of
upholding the salvation and the dignity of America. We pray that Thou
bestow upon him Thy precious blessing. The burthen is heavy, often the
horizon is dark, often the polar star is hidden from which guidance
might come; but in Thee, O God, he confideth,--send upon him the wisdom
and the strength of Thy Holy Spirit, the wisdom that he may know, the
power that he may do, ever Thy will. In Thee, O Lord, in Thy omnipotent
hand--prompt to give aid in single-mindedness of purpose and in
rectitude of intention--he puts his trust. Be Thou his teacher, be Thou
his guide._
_Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily
bread, and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass
against us, and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from all
evil. Amen._
* * * * *
President BAKER--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: His Eminence,
Cardinal GIBBONS, sends you greeting:
Allow me to say how earnestly I wish the Congress every success in the
much-needed work of National Conservation.
It is said that the French and Germans could subsist on what we waste;
and I fear that to a stranger visiting our country it must seem that in
a hundred years we have wasted more of our natural resources than the
nations of Europe have done in all the centuries of their existence. But
if we have been reckless in the past, wasting like vandals our rich
inheritance, it is also most consoling and full of promise for the
future that with the strong aid of our President, of Colonel Roosevelt,
and of leading citizens in various parts of the country, we may look for
a wiser use of our resources in the near future. And I am the more
hopeful of a successful Congress from the fact that there is no
political issue involved in the great subject before it which might
threaten to divide our counsels and breed discontent, but that the sole
motive that actuates the Congress is to conserve and increase our
natural resources and thereby contribute to the material prosperity of
our beloved country.
It is also decidedly my opinion that we should regard our natural
resources as the patrimony of the Nation, a sacred trust committed to
our keeping to be administered for the good of the whole people, and to
be transmitted by us, as far as possible unimpaired, to our posterity.
By husbanding and using economically the gifts of Nature, we shall have
an abundant supply for our own times, and also make suitable provisions
for the future. Mother Earth is not only a fruitful mother; she is also
a grateful mother, and repays her children for every kindness and
tenderness we exercise toward her. And there are also instances on
record to show that she is relentless when she chastises.
Did my many duties allow, I should gladly take a more active part in the
greatly needed Conservation labors. However, I trust you will feel
assured of my entire sympathy and of the hope I confidently entertain of
the very great benefits coming to us all as the fruitful result of these
devoted laborers. JAMES CARD. GIBBONS.
* * * * *
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: The opening of the Congress today
in Saint Paul is due largely to the kind assistance and friendly welcome
of the Governor of Minnesota, His Excellency A. O. Eberhart, who will
now extend you a welcome. (Great applause and cheers)
Governor EBERHART--Mr President, Members of the Congress, Ladies and
Gentlemen: When I was invited to appear before this Congress and bid you
welcome, it was suggested that I also outline what the people of
Minnesota felt when they sought to have this splendid gathering at Saint
Paul.
I am sure that no State or city could receive greater honor than to have
the President of the United States come fifteen hundred miles to deliver
the most important message on Conservation that has ever been presented
to the people of this great country. (Applause) Yet I am not going to
take more than the twenty minutes allotted to assure you that the only
interest this State has in the Conservation movement is that which every
true friend of the movement stands for. Last night I cut out the meat of
my remarks, this morning the bones, and now there is nothing left but
the nerve, and I have scarcely enough "nerve" to deliver it. (Laughter
and applause)
The Conservation of natural resources does not consist merely in the
preservation of these resources for the benefit of future generations,
but rather such present use thereof as will result in the greatest
general good and yet maintain that productive power which insures
continued future enjoyment. (Applause) While it is true that exhaustible
resources like mineral wealth cannot be conserved for both future and
present use, except by economic regulations and the prevention of
wasteful methods, Conservation deals with their distribution in such a
way as to prevent their control by grasping corporations and
individuals, who would monopolize them for their own exclusive benefit
at the expense of the general public. (Applause)
It follows necessarily that any theory of Conservation which does not
provide for the present as well as the future does not cover the entire
field and cannot possibly bring the best results. (Applause) From every
economic standpoint it is desirable that the present generation should
be preferred, since future discoveries and inventions may render present
resources of less value and importance to the coming generations.
In its broadest sense the Conservation movement is not limited merely to
the consideration of natural resources. Every great convention called to
consider the problems involved has widened the scope of the movement so
that today it includes the elimination of wasteful methods in almost
every field of human activity and the conservation of all human endeavor
so as to confer on all mankind the greatest blessings that a bounteous
nature and twenty centuries of enlightenment can bestow.
Every consideration of natural resources for the purpose of eliminating
wasteful methods, preserving and increasing productive power, as well as
regulating operation and control, has for its ultimate object the
conservation of human energy, health and life, the securing of equal
opportunities for all, and such dissemination of knowledge as will
guarantee the continual possession and enjoyment of these blessings. The
subjects for consideration by this Congress should, therefore, include
not only the restoration and increase of soil fertility, the protection
and development of forests, mines and water-powers, the reclamation of
arid and swamp lands by irrigation and drainage, the forestation of
areas unsuited to farming, the control of rivers by reservoirs so as to
prevent flooding, as well as the elimination of waste in the use of
these resources, but also the problems of public comfort, health and
life that are so intimately connected with all material and
intellectual development. (Applause) Many of these questions will
concern home attractions and management, industrial education in the
public schools, public highways, State advertising and settlement, pure
food, public health, and sanitation.
By far the most important of all natural resources is the soil, and the
maintenance and increase of its fertility must, therefore, be given the
greatest consideration. (Applause) As long as food is necessary to human
life, agriculture must continue to be the most vital industry of man,
and the farm will be the most general and indispensable theater of his
activity. We must have manufacture, art, schools, churches and
government to round out our sphere of civilized existence, but the
foundation of them all is the farm. (Applause) From the earth come all
the materials for manufactures, the commodities of commerce, and
ultimately the support of all human institutions. During the half
century just past our country has devoted its energies to the
development of manufacturing and commercial industries to such an extent
that the scientific methods of agriculture necessary to insure not only
the permanency of our institutions but the very existence of human life
itself have been comparatively neglected. The pendulum is now swinging
back to the farm, and our great Nation is becoming aroused to the fact
that its most vital concern is the elimination of soil waste, the
promotion of scientific methods of agriculture, and the conservation of
that soil fertility which is the foundation of our entire social,
political and commercial superstructure. (Applause)
This new birth of agricultural progress comes at a psychological moment.
We have developed American manufactures until the $16,000,000,000
product of our mills and factories exceeds that of Germany, France, and
the United Kingdom combined. (Applause) We have built railroads by
liberal public and private enterprise until the United States has about
one-half of all the railway mileage and tonnage of the world. We have
developed banking enterprise and home trade until we have the greatest
banking power on earth, and an internal commerce which far exceeds the
entire foreign commerce of the globe. We have become the model of the
world in our free public schools and our republican form of government.
But while we have demonstrated the possession of the greatest
agricultural resources on the globe, and have heretofore supplied the
world's markets with an unparalleled volume of farm products, we have
wasted a wealth that would maintain our population for centuries. The
loss in farm values in nearly all of the older States, as shown by the
census records from 1880 to 1900, varies from $1,000,000 to $160,000,000
in each State and aggregates the enormous total of more than
$1,000,000,000. Is this not sufficient to arouse the entire Nation and
cause such a wave of reform as will put into activity every agency and
instrumentality for scientific and progressive methods of agricultural
reconstruction?
The unprecedented agricultural growth of the United States, in spite of
wasteful methods, has been caused by the extraordinary fertility of its
virgin soil, the great inducement offered by States and Nation to
promote settlement and cultivation, the rapid growth of favorable
transportation facilities, as well as the great demand for agricultural
products resulting from the rapid increase of population, wealth and
commercial enterprise.
Minnesota affords a splendid illustration of this development process,
and I trust that I may be pardoned for using my own State for that
purpose, since I am best acquainted with her conditions, development,
and resources. Of her 50,000,000 acres of land area, about one-half is
actually tilled, constituting the field area of about 200,000 farms
whose aggregate area, including lands not tilled, approximates
32,000,000 acres, or 160 acres each. Nearly 4,000,000 acres of her area
are covered by 10,000 lakes. This vast farm area possesses a soil
unsurpassed by any State or any country in the world. The great glacier
of several thousand years ago was generous to Minnesota. Its fine
glacial drift almost wholly covers the old rock formations. Coming from
many regions and rock sources, it has given to the soil an excellent
chemical composition. This, together with the vegetal mold, accumulated
for ages, makes the very best of hospitable soils. The incomparable
fertility of the Minnesota soil and its ability to withstand fifty years
of starvation methods in cultivation is accounted for by the almost
uniform mixture of vegetal mold with all kinds of decomposed rock drift,
thus making it possible for less than half of the State to produce farm
products aggregating the enormous total for 1909 of more than
$427,000,000. (Applause) It accounts also for the fact that, while
Minnesota, like all other States, during this period of fifty years has
been rather mining the fertility out of her soil than cultivating it,
she has withstood the consequent impoverishment without appreciable
shrinkage in farm value. There is perhaps not a single representative in
this distinguished assemblage who cannot recall the day when the virgin
soil in his locality did not produce from 50 to 100 percent larger crops
than it does today, when dense forests covered large tracts now a barren
waste, and when the bosom of the earth contained untold millions of
mineral wealth now represented on the surface by huge spoil-banks and
sunken surfaces. We remember only too well when our fertile fields
yielded thirty-five to forty bushels of wheat to the acre, and that the
same fields produced only about twelve bushels five years ago. In nearly
every community there is found that pathetic omen of decay, the deserted
farm--even in this young State.
The economic importance of soil conservation is so great that it can
scarcely be estimated. In making my estimates I have taken a very
conservative view, and while no absolutely accurate figures can be
obtained, the few that I shall give will be found sufficiently reliable
to establish the paramount value of soil conservation.
In Minnesota the low tide of soil impoverishment occurred about five
years ago. At that time, after several years of apparently unsuccessful
effort, the Agricultural College and schools, assisted by the State
Farmers' Institutes and the press, succeeded in stemming the tide and
arousing considerable interest in new methods of farming along more
intelligent and intensive lines. Only within the last year, however, has
progress been marked and rapid. When the first State Conservation
Congress was called to meet in Saint Paul, March, 1909, nearly every
township in the State was represented and all but two counties presented
agricultural and industrial exhibits, attracting a total attendance of
more than 150,000 people. The wonderful success of that Congress and the
enthusiasm it stirred up all over the State gave a great impetus to this
new era of agricultural reform in the entire Northwest and insured the
complete success of this Congress from a local standpoint. Never before
had 6,000 of the most progressive farmers of a State met for the purpose
of discussing more intelligent methods of farming, as well as the
suppression of wasteful methods in all fields of agricultural and
industrial activity.
During the past short period of five years the average cereal yield of
this State has been increased more than five bushels per acre; the corn
belt has been extended northward more than 300 miles to the Canadian
boundary by the production of hardy and early maturing varieties of
corn, yielding the State last year over 60,000,000 bushels, and placing
Minnesota among the dozen leading corn States of the Union. It is
estimated that plant breeding and seed selection alone last year added
about $15,000,000 to our agricultural products. The cereal production
has also affected clover, timothy and other tame grasses, thus largely
contributing to the growth of the dairy industry, which has been
increased ten-fold in twenty years until it now yields the State
$50,000,000 annually, several counties netting more than $1,000,000
each. Similar progress has been made in the live stock, fruit, and truck
gardening industries, and it is safe to conclude that Minnesota has
entered in earnest upon a complete plan of agricultural reconstruction.
But let us consider the opportunities for advancement that are still
open, in order that we may determine the economy of soil conservation in
terms of dollars and cents. The average yield of Minnesota wheat last
season was seventeen bushels per acre. At the agricultural experiment
stations the same wheat with improved seed selection and better
preparation of soil by crop rotation and tillage yielded twenty-eight
bushels per acre, climatic and soil conditions, as well as expense of
tillage being otherwise similar, a difference in favor of intelligent
farming approximating from five to eight dollars per acre, depending on
local conditions. Assuming for the sake of argument that the average
difference in the State would not be more than four dollars per acre, it
would still increase the agricultural net earning of the State on the
basis of the present acreage $100,000,000 annually. These figures do not
take into consideration the further increase of soil productivity by
various methods of fertilization other than those resulting from
planting crops which enrich the soil with nitrogen, phosphoric acid,
potash and calcium, the essential elements of plant growth. Besides, I
have not attempted to estimate the value of raising almost maximum
yields, where weather conditions are unfavorable, by such drainage,
preparation of soil, planting and tillage as will best suit local and
climatic conditions. No crop emphasizes the value of seed selection in
such unmistakable terms as corn. The average stand of this crop does not
exceed 60 percent, which means that the farmer spends 40 percent of his
time in the cornfield without result. By selecting the seed in the field
at the proper season, testing each ear before planting, and separating
with reference to size, so that as nearly as possible the planter will
put three kernels in each hill, the stand can be increased to at least
95 percent. Applying this increase to the 2,000,000 acres of cornfield
in Minnesota, it would add approximately 30,000,000 bushels with
practically no additional cost of production. That the importance of
this matter might be more firmly impressed upon the people of the State,
I have issued a seed-corn proclamation designating the time when the
seed-corn should be selected and calling the attention of the people to
the feed value of the corn product as well as corn fodder, which is of
utmost importance in a dry season like the one we are now experiencing.
This proclamation has received extensive publicity, and it is safe to
say that a large number of Minnesota's 200,000 farmers will heed the
note of warning.
Of still more vital importance, if possible, is the maintenance and
increase of soil fertility as a source of support for future
generations. The soil is the only permanent asset of the farmer, and its
net returns in crops constitute his annual dividends. Any impairment of
this asset will not only reduce the dividends on which his support
depends, but will destroy the productive power of the soil to such
extent as to deprive future owners of the most essential means of
livelihood. A loss of $1,000,000,000 in farm values, such as the older
States have already suffered, does not mean merely that this vast sum of
money has been wasted, but that its annual earning capacity on which
thousands should depend for support has been entirely destroyed, and
that these thousands have been forced to seek their sustenance from the
fields of commerce and manufacture in the large cities. We enact
stringent legislation to prevent the impairment of capital in our
banking institutions to protect depositors from loss, but the working
capital investment of millions in farm property on which all human
institutions must necessarily depend for existence has not been
safeguarded in any manner whatsoever. Without any organized effort to
interfere, we still permit millions of farmers to mine out the fertility
of the soil, thus increasing the drudgery of farm life, reducing every
source of farm income, converting the producers of the farm into
consumers of the city, and thus contributing directly to the great
increase in cost of living, the scarcity of farm labor, and the
congested conditions that breed disease and crime in our large cities.
Apply the situation to the country at large and you will find a
situation that is simply appalling. There are approximately 500,000,000
acres under actual tillage in the United States. Instead of figuring
four dollars per acre waste, which probably would be a fair average, we
will place the loss at the extremely low estimate of one dollar. This
will still make the total loss through wasteful farming methods in the
United States reach the enormous total of $500,000,000 annually. In
other words, if the loss were in fact not greater than one dollar per
acre, which is unquestionably too low, and that rate could be maintained
perpetually without an ultimate depletion of the soil, it would mean
that a capital investment of $12,500,000,000 with an earning capacity of
four percent per annum aggregating $500,000,000 annually, had been
completely destroyed.
At the rate of two dollars per acre, which is a low average, we are
every year wasting the income from $25,000,000,000, a sum so great as to
be entirely beyond human comprehension. In many of the older States,
where farms were sold forty years ago at $150 per acre, the same farms
cannot be sold today for $25 per acre, sometimes less than the actual
cash value of the buildings and other improvements, because the soil has
been robbed of its fertility, making it impossible for the owner to earn
the most meager living without restoring the vitality of the soil
through expensive methods of fertilization.
It is not at all difficult to see how such wasteful methods of farming
must affect the entire industrial situation. The younger generation,
inspired with the hopes, aspirations, and energy of youth, stirred by
the achievements, opportunities, and general prosperity of a truly great
Nation, and encouraged by the possibilities of a liberal education,
cannot afford to stake its future on the eking out of a mere existence
under the shadow of a rapidly increasing farm mortgage or the
threatening omen of a deserted homestead. All honor and credit to that
farmer's boy who early realizes the handicap placed upon him by the
impairment, and oftentimes utter destruction, of the only safe capital
investment of the farmer--fertile and productive soil. Should we
complain because he goes to the city to seek more inviting and
attractive fields of existence after having been robbed of his only
means of livelihood on the farm? This is the proper time for us to think
it over. In the younger States, where soil mining has been of such short
duration as to be incomplete, and the value of the land through
settlement, city growth, and increased transportation facilities is
constantly growing, the young man, who has learned intelligent and
progressive methods of farming, should have no fear as to the future,
for he has the making of a safe investment; but the young lad who,
without experience or training, unexpectedly finds himself possessor of
a farm where land values have ceased to rise and the soil has been
starved until it no longer can yield in abundance, has a white elephant
on his hands, and the sooner he can be brought to the realization
thereof the better for himself and the entire community.
Where a certain amount of labor should produce thirty bushels of wheat
to the acre, it yields but ten, or even less; and when the farmer
cultivates his corn, working ten hours per day, four hours thereof is
spent in vain, because 40 percent of the field has no corn--not to speak
of the poor quality of the corn grown on account of defective
preparation of soil, poor tillage, and the lack of necessary nutritive
elements within the soil itself. In addition, he has no knowledge as to
diversified farming, the value of live stock, dairying, fruit-raising,
truck-gardening, and many other means of livelihood which yield large
incomes to the possessor of a well-managed farm, nor does he appreciate
the enormous waste committed by unnecessary exposure to the elements of
farm machinery and buildings.
The young lady faces a similar situation. Every field of employment bids
her welcome at wages from $50 or more per month, and she has already
achieved such abundant success in every line of human enterprise, and at
the same time enjoyed all the pleasures and delights which bring cheer
to the heart of the young, that she cannot afford to even hesitate.
Should we complain if she refuses to stay on the farm and take her
chances of marrying a $25 man and a ruined farm plastered all over with
mortgages, and be chained in matrimonial bonds of lifelong drudgery to a
devastated farm homestead, robbed of everything that contributes to the
beautiful and good and true in a woman's life? (Great applause) There is
only one answer, and its conclusions are just.
Though I have presented a sad picture, it is not pessimistic. The
background is altogether cheerful. Two words express the most simple and
effective remedy: intelligent farming. This will not only make farming
profitable, but it will surround the home life on the farm with so many
attractions as to remove all desire for the deceptive allurements of a
city. Intelligent farming does not merely guarantee good dividends on a
farm investment, but it builds good roads to save cost of
transportation, consolidates rural schools where intelligent farming,
industry and home economics can be taught by precept and example,
beautifies the home and its surroundings and fills it with all the
attractions that elevate manhood and womanhood, teaches the younger
generation the dignity as well as reward of farm labor, and inspires the
laborer with the hope of a bright future.
Drainage, farm settlement, good roads, forestry, transportation,
industrial education, minerals, cheap heat and power resources, are all
important factors in the Conservation movement. Minnesota has
successfully drained about 3,000,000 acres in the northern part of the
State at an average cost of two dollars per acre, and converted into
meadows, grain and clover fields, celery and cranberry gardens, what
only a year or two since was a rough wilderness. Every State should have
some effective way of making these results known to prospective settlers
through exhibits and judicious advertising. No State officer is in a
position to bring greater returns to the State than the immigration
commissioner, and it is to be regretted that his work is so often
crippled by lack of sufficient appropriations.
In marketing produce, distributing material, fertilizer and machinery,
the farmers of Minnesota haul annually approximately 20,000,000 wagon
loads. Averaging the cost of each load over mostly unimproved roads at
$1.50, the cost of highway transportation in the State aggregates
$30,000,000. Most experts claim that uniformly good roads would reduce
this cost one-half, but conceding for the sake of argument that the
reduction would be only a third, the net saving to the farmers of the
State in one year would be about $10,000,000. However, this is not the
most important result. The building of good roads would build up farm
intercommunication and promote the consolidation of rural school
districts by making it possible to carry the pupils at all seasons of
the year some distance over country roads to the school at a minimum
cost.
Several of the north-central border States were the chief shippers of
lumber only a few years ago. Now our great forests are largely depleted,
and scientific deforestation has become an absolute necessity. One of
the most important duties the States as well as the Nation have to
perform is the transformation of this vast stumpage area into forests
and farms. Practical and scientific reforestation should convert the
lands unsuited for farming into forests, so that every acre would
produce revenue and furnish some necessity of life. The dry season of
1910 has particularly emphasized another important duty in this
connection, and that is the protection of our forests and settlers from
fires. It is a well known fact that enough timber has been destroyed by
fire within the last four months to pay for the adequate protection of
all our forests for a period of ten years or more, not to mention the
great loss of human life, which in itself imposes upon States and Nation
the duty of protection. This Congress should be instrumental in stirring
public sentiment to such an extent that the various legislatures and the
Congress will take immediate steps to stop this needless and expensive
waste.
Since mineral wealth is exhaustible, it follows that the interest of the
people in this important resource should be guarded against the
encroachments of greed with the utmost care. Minnesota furnishes now
one-half of all the iron-ore in the United States, and one-fourth of
that of the world, exporting this year about 40,000,000 tons. It is
estimated that not less than 2,000,000,000 tons of ore has been
definitely located, and that the volume of the undeveloped properties is
enormous. The State is the owner of very large quantities of ore, and
the income from this source alone will increase the State school fund by
at least $100,000,000.
No section of our country could profit more by water transportation than
that tributary to this great mineral wealth. The canalization of the
Mississippi river system with its 16,000 miles of streams would by cheap
transportation bring together the coal fields of the central interior
with the iron ore of the North, and produce in the Mississippi valley
the greatest iron and steel industries of the world, besides opening up
the greatest agricultural and industrial sections to the transportation
facilities of the Panama canal.
No commercial nation can long retain supremacy unless it has unlimited
supplies of cheap heat and power. In the north-central border States are
located peat deposits that should furnish cheap heat and power for
untold generations, Minnesota alone possessing more than 1,000,000
acres; and as the source of the three great watersheds of the country,
with an elevation of about 1,500 feet over sea and gulf level, there is
an abundance of water-power to turn the wheels of manufacture and
commerce.
Time will not permit any consideration of the strictly human side of
Conservation. We have saved millions of dollars annually by guarding
against plant and animal disease, and are just beginning to take note of
the untold millions wasted every month through neglect of preventable
and curable disease, impure foods, defective sanitation and health
inspection in homes and schools, unsuitable playgrounds for children,
and the lack of safeguards against railway, mine and factory accidents,
all of which come properly within the Conservation scope.
The splendid progress made by Minnesota and other States merely
emphasizes the importance of the Conservation movement. Warned by the
decay of older nations, we must act before the crisis of exhausted
natural resources reaches our Nation and commonwealths. Indeed, warned
by signs that are only too plain in our own midst, we must take decisive
action without delay. Fortunately, we have passed the pioneer stage of
development. Our Nation and commonwealths have all experienced many of
the disasters resulting from the skimming of natural resources. Having
discovered the vast mines of wealth which surround us everywhere, we
must now and forever determine that ignorance, selfishness, and greed
shall no longer control our governments and exhaust our resources.
(Great applause and cheers)
The problems before us are not merely of tremendous importance, but they
are also difficult as to solution. They frequently involve sharply
conflicting claims and interests as between the Nation and the various
commonwealths. Every State as well as the Nation itself should have a
distinct and separate department empowered to deal with all these
problems. It matters but little how it should be designated, though it
would serve all purposes best to be known as a Conservation Commission.
But it is of vital importance that the agency should be given sufficient
authority and funds, so as to enlist the strongest and best men in the
Conservation service. That such commissions would have sufficient work,
and that from an economic standpoint they would constitute good
investments, there is and can be no question.
Minnesota, as a distinctly progressive State and a recognized leader in
the Conservation movement, heartily welcomes this Congress with its
noted guests and speakers. We have the special honor of entertaining and
hearing the three truly great men who have contributed so much to the
actual achievements of the Conservation movement, and they are the three
most distinguished guests of this Congress, President Taft (applause and
the Chautauqua salute), Colonel Roosevelt (applause and cheers), and
James J. Hill. Minnesota appreciates this honor and will prove herself
worthy thereof. As her Chief Executive, I earnestly hope that the
deliberations of this Congress may bring results far beyond our hopes or
expectations. I am intensely interested in the Conservation of our
resources, and will use all my efforts in securing and enforcing the
best possible legislation, believing firmly that the Conservation
movement, as here outlined, will promote the general public welfare in a
far greater degree than any other, and that it is destined to mark the
twentieth century as an era of the greatest industrial achievement for
the benefit of all mankind. The people of Minnesota feel keenly their
duties and responsibilities with reference to their great heritage of
unsurpassed natural resources, and will continue as leaders in the only
movement that can insure the perpetuation of our country as the greatest
agricultural, industrial and commercial nation in the world. On their
behalf, I welcome you to the State. I thank you. (Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--It is now my pleasure to call upon his Honor, Mayor
Herbert E. Keller, who will welcome you on behalf of the great city of
Saint Paul. (Great applause and cheers)
Mayor KELLER--Mr President, Delegates to the Second National
Conservation Congress, and Guests: Upon me, as Chief Executive of the
city where this body will carry on its labors, the honor of welcoming
you devolves. It is a great privilege and pleasure to discharge this
duty, and yet my greeting can but inadequately convey to you the
appreciation felt by all Saint Paul at being selected as the scene of
this great Congress, whose deliberations mark the commencement of a new
epoch in the history of our country. (Applause)
The Conservation to and by ourselves as trustees, and the dedication and
perpetuation to our children and our children's children as
beneficiaries, of the tremendous natural resources of our country is a
duty and trust too sacred and too imperative to be disregarded or
lightly considered, once the situation stands revealed in its true
light. It is purely and simply a proposition of the greatest good for
the greatest number, and the sound judgment of a great people, with the
patriotism and unselfish devotion to duty of the founders of our country
ever before them, must and shall consider the greatest number to be the
countless millions of population to follow after us, and to whom must be
handed down a heritage not diminished or impoverished by us, the
temporary executors.
We may be likened to children turned loose in some vast Midas
treasurehouse and told to go where we would and take what we pleased. A
knock at the doors of Congress, a State legislature, or a city council,
gives the magical "Open Sesame!" And behold! the lavishing on some
private interest or individual of a great National or State property or
municipal right or franchise!
The Nation's bounty and generosity has been limitless, for the entire
previous history of the whole world provides no precedent for a guide.
But, fortunately, thoughtful minds began to work, awakened to what was
being done, and the result is the present all-pervasive sentiment and
determination to economize, to check improvidence and waste, and to
establish a policy whereby future generations, as well as the present,
may have equal opportunities to enjoy our natural benefits and
advantages; and Conservation is now more than a mere issue: it is an
assured, established, sane and universal desire to preserve and
perpetuate for ourselves and posterity the treasures of our country.
And so I bid you welcome to the city of Saint Paul. May your labors be
fruitful of great good. I know that your stay with us will be enjoyable.
Our city limits may be somewhat circumscribed for the immense crowds
here this week, but our hospitality and good wishes are as limitless as
the ocean. (Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--Fellow delegates, I am sure we all extend to his Honor,
Mayor Keller, a hearty vote of thanks for what he has done in preparing
for this Congress.
And now comes a privilege of which I am very proud--as a southern man
all my life--that of presenting to you the President of this great
Nation. (Great applause and cheers, the audience rising)
ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
_Ladies and Gentlemen_: Before beginning my formal address, I should
like to extend to the President and the Managers of this Congress, to
Governor Eberhart, and to the Mayor of the city, my sincere and cordial
thanks for the opportunity to come here and address this magnificent
audience, and to reach the people of the United States on a subject of
the utmost interest to them and to every patriot. (Applause)
Conservation, as an economic and political term, has come to mean the
preservation of our natural resources for economical use, so as to
secure the greatest good to the greatest number.
In the development of this country, in the hardships of the pioneer, in
the energy of the settler, in the anxiety of the investor for quick
returns, there was very little time, opportunity, or desire to prevent
waste of those resources supplied by nature which could not be quickly
transmuted into money; while the investment of capital was so great a
desideratum that the people as a community exercised little or no care
to prevent the transfer of absolute ownership of many of the valuable
natural resources to private individuals, without retaining some kind of
control of their use. The impulse of the whole new community was to
encourage the coming of population, the increase of settlement, and the
opening up of business; and he who demurred in the slightest degree to
any step which promised additional development of the idle resources at
hand was regarded as a traitor to his neighbors and an obstructor to
public progress. But now that the communities have become old, now that
the flush of enthusiastic expansion has died away, now that the would-be
pioneers have come to realize that all the richest lands in the country
have been taken up, we have perceived the necessity for a change of
policy in the disposition of our natural resources so as to prevent the
continuance of the waste which has characterized our phenomenal growth
in the past. Today we desire to restrict and retain under public control
the acquisition and use by the capitalists of our natural resources.
The danger to the State and to the people at large from the waste and
dissipation of our national wealth is not one which quickly impresses
itself on the people of the older communities, because its most obvious
instances do not occur in their neighborhood, while in the newer part of
the country the sympathy with expansion and development is so strong
that the danger is scoffed at or ignored. Among scientific men and
thoughtful observers, however, the danger has always been present; but
it needed some one to bring home the crying need for a remedy of this
evil so as to impress itself on the public mind and lead to the
formation of public opinion and action by the representatives of the
people. Theodore Roosevelt (great and prolonged applause) took up the
task in the last two years of his second administration, and well did he
perform it. (Great and prolonged applause)
As President of the United States I have, as it were, inherited this
policy, and I rejoice in my heritage (great applause). I prize my high
opportunity to do all that an Executive can do to help a great people
to realize a great national ambition; for Conservation _is_ National. It
affects every man of us, every woman, every child. What I can do in the
cause I shall do, not as President of a party, but as President of the
whole people (enthusiastic applause and cheers). Conservation is not a
question of politics, or of factions, or of persons. It is a question
that affects the vital welfare of all of us--of our children and our
children's children. I urge that no good can come from meetings of this
sort unless we ascribe to those who take part in them, and who are
apparently striving worthily in the cause, all proper motives
(applause), and unless we judiciously consider every measure or method
proposed with a view to its effectiveness in achieving our common
purpose, and wholly without regard to who proposes it or who will claim
credit for its adoption (great applause). The problems are of very great
difficulty, and call for the calmest consideration and clearest
foresight. Many of the questions presented have phases that are new in
this country, and it is possible that in their solution we may have to
attempt first one way and then another. What I wish to emphasize,
however, is that a satisfactory conclusion can only be reached promptly
if we avoid acrimony, imputations of bad faith and political controversy
(cries of "Hear, hear," and great applause).
The public domain of the Government of the United States, including all
the cessions from those of the thirteen States that made cessions to the
United States, and including Alaska, amounts in all to about
1,800,000,000 acres. Of this there is left as purely Government property
outside of Alaska something like 700,000,000 acres. Of this the national
forest reserves in the United States proper embrace 144,000,000 acres.
The rest is largely mountain or arid country, offering some opportunity
for agriculture by dry farming and by reclamation, and containing metals
as well as coal, phosphates, oils, and natural gas. Then the Government
owns many tracts of land lying along the margins of streams that have
water-power, the use of which is necessary in the conversion of the
power into electricity and its transmission.
I shall divide my discussion under the heads of (1) agricultural lands;
(2) mineral lands--that is, lands containing metalliferous minerals; (3)
forest lands; (4) coal lands; (5) oil and gas lands; and (6) phosphate
lands. I feel that it will conduce to a better understanding of the
problems presented if I take up each class and describe, even at the
risk of tedium, _first_, what has been done by the last Administration
and the present one in respect to each kind of land; _second_, what laws
at present govern its disposition; _third_, what was done by the present
Congress in the matter; and _fourth_, the statutory changes proposed in
the interest of Conservation.
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Our land laws for the entry of agricultural lands are as follows:
The original Homestead Law, with the requirements of residence and
cultivation for five years, much more strictly enforced now than ever
before.
The Enlarged Homestead Act, applying to non-irrigable lands only,
requiring five years' residence and continuous cultivation of one-fourth
of the area.
The Desert-land Act, which requires on the part of the purchaser the
ownership of a water-right and thorough reclamation of the land by
irrigation, and the payment of $1.25 per acre.
The Donation or Carey Act, under which the State selects the land and
provides for its reclamation, and the title vests in the settler who
resides upon the land and cultivates it and pays the cost of the
reclamation.
The National Reclamation Homestead Law, requiring five years' residence
and cultivation by the settler on the land irrigated by the Government,
and payment by him to the Government of the cost of the reclamation.
There are other acts, but not of sufficient general importance to call
for mention unless it is the Stone and Timber Act, under which every
individual, once in his lifetime, may acquire 160 acres of land, if it
has valuable timber on it or valuable stone, by paying the price of not
less than $2.50 per acre, fixed after examination of the stone or timber
by a Government appraiser.
In times past, a great deal of fraud has been perpetrated in the
acquisition of lands under this Act, but it is now being much more
strictly enforced, and the entries made are so few in number that it
seems to serve no useful purpose and ought to be repealed. (Applause)
The present Congress passed a bill of great importance, severing the
ownership of coal by the Government in the ground from the surface and
permitting homestead entries upon the surface of the land, which, when
perfected, gives the settler the right to farm the surface, while the
coal beneath the surface is retained in ownership by the Government and
may be disposed of by it under other laws.
There is no crying need for radical reform in the methods of disposing
of what are really agricultural lands. The present laws have worked
well. The Enlarged Homestead Law has encouraged the successful farming
of lands in the semi-arid regions. Of course the teachings of the
Agricultural Department as to how these sub-arid lands may be treated
and the soil preserved for useful culture are of the very essence of
Conservation. Then the conservation of agricultural lands is shown in
the reclamation of arid lands by irrigation, and I should devote a few
words to what the Government has done and is doing in this regard.
By the Reclamation Act a fund has been created of the proceeds of the
public lands of the United States with which to construct works for
storing great bodies of water at proper altitudes from which, by a
suitable system of canals and ditches, the water is to be distributed
over the arid and sub-arid lands of the Government to be sold to
settlers at a price sufficient to pay for the improvements. Primarily
the projects are and must be for the improvement of public lands.
Incidentally, where private land is also within the reach of the water
supply, the furnishing at cost of operation of this water to private
owners by the Government is held by the federal Court of Appeals not to
be a usurpation of power; but certainly this ought not to be done except
from surplus water not needed for Government land. About thirty projects
have been set on foot, distributed through the public-land States, in
accordance with the Statute, by which allotments from the reclamation
fund are required to be, as nearly as practicable, in proportion to the
proceeds from the sale of the public lands in the respective States.
The total sum already accumulated in the reclamation fund is
$60,273,258.22, and of that all but $6,491,955.34 has been expended. It
became very clear to Congress at its last session, from the statements
made by experts, that these thirty projects could not be promptly
completed with the balance remaining on hand, or with the funds likely
to accrue in the near future. It was found, moreover, that there are
many settlers who have been led into taking up lands with the hope and
understanding of having water furnished in a short time, who are left in
a most distressing situation. I recommended to Congress that authority
be given to the Secretary of the Interior to issue bonds in anticipation
of the assured earnings by the projects, so that the projects, worthy
and feasible, might be promptly completed and the settlers might be
relieved from their present inconvenience and hardship (applause). In
authorizing the issue of these bonds, Congress limited the application
of their proceeds to those projects which a board of army engineers, to
be appointed by the President, should examine and determine to be
feasible and worthy of completion. The board has been appointed, and
soon will make its report.
Suggestions have been made that the United States ought to aid in the
drainage of swamp lands belonging to the States or private owners,
because, if drained, they would be exceedingly valuable for agriculture
and contribute to the general welfare by extending the area of
cultivation. I deprecate the agitation in favor of such legislation. It
is inviting the general Government into contribution from its treasury
toward enterprises that should be conducted either by private capital or
at the instance of the State (applause). In these days there is a
disposition to look too much to the Federal Government for everything
(applause). I am liberal in the construction of the Constitution with
reference to Federal power (applause); but I am firmly convinced that
the only safe course for us to pursue is to hold fast to the limitations
of the Constitution, and to regard as sacred the powers of the States
(great applause and cheers). We have made wonderful progress, and at
the same time have preserved with judicious exactness the restrictions
of the Constitution. There is an easy way in which the Constitution can
be violated by Congress without judicial inhibition, to-wit, by
appropriations from the National treasury for unconstitutional purposes.
It will be a sorry day for this country if the time ever comes when our
fundamental compact shall be habitually disregarded in this manner.
(Applause)
MINERAL LANDS
By mineral lands, I mean those lands bearing metals, or what are called
metalliferous minerals.
The rules of ownership and disposition of these lands were first fixed
by custom in the West, and then were embodied in the law, and they have
worked, on the whole, so fairly and well that I do not think it is wise
now to attempt to change or better them. The apex theory of tracing
title to a lode has led to much litigation and dispute, and ought not to
have become the law, but it is so fixed and understood now that the
benefit to be gained by a change is altogether outweighed by the
inconvenience that would attend the introduction of a new system. So
too, the proposition for the Government to lease such mineral lands and
deposits and to impose royalties might have been, in the beginning, a
good thing, but now that most of the mineral land has been otherwise
disposed of--I do not refer here to coal land or gas land or oil land or
phosphate land--it would hardly be worth while to assume the
embarrassments of a radical change.
FOREST LANDS
Nothing can be more important in the matter of Conservation than the
treatment of our forest lands. It was probably the ruthless destruction
of forests in the older States that first called attention to the
necessity for a halt in the waste of our resources. This was recognized
by Congress by an act authorizing the Executive to reserve from entry
and set aside public timber lands as National forests. Speaking
generally, there has been reserved of the existing forests about 70
percent of all the timber lands of the Government. Within these forests
(including 26,000,000 acres in two forests in Alaska) are 192,000,000
acres, of which 166,000,000 acres are in the United States proper and
include within their boundaries something like 22,000,000 acres that
belong to the States or to private individuals. We have, then, excluding
Alaskan forests, a total of about 144,000,000 acres of forests belonging
to the Government, which are being treated in accord with the principles
of scientific forestry. The law now prohibits the reservation of any
more forest lands in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Colorado and
Wyoming, except by act of Congress. I am informed by the Department of
Agriculture that the Government owns other tracts of timber lands in
these States which should be included in the forest reserves. I expect
to recommend to Congress that the limitation herein imposed shall be
repealed (applause). In the present forest reserves there are lands
which are not properly forest land, and which ought to be subject to
homestead entry. This has caused some local irritation. We are carefully
eliminating such lands from forest reserves or, where their elimination
is not practicable, listing them for entry under the forest homestead
act.
Congress ought to trust the Executive to use the power of reservation
only with respect to land covered by timber or which will be useful in
the plan of reforestation (applause). I am in favor of each branch of
the Government trusting the good faith of the other (applause). During
the present Administration, 6,250,000 acres of land, largely
non-timbered, have been excluded from forest reserves, and 3,500,000
acres of land, principally valuable for forest purposes, have been
included in forest reserves, making a reduction in forest reserves of
non-timbered land amounting to 2,750,000 acres. But had we had the
opportunity to include reserves in the forbidden States, the balance
would have been otherwise. The Bureau of Forestry since its creation has
initiated reforestation on 5,600 acres. A great deal of the forest land
is available for grazing. During the past year the grazing lessees
numbered 25,400, and they pastured upon the forest reserves 1,400,000
cattle, 84,540 horses, and 7,580,400 sheep, for which the Government
received $986,715--a decrease from the preceding year of $45,000, due to
the fact that no money was collected or received for grazing on the
non-timbered land eliminated from the forest reserve. Another source of
profit in the forestry is the receipts for timber sold. This year they
amounted to $1,043,000, an increase of $307,000 over the receipts of
last year. This increase is due to improvement in transportation to
market, and to the greater facility with which the timber can be
reached.
The Government timber in this country amounts to only one-fourth of all
the timber, the rest being in private ownership. Only three percent of
that which is in private ownership is looked after properly and treated
according to modern rules of forestry (applause). The usual destructive
waste and neglect continue in the remainder of the forests owned by
private persons and corporations. It is estimated that fire alone
destroys $50,000,000 worth of timber a year. The management of forests
not on public land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
If anything can be done by law it must be done by the State
legislatures. I believe that it is within their constitutional power to
require the enforcement of regulations, in the general public interest,
as to fire and other causes of waste in the management of forests owned
by private individuals and corporations. (Applause)
Exactly how far these regulations can go and remain consistent with the
rights of private ownership, it is not necessary to discuss; but I call
attention to the fact that a very important part of Conservation must
always fall upon the State legislatures, and that they would better be
up and doing if they would save the waste and denudation and destruction
through private greed or accidental fires that have made barren many
square miles of the older States. (Great applause)
I have shown sufficiently the conditions as to Federal forestry to
indicate that no further legislation is needed at the moment except an
increase in the fire protection to National forests and an act vesting
the Executive with full power to make forest reservations in every State
where Government land is timber-covered, or where the land is needed for
forestry purposes.
OTHER LAND WITHDRAWALS
When President Roosevelt became fully advised of the necessity for the
change in our disposition of public lands, especially those containing
coal, oil, gas, phosphates, or water-power sites, he began the exercise
of the power of withdrawal by Executive order of lands subject by law to
homestead and the other methods of entering for agricultural lands. The
precedent he set in this matter was followed by the present
Administration. Doubt had been expressed in some quarters as to the
power in the Executive to make such withdrawals. The confusion and
injustice likely to arise if the courts were to deny the power led me to
appeal to Congress to give the President the express power (applause).
Congress has complied. The law, as passed, does not expressly validate
or confirm previous withdrawals, and therefore, as soon as the new law
was passed, I, myself, confirmed all the withdrawals which had
theretofore been made by both Administrations by making them over again
(great applause). The power of withdrawal is a most useful one, and I do
not think it is likely to be abused.
COAL LANDS
The next subject, and one of the most important for our consideration,
is the disposition of the coal lands in the United States and in Alaska.
First, as to those in the United States.
At the beginning of this Administration there were classified coal lands
amounting to 5,476,000 acres, and there were withdrawn from entry for
purposes of classification 17,867,000 acres. Since that time there has
been withdrawn by my order from entry for classification 77,648,000
acres, making a total withdrawal of 95,515,000 acres (applause).
Meantime, of the acres thus withdrawn, 11,371,000 have been classified
and found not to contain coal, and have been restored to agricultural
entry, and 4,356,000 acres have been classified as coal lands; while
79,788,000 acres remain withdrawn from entry and await classification.
In addition, 336,000 acres have been classified as coal lands without
prior withdrawal, thus increasing the classified coal lands to
10,168,000 acres.
Under the laws providing for the disposition of coal lands in the United
States, the minimum price at which lands are permitted to be sold is $10
an acre; but the Secretary of the Interior has the power to fix a
maximum price and to sell at that price. By the first regulations
governing appraisal, approved April 8, 1907, the minimum was $10, as
provided by law, and the maximum was $100, and the highest price
actually placed upon any land sold was $75. Under the new regulations,
adopted April 10, 1909, the maximum price was increased to $300 except
in regions where there are large mines, where no maximum limit is fixed
and the price is determined by the estimated tons of coal to the acre.
The highest price fixed for any land under this regulation has been $608
per acre. The appraised value of the lands classified as coal lands and
valued under the new and old regulations is shown to be as follows:
4,303,000 acres valued under the old regulation at $77,000,000--an
average of $18 an acre--and 5,864,000 acres classified and valued under
the new regulation at $394,000,000, or a total of 10,168,000 acres
valued at $471,000,000. For the year ending March 31, 1909, 227 coal
entries were made, embracing an area of 35,000 acres, which sold for
$663,000; for the year ending March 31, 1910, there were 176 entries,
embracing an area of 23,000 acres, which sold for $608,000, and down to
August, 1910, there were but 17 entries, with an area of 1,720 acres
which sold for $33,900; making a disposition of coal lands in the last
two years of about 60,000 acres for $1,305,000.
The present Congress, as already said, has separated the surface of coal
lands either classified or withdrawn to be classified from the coal
beneath, so as to permit at all times homestead entries upon the surface
of lands useful for agriculture, and to reserve the ownership in the
coal to the Government.
The question which remains to be considered is whether the existing law
for the sale of the coal in the ground should continue in force or be
repealed and a new method of disposition adopted. Under the present law
the absolute title in the coal beneath the surface passes to the grantee
of the Government. The price fixed is upon an estimated amount of the
tons of coal per acre beneath the surface, and the prices are fixed so
that the earnings will only be a reasonable profit upon the amount paid
and the investment necessary. But, of course, this is more or less
guesswork, and the Government parts with the ownership of the coal in
the ground absolutely. Authorities in the Geological Survey estimate
that in the United States today there is a supply of about three
thousand billion tons of coal, and that of this one-third, or about one
thousand billion, are in the public domain. Of course, the other two
thousand billion are within private ownership and under no more control
as to the use or the prices at which the coal may be sold than any other
private property.
If the Government leases the coal lands and acts as any landlord would,
and imposes conditions in its leases like those which are now imposed by
the owners in fee of coal mines in the various coal regions of the East,
then it would retain over the disposition of the coal deposits a choice
as to the assignee of the lease, a power of resuming possession at the
end of the term of the lease, or of readjusting terms at fixed periods
of the lease, which might easily be framed to enable it to exercise a
limited but effective control in the disposition and sale of the coal to
the public (applause). It has been urged that the leasing system has
never been adopted in this country, and that its adoption would largely
interfere with the investment of capital and the proper development and
opening up of coal resources. I venture to differ entirely from this
view (applause). My investigations show that many owners of mining
property of this country do not mine it themselves, and do not invest
their money in the plants necessary for the mining, but they lease their
properties for a term of years varying from twenty to thirty and forty
years, under conditions requiring the erection of a proper plant and the
investment of a certain amount of money in the development of the mines,
and fixing a rental and a royalty, sometimes an absolute figure and
sometimes one proportioned to the market value of the coal. Under this
latter method the owner of a mine shares in the prosperity of his
lessees when coal is high and the profits good, and also shares to the
same extent in their disappointment when the price of coal falls.
I have looked with some care into a report made at the instance of
President Roosevelt upon the disposition of coal lands in Australia,
Tasmania, and New Zealand. These are peculiarly mining countries, and
their experience ought to be most valuable. In all these countries the
method for the disposition and opening of coal mines originally owned by
the Government is by granting a leasehold, and not by granting an
absolute title. The terms of the leases run all the way from twenty to
fifty years while the amount of land which may be leased to any
individual there is from 320 acres to 2,000 acres. It appears that a
full examination was made and the opinions of all the leading experts on
the subject were solicited and given, and that with one accord they
approved in all respects the leasing system (applause). Its success is
abundantly shown.
It is possible that at first considerable latitude will have to be given
to the Executive in drafting these forms of lease, but as soon as
experiment shall show which is the most workable and practicable, its
use should be provided for specifically by statute. The question as to
how great an area ought to be included in a lease to one individual or
corporation is not free from difficulty; but in view of the fact that
the Government retains control as owner, I think there might be some
liberality in the amount leased, and that 2,500 acres would not be too
great a maximum.
By the opportunity to register the terms upon which the coal shall be
held by the tenant, either at the end of each lease or at periods during
the term, the Government may secure the benefit of sharing in the
increased price of coal and the additional profit made by the tenant. By
imposing conditions in respect to the character of work to be done in
the mine, the Government may control the character of the development of
the mine and the treatment of employees with reference to safety
(applause). By denying the right to transfer the lease except by written
permission of Government authorities, it may withhold the needed consent
when it is proposed to transfer the leasehold to persons interested in
establishing a monopoly of coal production in any State or neighborhood
(applause).
As one-third of all the coal supply is held by the Government, it seems
wise that it should retain such control over the mining and the sale as
the relation of lessor to lessee furnishes. The change from the absolute
grant to the leasing system will involve a good deal of trouble in the
outset, and the training of experts in the matter of making proper
leases; but the change will be a good one and can be made. The change is
in the interest of Conservation, and I am glad to approve it. (Great
applause)
ALASKA COAL LANDS
The investigations of the Geological Survey show that the coal
properties in Alaska cover about 1,200 square miles, and that there are
known to be available about fifteen billion tons. This is, however, an
underestimate of the coal in Alaska, because further developments will
probably increase this amount many times; but we can say with
considerable certainty that there are two fields on the Pacific slope
which can be reached by railways at a reasonable cost from deep
water--in one case of about 50 miles and in the other case of about
150--which will afford certainly six billion tons of coal, more than
half of which is of a very high grade of bituminous and of anthracite.
It is estimated to be worth, in the ground, one-half cent a ton, which
makes its value per acre from $50 to $500. The coking-coal lands of
Pennsylvania are worth from $800 to $2,000 an acre, while other
Appalachian fields are worth from $10 to $386 an acre, and the fields in
the central States from $10 to $2,000 an acre, and in the Rocky
mountains from $10 to $500 an acre.
The demand for coal on the Pacific Coast is for about 4,500,000 tons a
year. It would encounter the competition of cheap fuel oil, of which the
equivalent of 12,000,000 tons of coal a year is used there. It is
estimated that the coal could be laid down at Seattle or San Francisco,
a high-grade bituminous at $4 a ton, and anthracite at $5 or $6 a ton.
The price of coal on the Pacific slope varies greatly from time to time
in the year and from year to year--from $4 to $12 a ton. With a regular
coal supply established, the expert of the Geological Survey, Mr Brooks,
who has made a report on the subject, does not think there would be an
excessive profit in the Alaska coal mining because the price at which
the coal could be sold would be considerably lowered by competition from
these fields and by the presence of crude fuel oil. The history of the
laws affecting the disposition of Alaska coal lands shows them to need
amendment badly. Speaking of them, Mr Brooks says:
The first act, passed June 6, 1900, simply extended to Alaska
the provisions of the coal lands in the United States. The law
was ineffective, for it provided that only subdivided lands
could be taken up and there were no land surveys in Alaska.
I do not like to criticise a coordinate branch of the
Government. The Executive makes mistakes, and so does Congress,
but I do not think it reflects greatly on the intense interest
that Congress had in Alaska and her development that they
should go to work and pass a law affecting the coal lands in
Alaska that didn't operate there at all [applause]. The matter
was rectified by the act of April 28, 1904, which permitted
unsurveyed lands to be entered and the surveys to be made at
the expense of the entrymen. Unfortunately the law provided
that only tracts of 160 acres could be taken up, and no
recognition was given to the fact that it was impracticable to
develop an isolated coal field requiring the expenditure of a
large amount of money by such small communities. Many claims
were staked, however, and surveys were made for patents. It was
recognized by everyone familiar with the conditions that after
patent was obtained these claims would be combined in tracts
large enough to assure successful mining operation. No one
experienced in mining would, of course, consider it feasible to
open a coal field on a basis of a single 160-acre tract. The
claims for the most part were handled in groups, for which one
agent represented the several different owners. Unfortunately a
strict interpretation of the statute raised the question
whether even a tacit understanding between claim-owners to
combine after patents had been obtained was not illegal.
Remedial legislation was sought and enacted in the statute of
May 28, 1908. This law permitted the consolidation of claims
staked previous to November 12, 1906, in tracts of 2,560 acres.
One clause of this law invalidated the title if any individual
or corporation at any time in the future owned any interest
whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in more than one tract. The
purpose of this clause was to prevent the monopolization of
coal fields. Its immediate effect was to discourage capital. It
was felt by many that this clause might lead to forfeiture of
title through the accidents of inheritance, or might even be
used by the unscrupulous in blackmail. It would appear that
land taken up under this law might at any time be forfeited to
the Government through the action of any individual, who,
innocently or otherwise, obtained interest in more than one
coal company. Such a title was felt to be too insecure to
warrant the large investments needed for mining development.
The net result of all this is that no titles to coal lands have
been passed.
On November 12, 1906, President Roosevelt issued an Executive order
withdrawing all coal lands from location and entry in Alaska. On May 16,
1907, he modified the order so as to permit valid locations made prior
to the withdrawal on November 12, 1906, to proceed to entry and patent.
Prior to that date some 900 claims had been filed, most of them said to
be illegal because either made fraudulently by dummy entrymen in the
interest of one individual or corporation, or because of agreements made
prior to location between the applicants to cooperate in developing the
lands. There are thirty-three claims for 160 acres each, known as the
"Cunningham claims," which are said to be valid on the ground that they
were made by an attorney for thirty-three different and bona fide
claimants who, as alleged, paid their money and took proper steps to
locate their entries and protect them. The representatives of the
Government, on the other hand, in the hearings before the Land Office
have attacked the validity of these Cunningham claims on the ground that
prior to their location there was an understanding between the claimants
to pool their claims after they had been perfected and unite them in one
company.
The trend of decision seems to show that such an agreement would
invalidate the claims, although under the subsequent law of May 28,
1908, the consolidation of such claims was permitted, _after_ location
and entry, in tracts of 2,560 acres. It would be, of course, improper
for me to intimate what the result of the issue as to the Cunningham and
other Alaska claims is likely to be, but it ought to be distinctly
understood that no private claims for Alaska coal lands have as yet been
allowed or perfected, and also that whatever the result as to pending
claims, the existing coal-land laws of Alaska are most unsatisfactory
and should be radically amended (applause). To begin with, the purchase
price of the land is a flat rate of $10 per acre, with no power to
increase it beyond that, although, as we have seen, the estimate of the
agent of the Geological Survey would carry up the maximum of value to
$500 an acre.
In my judgment it is essential to the proper development of Alaska that
these coal lands should be opened, and that the Pacific slope should be
given the benefit of the comparatively cheap coal of fine quality which
can be furnished at a reasonable price from these fields (great
applause); but the public, through the Government, ought certainly to
retain a wise control and interest in these coal deposits (applause),
and I think it may do so safely if Congress will authorize the granting
of leases, as already suggested for Government coal lands in the United
States, with provisions forbidding the transfer of the leases except
with the consent of the Government, thus preventing their acquisition by
a combination or monopoly, and upon limitations as to the area to be
included in any one lease to one individual, and at a certain moderate
rental, with royalties upon the coal mined proportioned to the market
value of the coal laid down either at Seattle or at San Francisco
(applause). Of course such leases should contain conditions requiring
the erection of proper plants, the proper development by modern mining
methods of the properties leased, and the use of every known and
practical means and device for saving the life of the miners.
The Government of the United States has much to answer for in not having
given proper attention to the Government of Alaska and the development
of her resources for the benefit of all the people of the country. I
would not force development at the expense of a present or future waste
of resources; but the problem as to the disposition of the coal lands
for present and future use can be wisely and safely settled in one
session if Congress gives it careful attention. (Great applause)
OIL AND GAS LANDS
In the last Administration there were withdrawn from agricultural entry
2,820,000 acres of supposed oil land in California, about 1,500,000
acres in Louisiana (of which only 6,500 acres were known to be vacant,
unappropriated land), 75,000 acres in Oregon, and 174,000 acres in
Wyoming, making a total of nearly 4,000,000 acres.
In September, 1909, I directed that all public oil lands, whether then
withdrawn or not, should be withheld from disposition pending
congressional action, for the reason that the existing placer mining
law, although made applicable to deposits of this character, is not
suitable to such lands, and for the further reason that it seemed
desirable to reserve certain fuel-oil deposits for the use of the
American Navy. Accordingly the form of all existing withdrawals was
changed, and new withdrawals, aggregating 2,750,000 acres, were made, in
Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Field
examinations during the year showed that of the original withdrawals,
2,170,000 acres were not valuable for oil, and they were restored for
agricultural entry. Meantime other withdrawals of public oil lands in
these States were made, so that on July 1, 1910, the outstanding
withdrawals then amounted to 4,550,000 acres.
The needed oil and gas law is essentially a leasing law. In their
natural occurrence oil and gas cannot be measured in terms of acres,
like coal, and it follows that exclusive title to these products can
normally be secured only after they reach the surface. Oil should be
disposed of as a commodity in terms of barrels of transportable product
rather than in acres of real estate (applause). This is, of course, the
reason for the practically universal adoption of the leasing system
wherever oil land is in private ownership. The Government thus would not
be entering on an experiment, but simply putting into effect a plan
successfully operated in private contracts. Why should not the
Government as a land-owner deal directly with the oil producer rather
than through the intervention of a middleman to whom the Government
gives title to the land? (Applause) The principal underlying feature of
such legislation should be the exercise of beneficial control rather
than the collection of revenue.
As not only the largest owner of oil lands, but as a prospective large
consumer of oil by reason of the increasing use of fuel-oil by the navy,
the Federal Government is directly concerned both in encouraging
rational development and at the same time insuring the longest possible
life to the oil supply. The royalty rates fixed by the Government should
neither exceed nor fall below the current rates. But much more important
than revenue is the enforcement of regulations to conserve the public
interest so that the inconvenience of the lessee shall specifically
safeguard oil fields against the penalties from careless drilling and of
production in excess of transportation facilities or of market
requirement.
One of the difficulties presented, especially in the California fields,
is that the Southern Pacific Railroad owns every other section of land
in the oil fields, and in those fields the oil seems to be in a common
reservoir, or series of reservoirs, communicating through the oil sands,
so that the excessive draining of oil at one well, or on the railroad
territory generally, would exhaust the oil in the Government land. Hence
it is important that if the Government is to have its share of the oil,
it should begin the opening and development of wells on its own
property. (Laughter and applause)
In view of the joint ownership which the Government and the adjoining
land-owners, like the Southern Pacific Railroad, have in the oil
reservoirs below the surface, it is a most interesting and intricate
question, difficult of solution, but one which ought to address itself
at once to the State law-makers, how far the State legislature might
impose appropriate restrictions to secure an equitable enjoyment of the
common reservoir, and to prevent waste and excessive drainage by the
various owners having access to this reservoir (applause). It has been
suggested, and I believe the suggestion to be a sound one, that permits
be issued to a prospector for oil, giving him the right to prospect for
two years over a certain tract of Government land for the discovery of
oil, the right to be evidenced by a license for which he pays a small
sum. When the oil is discovered, then he acquires title to a certain
tract, much in the same way as he would acquire title under a mining
law. Of course, if the system of leasing is adopted, then he would be
given the benefit of a lease upon terms like that above suggested. What
has been said in respect to oil applies also to Government gas lands.
Under the proposed oil legislation, especially where the Government oil
lands embrace an entire oil field, as in many cases, prospectors,
operators, consumers, and the public can be benefitted by the adoption
of the leasing system. The prospector can be protected in the very
expensive work that necessarily antedates discovery. The operator can be
protected against impairment of productiveness of the wells which he has
leased by reason of the control of drilling and pumping of other wells
too closely adjacent or by the prevention of imperfect methods as
employed by careless, ignorant or irresponsible operators in the same
field, which result in the admission of water to the oil sand; while, of
course, the consumer will profit by whatever benefits the prospector or
operator receives in reducing the first cost of the oil.
PHOSPHATE LAND
Phosphorus is one of the three essentials to plant growth, the other
elements being nitrogen and potash. Of these three, phosphorus is by all
odds the greatest element in nature. It is easily extracted in useful
form from the phosphate rock, and the United States contains the
greatest known deposits of this rock in the world. They are found in
Wyoming, Utah and Florida, as well as in South Carolina, Georgia and
Tennessee. The Government phosphate lands are confined to Wyoming, Utah
and Florida. Prior to March 4, 1909, there were four million acres
withdrawn from agricultural entry on the ground that the land covered
phosphate rock. Since that time 2,322,000 acres of the land thus
withdrawn was found not to contain phosphate in profitable quantities,
while 1,678,000 acres was classified properly as phosphate land. During
this Administration there has been withdrawn and classified 437,000
acres, so that today there is classified as phosphate rock land
2,115,000 acres.
The rock is most important in the composition of fertilizers to improve
the soil, and as the future is certain to create an enormous demand
throughout this country for fertilization, the value to the public of
such deposits as these can hardly be exaggerated. Certainly with respect
to these deposits a careful policy of Conservation should be followed.
Half of the phosphate of the rock that is mined in private fields in the
United States is now exported. As our farming methods grow better the
demand for the phosphate will become greater, and it must be arranged so
that the supply shall equal the needs of the country. It is uncertain
whether the placer or lode law applies to the Government phosphate rock.
There is, therefore, a necessity for some definite and well-considered
legislation on this subject, and in aid of such legislation all of the
Government lands known to contain valuable phosphate rock are now
withdrawn from entry.
A law that would provide a leasing system for the phosphate deposits,
together with a provision for the separation of the surface and mineral
rights as is already provided for in the case of coal, would seem to
meet the need of promoting the development of these deposits and their
utilization in the agricultural lands of the West. If it is thought
desirable to discourage the exportation of phosphate rock and the saving
of it for our own lands, this purpose could be accomplished by
conditions in the lease granted by the Government to its lessee. Of
course, under the Constitution the Government could not tax and could
not prohibit the exportation of phosphate, but as proprietor and owner
of the lands in which the phosphate is deposited it could impose
conditions upon the kind of sales, whether foreign or domestic, which
the lessee might make of the phosphate mined. (Applause)
The tonnage represented by the phosphate lands in Government ownership
is very great. But the lesson has been learned in the case of such lands
as have passed into private ownership in South Carolina, Florida and
Tennessee, that the phosphate deposits there are in no sense
inexhaustible. Moreover, it is also well understood that in the process
of mining phosphate, as it has been pursued, much of the lower grade of
phosphate rock which will eventually all be needed has been wasted
beyond recovery. Such wasteful methods can easily be prevented, so far
as the Government land is concerned, by conditions inserted in the
leases.
WATER-POWER SITES
Prior to March 4, 1909, there had been, on the recommendation of the
Reclamation Service, withdrawn from agricultural entry, because they
were regarded as useful for power sites which ought not to be disposed
of as agricultural lands, tracts amounting to about 4,000,000 acres. The
withdrawals were hastily made and included a great deal of land that was
not useful for power sites. They were intended to include the power
sites on twenty-nine rivers in nine States. Since that time 3,475,442
acres have been restored for settlement of the original 4,000,000,
because they do not contain power sites; and meantime there have been
newly withdrawn 1,245,892 acres on vacant public land and 211,007 acres
on entered public land, or a total of 1,456,899 acres. These withdrawals
made from time to time cover all the power sites included in the first
withdrawals, and many more, on 135 rivers and in 11 States. The
disposition of these power sites involves one of the most difficult
questions presented in carrying out practical Conservation.
The Forest Service, under a power found in the Statute, has leased a
number of these power sites in forest reserves by revocable leases, but
no such power exists with respect to power sites that are not located
within forest reserves; and the revocable system of leasing is, of
course, not a satisfactory one for the purpose of inviting the capital
needed to put in proper plants for the transmission of power.
The Statute of 1891, with its amendments, permits the Secretary of the
Interior to grant perpetual easements or rights-of-way from water
sources over public lands for the primary purpose of irrigation and such
electrical current as may be incidentally developed, but no grant can be
made under this Statute to concerns whose primary purpose is generating
and handling electricity. The Statute of 1901 authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to issue revocable permits over the public lands to
electrical power companies, but this Statute is woefully inadequate
because it does not authorize the collection of a charge or fix a term
of years. Capital is slow to invest in an enterprise founded upon a
permit revocable at will.
The subject is one that calls for new legislation. It has been thought
that there was danger of combination to obtain possession of all the
power sites and to unite them under one control. Whatever the evidence
of this, or lack of it, at present we have had enough experience to know
that combination would be profitable, and the control of a great number
of power sites would enable the holders or owners to raise the price of
power at will within certain sections; and the temptation would promptly
attract investors, and the danger of monopoly would not be a remote one.
However this may be, it is the plain duty of the Government to see to it
that in the utilization and development of all this immense amount of
water-power, conditions shall be imposed that will prevent monopoly, and
will prevent extortionate charges which are the accompaniment of
monopoly. The difficulty of adjusting the matter is accentuated by the
relation of the power sites to the water, the fall and flow of which
create the power.
In the States where these sites are, the riparian owner does not control
or own the power in the water which flows past his land. That power is
under the control and within the grant of the State, and generally the
rule is that the first user is entitled to the enjoyment. Now, the
possession of the bank or water-power site over which the water is to be
conveyed in order to make the power useful, gives to its owner an
advantage and a certain kind of control over the use of the water-power,
and it is proposed that the Government in dealing with its own lands
should use this advantage and lease lands for power sites to those who
would develop the power, and impose conditions on the leasehold with
reference to the reasonableness of the rates at which the power, when
transmuted, is to be furnished to the public, and forbidding the union
of the particular power with a combination of others made for the
purpose of monopoly by forbidding assignment of the lease save by
consent of the Government (applause). Serious difficulties are
anticipated by some in such an attempt on the part of the general
Government, because of the sovereign control of the State over the
water-power in its natural condition, and the mere proprietorship of the
Government in the riparian lands.
It is contended that through its mere proprietary right in the site the
central Government has no power to attempt to exercise police
jurisdiction with reference to how the water-power in a river owned and
controlled by the State shall be used, and that it is a violation of the
State's rights. I question the validity of this objection. The
Government may impose any conditions that it chooses in its lease of its
own property, even though it may have the same purpose and in effect
accomplish just what the State would accomplish by the exercise of its
sovereignty. That is shown frequently in leases of houses containing a
covenant against the use of the house for that which under the law of
the State is an unlawful use; and nevertheless, no one has ever
contended that that condition, though it be for the stricter enforcement
of the State law, is without the power of the lessor as a proprietor of
the land which he is leasing.
There are those (and the Director of the Geological Survey, Mr Smith,
who has given a great deal of attention to this matter, is one of them)
who insist that this matter of transmuting water-power into electricity
which can be conveyed all over the country and across State lines, is a
matter that ought to be retained by the general Government, and that it
should avail itself of the ownership of these power sites for the very
purpose of coordinating in one general plan the power generated from
these Government-owned sites. On the other hand, it is contended that it
would relieve a complicated situation if the control of the water-power
site and the control of the water were vested in the same sovereignty
and ownership, viz: the State, and then were disposed of for development
to private lessees under the restrictions needed to preserve the
interests of the public from the extortions and abuses of monopoly.
Therefore, bills have been introduced in Congress providing that
whenever the State authorities deem a water-power useful they may apply
to the Government of the United States for a grant to the State of the
adjacent land for a water-power site, and that this grant from the
Federal Government to the State shall contain a condition that the State
shall never part with the title to the water-power site or the
water-power, but shall lease it only for a term of years not exceeding
fifty, with provisions in the lease by which the rental and the rates
for which the power is furnished to the public shall be readjusted at
periods less than the term of the lease, say every ten years.
The argument is urged against this disposition of power sites that
legislators and State authorities are more subject to corporate
influence and control than would be the central Government. In reply it
is claimed that a readjustment of the terms of leasehold every ten years
would secure to the public and the State just and equitable terms. Then
it is said that the State authorities are better able to understand the
local need and what is a fair adjustment in the particular locality than
would be the authorities at Washington. It has been argued that after
the Federal Government parts with title to a power site it cannot
control the action of the State in fulfilling the conditions of the
deed, to which it is answered that in the grant from the Government
there may be easily inserted a condition specifying the terms upon which
the State may part with the temporary control of the water-power sites,
and, indeed, the water-power, and providing for a forfeiture of the
title to the water-power sites in case the condition is not performed;
and giving to the President, in case of such violation of conditions,
the power to declare forfeiture and to direct proceedings to restore to
the central Government the ownership of the power sites with all the
improvements thereon, and that these conditions may be promptly enforced
and the land and plants forfeited to the general Government by suit of
the United States against the State, which is permissible under the
Constitution (applause). And that by such a provision, _in terrorem_,
the edict of States and of the legislatures in respect to these lands
might be enforced through the general Government.
I do not express an opinion upon the controversy thus made or a
preference as to the two methods of treating water-power sites. I shall
submit the matter to Congress with all the arguments, and urge that one
or the other of the two plans be promptly adopted.
* * * * *
At the risk of wearying my audience I have attempted to state as
succinctly as may be the questions of Conservation as they apply to the
public domain of the Government, the conditions to which they apply, and
the proposed solution of them.
In the outset I alluded to the fact that Conservation had been made to
include a great deal more than what I have discussed here. Of course, as
I have referred only to the public domain of the Federal Government, I
have left untouched the wide field of Conservation with respect to which
a heavy responsibility rests upon the States and individuals as well.
But I think it of the utmost importance that after the public attention
has been roused to the necessity of a change in our general policy to
prevent waste and a selfish appropriation to private and corporate
purposes of what should be controlled for the public benefit, those who
urge Conservation shall feel the necessity of making clear how
Conservation can be practically carried out (applause), and shall
propose specific methods and legal provisions and regulations to remedy
actual adverse conditions (applause). I am bound to say that the time
has come for a halt in general rhapsodies over Conservation, making the
word mean every known good in the world (applause), for, after the
public attention has been roused, such appeals are of doubtful utility
and do not direct the public to the specific course that the people
should take, or have their legislators take, in order to promote the
cause of Conservation. The rousing of emotions on a subject like this,
which has only dim outlines in the minds of the people affected, after a
while ceases to be useful, and the whole movement will, if promoted on
these lines, die for want of practical direction and of demonstration to
the people that practical reforms are intended. (Applause)
I have referred to the course of the last Administration and of the
present one in making withdrawals of Government lands from entry under
homestead and other laws, and of Congress in removing all doubt as to
the validity of these withdrawals as a great step in the direction of
practical Conservation (applause). But this is only one of two necessary
steps to effect what should be our purpose. It has produced a status quo
and prevented waste and irrevocable disposition of the lands until the
method for their proper disposition can be formulated, but it is of the
utmost importance that such withdrawals should not be regarded as the
final step in the course of Conservation, and that the idea should not
be allowed to spread that Conservation is the tying up of the natural
resources of the Government for indefinite withholding from use, and the
remission to remote generations to decide what ought to be done with
these means of promoting present general human comfort and progress
(great applause). For, if so, it is certain to arouse the greatest
opposition to Conservation as a cause, and if it were a correct
expression of the purpose of conservationists it ought to arouse such
opposition. (Applause)
Real Conservation involves wise, non-wasteful use in the present
generation, with every possible means of preservation for succeeding
generations; and though the problem to secure this end may be difficult,
the burden is on the present generation promptly to solve it and not to
run away from it as cowards, lest in the attempt to meet it we may make
some mistakes (applause). As I have said elsewhere, the problem is how
to save and how to utilize, how to conserve and still develop; for no
sane person can contend that it is for the common good that Nature's
blessings should be stored only for unborn generations. (Applause)
I beg of you, therefore, in your deliberations and in your informal
discussions, when men come forward to suggest evils that the promotion
of Conservation is to remedy, that you invite them to point out the
specific evils and the specific remedies; that you invite them to come
down to details in order that their discussions may flow into channels
that shall be useful rather than into periods that shall be eloquent and
entertaining without shedding real light on the subject (prolonged
applause and cheers). The people should be shown exactly what is needed
in order that they may make their representatives in Congress and the
State legislatures do their intelligent bidding. (Great and prolonged
applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--The Congress is now adjourned to reassemble at 2 oclock
this afternoon.
_SECOND SESSION_
The Congress was called to order by President Baker at 3 oclock p.m.
President BAKER--It gives me a great deal of pleasure to announce that
Governor W. R. Stubbs, of Kansas, has kindly consented to preside at
this session. Ladies and Gentlemen, Governor Stubbs. (Applause)
Governor STUBBS--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am very grateful
for your liberal recognition. And I present to you a man who knows much
about the laws pertaining to land in the United States, one better
fitted to speak on this subject than any other, Senator Knute Nelson, of
Minnesota. I take great pleasure in introducing him. (Applause)
Senator NELSON--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I could not help
thinking this forenoon as I looked at the magnificent audience how every
delegate and visitor from abroad must conclude that in one respect
Conservation in Minnesota has been a success--Conservation of our
prosperous and growing humanity.
I am here to speak briefly of our public-land system, past and present,
in the hope that we may derive some lessons from the mistakes of the
past and have something to guide us in the future. I shall say little of
Conservation in general. My aim will be to draw attention to what I deem
of importance for the legislative branch of the Government to do in the
future, and I shall do so only in general terms, seeking--on account of
my position as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Lands--to
avoid all matters that will lead to controversy.
As those know who have had experience in public affairs, particularly in
legislation, all reforms are matters of compromise. Legislation is
largely experimental and those who are most progressive and advanced in
seeking reforms for the future often find themselves handicapped by
those who would make no change; and the result is oftentimes a
compromise in which the reformers get only half a loaf.
The natural resources of our country should be conserved by the
individual, by the State, and by the Federal Government. For each there
is an appropriate field. The farmer must conserve the resources of his
farm; the State the resources of its lands, its forests and its waters;
and the Federal Government the resources of its mines, its forests, and
its lands with all their appurtenances. When the several forces act in
harmony, beneficial results of a far-reaching and permanent value will
be attained for the preservation and utilization of our resources.
Practical and beneficial Conservation of natural resources on the part
of the Federal Government and the State should include and provide for
due and efficient utilization of the same for the benefit of the masses
of the people. The mere conservation and retention of ownership, the
mere securing of a larger price for the resource, may prove burdensome
rather than a benefit to the public. The ultimate question is not so
much how to hold and conserve as how to properly utilize our resources.
The mere holding, or the mere securing of a higher price seems to me to
be entirely futile (applause). The aim should not be so much to secure a
higher price for the Government as to secure lower price for the
consumer and to prevent monopoly (applause). Hence, in the disposal of a
resource, care should be taken to prevent combination and monopoly in
restraint of trade in respect to the same; and the right, as in the case
of railway rates, to regulate the price to the consumer should be
retained; in other words, care should be taken and provision should be
made that the consumer can obtain the product of the resource at a fair
and reasonable rate. To merely conserve and hold at a high price retards
development and enables those who have already secured a large share of
a resource to monopolize the market and to secure an exorbitant price
for the product of the resource. (Applause) The ultimate object of the
conservation of a resource should be to utilize it for the best
advantage of the consumer. True Conservation means beneficial use--means
utilization.
* * * * *
The close of the Revolutionary War found our country with an empty
treasury and a large public debt, but possessed of a large quantity of
valuable public lands northwest of the Ohio river and elsewhere, ceded
by Great Britain, supplemented by a cession from Virginia and some of
the older States, from which were afterward carved great States, though
the public domain was at that time regarded chiefly as an asset from
which the Government could obtain revenues for its wants and needs.
The first general land law of a public nature for the disposal of our
public lands was passed in 1796. This law, after prescribing a system of
surveying the public lands, substantially the same as has been since
adhered to, provided for the sale of the lands at public auction to the
highest bidder, partly for cash and partly on credit.
By the Act of 1800 the minimum price was fixed at $2 an acre, and land
not sold at public auction could be bought at private sale at that
price.
The Act of 1820 abolished sales on credit and fixed the minimum price at
$1.25 per acre, at which rate it has since remained. Lands offered at
public sale became known as "offered land," and if not sold at public
sale could be obtained at private sale or entry at the minimum price.
The result of this system was that, owing to the great scarcity of money
in the country at that time among the masses of the people, large blocks
of land were purchased by speculators and held by them indefinitely for
an excessive profit, and the masses of the people--the settlers, the
real home builders--had to purchase the land from these speculators
instead of securing it from the Government. The Government got but scant
return for its valuable public land. The chief profit was made by the
middlemen, those speculators who bought it up in large blocks; they
reaped a rich harvest. But in the midst of this system the settlers
pressed on to the frontier. They were without money, but they settled on
the public lands, squatted there without authority of law; and finally
the Government, to help these settlers, to relieve them and give them a
little breathing time, in 1841 passed what was known as the general
Preemption Law. Under this law the head of a family, a widow, or a
single person over twenty-one years of age who was a citizen or had
declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, could
secure 160 acres of public land by settling upon, improving and
cultivating it, and by paying for and entering the same within from one
to three years after settlement, the time of payment in each case
depending on whether the land was offered, unoffered, or unsurveyed.
This law (the Preemption Act of 1841) was clearly intended to help the
pioneers and the settlers, and it proved of great advantage to them; but
owing to the lax procedure that prevailed (under which a man could go on
a preemption claim, make a few limited and pro forma improvements, and
at the end of six months appear in the land office and prove up and have
his final entry made and ultimately get a patent), the Preemption Law
itself became a great instrument in the hands of speculators and land
grabbers, and in consequence Congress concluded to repeal the law.
The law allowing lands to be secured at private entry was repealed in
1889; the law allowing public sales was repealed in 1891, and the
Preemption Law was also repealed the same year. These laws were repealed
none too soon, because by that time they had got to be the instruments
by which those who were seeking valuable coal lands, timber lands, and
other lands would hire a lot of people to go and make preemption claims,
and then, as soon as they obtained title, secure the title, whereby
thousands and thousands of acres of the most valuable timber and mineral
lands, coal lands, and other lands passed into the hands of speculators
for little more than a dollar and a quarter an acre, and sometimes even
less, for there were various kinds of scrip issued--agricultural college
scrip and other scrip to which I will call attention later--put on the
market and sold. That scrip would be used instead of money in paying for
and entering land; and through it much valuable land passed into the
hands of speculators at a cost of even less than one dollar an acre. You
who have lived here have all observed that the low price at which the
lumbermen secured timber in those early days under the Preemption Law,
by cash entry, and under agricultural and other scrip, did not help much
to get cheaper lumber. The result was to enable owners of large bodies
of pine land to hold them indefinitely for the purpose of securing a
higher price for their stumpage.
In 1874 an Act was passed "To encourage the growth of timber on the
western prairies." The purpose of this Act was laudable and had it
resulted in supplying the prairies with timber the gift of the land
would have been amply compensated for. But in its practical operations
the law proved a failure. Only a comparatively few of the many claims
entered were ever successfully forested, or ever became real timber
land. A large share of them were merely taken and held by speculators
with no real purpose of complying with the law in respect to the
planting, culture, and care of timber. Claimants would secure these
claims, enter them under the timber-culture law, make the first entry,
and then hold them just as long as they could, waiting until some
land-seeker came around, when they would tell him, "I have a timber
claim here, and might relinquish it so you can take it as a homestead;
how much will you give me for my relinquishment?" And for a time under
this law there was a great speculation in the sale of what we call
timber relinquishments. No timber was raised. Speculators had held the
land for four or five, maybe six, years as a timber claim. Then when a
real settler came along, why, for a consideration of one, two, three,
four or five hundred dollars, or whatever the settler was able to pay,
the holder would relinquish his timber claim to the Government so that
the real land-seeker could secure the same under the Homestead Law, or
under the Preemption Law, while that was in force.
In 1862 an Act was passed giving to each State 30,000 acres of land for
every senator and representative in Congress for the purpose of
establishing and maintaining agricultural and mechanical colleges. In
States where there was a sufficient quantity of public lands the State
was required to select the land from the public lands in the State, but
in States where no such lands could be secured land scrip was issued in
place of the land. This resulted in placing an enormous amount of land
scrip on the market, which was sold by the State in many instances in
bulk to speculators at a greatly reduced price, netting the States from
fifty to one hundred cents per acre--perhaps the average did not exceed
seventy-five cents per acre. The scrip could be used in entering land or
in paying for land under the Preemption and Homestead Laws at the rate
of $1.25 an acre. So far as the States to which the scrip was issued
were concerned the grant was a wasteful one. It would have been much
wiser and better for the Government to have appropriated $1.25 per acre
in cash to the States instead of giving them the scrip, and reserving
the lands which could be entered with the scrip for actual settlers
under the Homestead Law. In addition to this college scrip, we have had
from time to time various kinds of other scrip, Chippewa half-breed
scrip, Sioux half-breed scrip, and Supreme Court scrip, and others that
I cannot at this moment recall. Most of this scrip, fortunately, is now
about exhausted; very little of it is still afloat and at large. There
was also what we called "soldiers' additional" scrip of which there was
a great deal; a soldier could take a homestead of 40 or 80 or 120 acres,
and if he had no more in his homestead entry, he could take the residue
and make up 160 acres anywhere on the public lands of the United States,
without residing on the land; and he could dispose of his interest by
power of attorney, by which speculators succeeded in getting that. And
the records of our soldiers' homes will show how land speculators have
been searching among the veterans for this kind of scrip. Why, I got a
letter some years ago from a gentleman in Missouri--I can't recall his
name--reminding me of the fact that I had had a homestead; and he told
me that I was entitled to forty acres more under my right, in addition
to the 120 acres, and that he was willing to buy the land of me. He had
hunted up the records, and found a man by my name, but unfortunately the
homestead and all the rest transpired and existed in Wisconsin.
In 1878 Congress passed the so-called Timber and Stone Act, originally
limited to four western States, but by the Act of 1892 extended to all
the public-land States. Under this law land unfit for cultivation and
chiefly valuable for timber and stone could be secured in tracts of 160
acres for each entry-man at a price of $2.50 per acre. Under the law the
purchaser is prohibited from buying the land on speculation or in the
interest of any one but himself. On its face this law seems fair,
harmless, and just, but in its practical operation it proved the means
of a good deal of fraudulent land speculation. In the first instance,
valuable agricultural land fit for agriculture was entered under the law
on the theory that it was only good for the timber or stone on it.
In the next place--and there was where the great iniquity
occurred--speculators would hire men and women in different parts of the
country to go and enter stone and timber claims, furnishing them money
through outside friends, and then as soon as they had secured title get
a transfer of the land to themselves by paying a bonus of one or two
hundred and in some cases up to five hundred and a thousand dollars.
Why, I remember how, in a city not a thousand miles away from Saint
Paul, one year some twenty-five or thirty school teachers entered stone
and timber claims in the State of Oregon! This law finally proved simply
a source of speculation to the men who were trying to secure large
bodies of timber; and under it a large share of the valuable timber
lands now in private holdings were secured. The law should have been
repealed immediately; but while the Senate passed a bill repealing it
some five or six years ago, the bill failed to pass in the House of
Representatives. Since then the Secretary of the Interior has come to
our relief to some extent. The Stone and Timber Act said that this land
could be sold at not less than $2.50 an acre; and up to 1908 the
Government had always treated that as the price, and never exacted any
more. In 1908 the Interior Department adopted the rule of appraising the
lands for the timber and stone on them and selling them at the appraised
value, and the result of that policy has been to stop speculation in
those kinds of lands. A very limited amount of timber and stone lands
have been entered since for now it does not pay big lumber operators or
land speculators to hire anybody to go and enter these lands because
under this rule they have to pay pretty nearly what the land is worth.
But while this administrative order has given us some relief, I am
clearly of the opinion that the law should be entirely repealed to the
end that we can make suitable provision for the disposal of our stone
and timber land under more appropriate legislation and at a fairer rate,
both to the purchaser and to the Government. (Applause)
In 1862 Congress passed the Homestead Law, with the general provisions
of which most of you are familiar. This law makes a gift of 160 acres to
each settler and home-builder who will occupy, improve, and cultivate
his claim for a period of five years. Of all our public land laws this
has, on the whole, been the most beneficent and productive of the best
results. Under its provisions hundreds of thousands of poor and
industrious men and women have carved out happy homes for themselves and
their children, relieved the pressure of labor in our large cities and
great industrial centers, and rapidly laid the foundation for and built
up great States in the middle and far West. Judged by results, it is
doubtful whether the Government ever received a better return for any of
its lands than it has received for these lands given as a free gift,
under the Homestead Law, to our farmers and settlers. A happy,
prosperous, and industrious rural population will ever prove to be the
sheet-anchor of our industrial, social and political well-being, and
will ever afford a solid foundation for the integrity and perpetuity of
American institutions. The Homestead Law, with all its blessings, had
one defect which has, to some extent, marred its usefulness. I refer to
the privilege of commutation--the privilege of proving up and paying for
the land at $1.25 per acre prior to the five-year period for final free
entry. Originally and for many years after the law was passed, the
privilege of commutation could be exercised after the lapse of six
months from date of entry. This period was extended to fourteen months
some years ago and this fourteen months' period is still the law. The
vice of allowing a homestead entry to be commuted as stated, consists in
opening the door to the speculator, who, in the space of fourteen months
can secure title to the land on scant and temporary improvements and
then move away and hold the land for merely speculative purposes,
leaving the surrounding settlers to enhance the value of his land by
their continuing and permanent improvements. When they have erected
dwellings, barns, school houses, and churches, and have laid out roads
and organized school districts, the petty speculator and commutator, who
has done nothing to build up the country, stands ready to sell his land
at a greatly enhanced price to an actual home-builder and settler. The
commutation privilege should not have been included in the law, and
should be repealed, in my opinion, as soon as practicable. None but
permanent and bona fide settlers should be permitted to secure land
under the Homestead Law.
In 1872 Congress enacted a law for the location, purchase, and entry of
land containing gold, silver, copper, and other precious metals,
commonly called the mining law of the United States, which became a part
of the Revised Statutes. Mining claims are of two classes: (1) lode or
quartz claims, and (2) placer claims. Both are initiated by discovery,
staking out on the ground, and filing notice of location. After these
preliminary steps have been taken, claims can be held indefinitely
without purchase as long as $100 worth of work is done each year on each
claim; and as a matter of fact, only a small proportion of mining
claims, especially placer claims, are ever purchased from the
Government. Placer claims are soon worked out and exhausted, while good
lode claims are workable and profitable for many years. There is a
difference in the size and in the price of lode and placer claims.
Placer claims are larger in area and can be purchased at $2.50 per acre,
while lode claims cost $5 an acre.
In 1873 Congress passed a law for the purchase and entry of coal lands,
which also became a part of the Revised Statutes. Under this law every
person above the age of twenty-one years, who is a citizen or has
declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, may
purchase and enter 160 acres of coal land; and an association of such
persons may purchase and enter 320 acres, and an association of not less
than four such persons, if they have first expended not less than $5,000
in working and improving a coal mine on the land, may purchase and enter
not to exceed 640 acres in one claim. The price in each case is not less
than $10 per acre where the land is situate more than fifteen miles from
a completed railroad and not less than $20 per acre if the land is
within fifteen miles of a completed railroad. Only one entry can be made
by the same person or association of persons; and no association or any
member of which shall have taken the benefit of the law either as an
individual or as a member of any other association, shall enter or hold
any other lands under the provisions of the law; and no member of any
association which shall have taken the benefit of the law shall enter or
hold any other land under the provisions of the law. A preference right
of entry for the period of one year is given to any person or
association that has opened and improved a coal mine on the public
lands. The provisions of the law as to the acquisition and holding of
more than one claim are clear and stringent, and have been applied and
enforced in the courts in several instances where great corporations
have sought, through dummies and otherwise, to acquire vast holdings of
coal lands. It is conceded, too, that the minimum price fixed by statute
is, in many instances, altogether too low and much below the real value.
In 1907 the Interior Department cured this defect by adopting the policy
of classifying and appraising the coal lands and selling them at the
appraised value, a value in most instances far in excess of the minimum
statutory price. This new policy is continued, and under it something
over 100,000 acres of coal lands have been entered. Further legislation
is urgently needed in respect to the disposal of our coal lands. If the
policy of selling the land is to be continued, not only should the
system of appraisal now in vogue be adhered to, but provision should be
made to protect the people--the consumers--against the monopolies and
combinations in restraint of trade and against unreasonable and
exorbitant prices. Many good men, however, who have given the subject
great consideration, favor a well-guarded system of leasing instead of
sale for coal lands. Their contention is that under a leasing system
more careful and less wasteful methods of mining will be pursued and
that better protection can be thereby secured for the miner, the
consumer, and the Government. I am not prepared to take issue with this
contention. A leasing system is clearly preferable where the surface of
the land is disposed of for agricultural purposes, for under such a
system the conflicting interests of the miner and the farmer can be best
adjusted, regulated, and controlled. Perhaps it would be wise to adopt
both sale and leasing systems, leaving it optional with the Government
to select the mode of disposal in any given case; for there may be cases
where the one method would be preferable to the other.
In 1900 Congress passed an act extending the coal-land laws to Alaska,
but the act proved of no value as only surveyed lands could be purchased
and entered under the general law, and there was no surveyed land in
Alaska, and no provision was made in the act for surveys. By the act of
April 28, 1904, the general coal-land laws were extended to Alaska in a
more effective and rational manner. Under this act any person or
association, qualified to make entry under the coal-land laws of the
United States, who opens and improves a coal mine on the unsurveyed
public lands in Alaska can locate the land on which such mine is found
by staking the same out on the ground, and by filing notice of location
in the recording district and in the land office of the district in
which the land is situate, within one year after staking out the claim.
After these preliminary steps are taken, the locator must cause a survey
and plat of the land to be made by a deputy United States surveyor, and
thereafter, within three years from date of the location notice he must
make application for a patent of the land, prove a compliance with the
law, and pay the price of only $10 per acre for the land. Aside from
these provisions all other provisions of the general coal-land law apply
to coal lands in Alaska. Under this law between eight and nine hundred
coal-land locations have been made, but of these only about thirty-three
cases (perhaps a few more) have passed to final entry at the local land
office. The time for making entry and securing patents on the other
locations has, in most, if not in all instances, lapsed, and they cannot
be relocated owing to the fact that by executive orders of November 12,
and 27 and December 17, 1906, and by a recent executive order of
President Taft, all coal lands in Alaska are withdrawn from location,
sale, and entry. This withdrawal was no doubt made in pursuance of
recent legislation by Congress and for the purpose of giving Congress an
opportunity to enact better coal-land laws for Alaska than those now in
force; and such legislation, to my mind, is clearly and urgently needed,
and I am in hopes that Congress will take steps at its next session to
enact suitable coal-land laws for Alaska in order that the people there
may have an opportunity to utilize the coal that is within their own
boundaries. (Applause)
By the Act of March 3, 1877, amended in 1891, provision was made for the
entry and reclamation by irrigation of desert or arid land in the
Pacific coast and mountain States and Territories. Under the original
act 640 acres could be entered in one claim, but since the act of 1891
was passed only 320 acres can be entered in one claim under this law.
Water for irrigating the land must be secured and the land must be
reclaimed and cultivated by means of such water for the period of four
years after the preliminary entry, and the price of $1.25 per acre must
be paid before patent can be secured for the land. This law has not
proved very effective or beneficial, especially on account of the
difficulty, in many instances, of securing the necessary water supply by
a single entryman. In many instances the conditions of the law have not
been complied with, and as a whole the law may be said to have to some
extent failed of its purpose.
In view of the comprehensive character of the general Reclamation Act of
1902, which makes due provision for securing a water supply and provides
for limited homesteads under a qualified homestead law, the desert law
referred to, could well be repealed. The Federal reclamation system is
more certain and effective than reclamation by individuals in isolated
cases.
Under the so-called Carey Act of 1894, desert and arid lands are granted
to certain States, in limited quantities, for reclamation and
cultivation by means of irrigation, this to be done under the auspices
and direction of the States to which the grants are made. This law has
in some respects proved more effective and of more value than the
general desert law, but it cannot be regarded as equal in value and
efficiency to the general Reclamation Act of 1902, and therefore it
seems to me it is not advisable to make any more grants of this nature
to any of the States.
No effective or systematic effort was made to preserve the forests on
the public domain until March 3, 1891, when an act was passed giving the
President the power to set apart and reserve, from time to time, public
lands for forestry purposes. This was supplemented by the act of June 4,
1897, providing for the administration and care of the land so reserved
and set apart, which lands are now termed National Forests of the United
States. Under this law nearly two hundred million acres of public lands
in various States and Territories, including Alaska, have been withdrawn
and set apart for forestry purposes and are now embraced, most of them,
in our National Forests and their administration and care has been
placed on a sound, workable, and safe basis through the initiation,
prudence, and wisdom of our great forester, Mr Pinchot (great and
prolonged applause), who has laid the foundation and is the father of
our forestry system. This legislation and administrative action came
none too soon. Had there been more delay, our timber lands would, long
before this, have passed into private ownership and there would have
been nothing left for the Government to conserve (applause). No land
legislation in recent times has been productive of such beneficent and
far-reaching blessings and results as our forestry legislation. While
occasionally there has been a little grumbling and friction on the part
of settlers and cattlemen as to the administration of the law in some of
its details, yet it can be fairly said, when it is borne in mind that it
is a new system, that there has been little, if any, valid ground for
serious criticism or complaint. The conduct of a few over-zealous forest
rangers and a few over-strenuous settlers and cattlemen ought not to
militate against the value and usefulness of the forestry system as a
whole and in its entirety. (Applause)
Under the act of March 3, 1891, as amended by the act of January 21,
1895, and May 11, 1898, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized,
under general regulations to be fixed by him, to grant, without exacting
compensation, permits for right-of-way on the public lands for canals
and reservoirs which may be used for furnishing water for domestic,
public, and other beneficial uses, and for the development of power.
Several valuable water-power sites have been secured under these laws as
well as under the homestead and timber and stone laws. To put a stop to
such practice the Interior Department, in the later part of 1908 and in
the early part of 1909, withdrew all power sites from every form of
disposal under our land laws and these sites have remained thus
withdrawn ever since, except during an interval of a few days or perhaps
a few weeks in the spring of 1909; and during that interval no power
sites were secured or disposed of. Most of these power sites are of
considerable value, and they ought not to be disposed of under any of
the existing land laws. Adequate provision should be made by law for the
utilization of these water-power sites to the end that the Government
may receive fair compensation for the same, and to the end that the
public may receive the beneficial use to be derived from the development
of any water-power in connection with such sites, at fair and reasonable
rates (applause). The problem under our dual system of Government, State
and Federal, is not free from embarrassment, as it is the opinion of men
versed in the law that while the general Government may own the power
site, with all the rights of a riparian owner, the water in the streams,
except for purposes of navigation, belongs to the State, and that the
State may allow its citizens to appropriate such water for their
beneficial use and thereby render the power site of no value; for
without a sufficient supply of water the power site will not be worthy
of improvement or development. It seems to me (though perhaps I may err)
that the problem of developing and utilizing water-power in such cases
can be properly solved only by the cooperation of the State and the
Federal Government (applause): the one owning the power site and the
other the water in the stream, it strikes me that cooperation is
essential and furnishes the only practical solution. And some plan
should be devised by which the Federal and State Governments could act
in harmony and in unison in such cases. Of course, when the State owns
both the water and the power site, the problem is of a less complex
character, and is one exclusively for the State to solve except as to
the question of navigation. And I may also add in this connection that
Congress, at its last session, passed a general law to regulate the
construction of dams across navigable waters, by which ample provision
is made for protecting the interest of the general Government in all
such cases.
Most of our remaining public lands, suitable for agricultural purposes,
are within the arid or semi-arid parts of the country. These lands can
be successfully farmed only by means of irrigation or by so-called dry
farming methods. To aid in developing and successfully farming these
lands, the Reclamation Act of 1892 was passed setting apart the proceeds
of the sales of public lands within the arid and semi-arid States for
the construction of dams, reservoirs, canals, and ditches for the
impounding and distribution of water. A considerable number of
irrigation projects have been entered upon under the act. A few of them
have been completed, but the majority of them are still in an incomplete
condition; and there being an insufficiency of funds available for their
speedy completion, Congress, at the last session, in order to expedite
the work on the incomplete projects, provided for a loan of twenty
million dollars, to be immediately available, and to be reimbursable
out of the future income of the reclamation fund (applause). This will
hasten the completion of the projects and will aid the homestead
settlers of whom there are many, to secure a supply of water on their
claims at an early day.
For the purpose of promoting the farming of arid or semi-arid lands by
dry-farming methods or otherwise, where no water supply for irrigation
is or can be found available, Congress, by the Act of February 19, 1909,
provided for enlarged homesteads of 320 acres of non-irrigable lands.
The theory on which such legislation was based was this, that such lands
to be farmed must be summer-fallowed, so that a crop could be raised
only every other year, and therefore a larger quantity of land was
needed, as only one-half of the cultivated land could be cropped each
year.
Investigations by the Geological Survey have shown that considerable
areas of public lands suitable for agricultural purposes are underlain
with more or less valuable beds of coal. Such lands, on account of their
mineral character, are not technically subject to entry under any other
than the coal-land laws of the United States. A considerable number of
homestead settlers had settled upon such lands and had made the
preliminary homestead entries of the same without any previous knowledge
of their mineral character. For the relief of such settlers Congress
passed the Act of March 3, 1909, which provides that such settlers may
enter and receive a patent for the surface of such land, reserving to
the general Government the coal underlying the same to be disposed of
under the coal-land laws of the United States. This was supplemented by
Congress at its last session by the Act of June 22, 1910, which permits
the entry of the surface of coal lands under the Homestead Law, the
Reclamation Law, the Desert Law, and the so-called Carey Law, reserving
to the Government the coal beds underlying such lands, to be disposed of
under the general coal-land laws in existence or to be passed in the
future, and authorizing the exploration of the same.
One of the most important of our late land laws and which will prove to
be the key to future reforms in our land system is the Act of June 25,
1910, passed at the last session of Congress. This act authorizes the
President, in his discretion, to withdraw from settlement, location,
sale, or entry any of the public lands of the United States and reserve
the same for water-power sites, irrigation, classification, or other
public purpose. There was some difference of opinion before the
enactment of this law as to the power of the President to make such
withdrawals in all cases. This act removes all doubt and controversy on
the subject and enables the President to examine, classify, and appraise
the lands and to reserve them for necessary and appropriate legislation
by Congress. Many of our lands and their appurtenances are of such a
character that they ought not to be disposed of under any of our
existing land laws. Good laws are needed for the disposal of our timber
and stone, our water-power sites, and our coal, oil, asphalt, and
phosphate lands. There was considerable opposition to the passage of
this act in both Houses of Congress, and at one time it seemed as though
it would not pass, and it would not have passed but for the active,
continued, and persistent help of President Taft (applause). He labored
for its passage, in season and out of season, to my certain knowledge,
and but for his help, I can say with all truthfulness that that
important law would never have passed (applause). And since its passage
the President has availed himself of it by making new withdrawals, and
rewithdrawing many lands which had been withdrawn before but in respect
to which some question was raised as to the validity of the withdrawal.
I have not called attention to the various grants of land that have been
made, first for wagon roads and canals, and afterward for railroads, nor
to the large grants of land that have been made to the several States
for educational and other purposes, for the reason that such grants are
not likely to be repeated in the future. Provision has already been
made, with ample land grants for the admission into the Union of our two
remaining Territories, Arizona and New Mexico; and it is not probable
that any grants of public lands, except for right-of-way, will be made
to any railroad in the future, especially the railroad grants, may seem
to have been prodigal and too lavish; but to the legislators of those
early days, who were anxious for the speedy settlement and development
of our great West, they seemed justified and called for. And it is
evident that, in consequence of these grants, the country was more
speedily settled and the settlers afforded transportation facilities at
a much earlier period than otherwise would have been done. The grants
made to the States, especially for educational purposes, have from every
point of view been fully justified, and have been, and will continue to
be, of great help in maintaining ample and liberal educational
facilities in the several States.
In conclusion: I have given you this brief summary and outline of our
public land laws, past and present, obsolete and subsisting, in order
that from a consideration of the same we may avoid the mistakes of the
past, and gather inspiration and instruction for our future guidance. In
view of the diminishing supply and rapidly increasing demand it behooves
us to husband, with discrimination and care, all our natural resources,
beginning as promptly as possible, and this work must be done by
legislation, by administration, and by individual effort. (Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman STUBBS--If there are any pessimistic citizens in the United
States they should hear the Senior Senator's story of the lavish
management of public affairs in the past, and the splendid change made
under that great leader--the greatest man on earth today--Theodore
Roosevelt (applause and cheers) and Gifford Pinchot (renewed applause).
I now take great pleasure in presenting to you a typical southern
gentleman, Governor Noel, of Mississippi (applause).
* * * * *
Governor NOEL--Mr Chairman, Brother Governors, Delegates, Ladies and
Gentlemen: Some months ago I received an invitation to attend this
Congress, which I promptly accepted; also an invitation to deliver an
address, which I immediately declined. Since entering the hall this
afternoon I have been informed of my selection for the first address on
my State--each Governor speaking for his State in succession--and my
State's views on questions pertaining to our natural resources.
Of course the greatest natural resource of every city and county, as of
State and Nation, is the productive energies of its people. Their
development, through proper training of mind and heart, should be the
chief aim of all people and of the Government. In those resources,
however, our interests are the same as those of all other parts of the
country, and they open too broad a field for me to enter.
When we take up the question of the natural resources pertaining to our
domain, Mississippi occupies a widely different attitude from that of
some States in the Northwest whose Governors are here to speak for them.
We are an agricultural people. Not a city in Mississippi will much, if
at all, exceed 30,000 inhabitants; more of its population and its
wealth, proportionately, than of any other State in the Union are
engaged in agriculture. We have no mines, no minerals except some clays
and stone, no oil, no gas, no coal. We acquired agricultural lands, and
our natural resources are from those lands as agricultural soil and
standing timber.
Before the question of Conservation was understood, or at least before
it had become of any force in State or Nation, both Mississippi and the
Federal Government had parted with their lands and with their forests.
Much to our regret now, it is a question of the past, and has to be
handled by individuals and by corporations, to whom our lands and timber
chiefly, almost entirely, belong. We are interested; we try to regulate
our resources in some measure, within the powers of the State
Government; but our interest is largely confined to our public lands. We
have no coal or metals, our streams are sluggish, and there are few
water-power sites. We have little beyond the surface values of the
timber and the soil. We are interested in coal because it is necessary
for our industries; we are interested in oil because we need it; we are
interested in all the elements of the soil spoken of this morning,
phosphorus and all the rest. We are greatly interested in all these
things notwithstanding the land which contains them happens to be in
other States. We have not lost interest in them on that account; and,
speaking for our State--which has stood for State rights as it
understood them, and stands for State rights still--our only way of
securing these rights we believe to be through the Federal Government
(applause); our only voice must be through Congress and the President,
and we do not care to surrender that to which the Government is now
properly entitled. If the choice goes to the State we know how it will
go, for past experience has taught that lesson well--local interests
will control, and the general good will be subordinated to personal
pride and local considerations. We have learned much and suffered much
in that line. The Government gave to us, as to others, the sixteenth
section of land in every township, one-thirty-sixth of the whole State.
We put it in the power of a majority of the householders and patrons of
schools in each township to vest the school lands by lease, thinking
that local interests, being circumscribed and vitally concerned in
education, would at least prevent spoliation of this magnificent
donation to the school children; but we were mistaken. In a great many
instances a few who were shrewd and sharp and designing used a law by
which a lease could be made from one year to ninety-nine years, and
until that law was repealed leased the lands for the largest possible
term.
We know that the smaller the area the greater the influence of
personages, and of local and private considerations. Therefore, as we
look on this question of the Conservation of our natural resources, it
is a question of rights, and how those rights can best be maintained and
perpetuated; the means, whether through State or Federal Government, is
but a minor consideration; and believing that our rights can best be
preserved and utilized, now and for all time to come, without waste and
without destruction, both for the present and in the future, we think it
can best be done under Federal supervision (applause). The only rights
we have in coal and oil and metals must be exercised through the Federal
Government.
We may not fully understand the water-power problem. It has been said to
be only a local issue anyway. We do not understand it that way. The
river which rolls by this city smiling, smooth, and clear, after it is
joined to the Missouri is muddy, deep, and uncertain; not only all of
your waters but all of the waters east of the Rocky Mountains roll past
our western boundary. While at some seasons the water is low, at others
it is over fifty feet higher, and more than one-sixth in value of the
land in our State is subject to overflow. Your waters, which through
proper forestation and proper handling by dams and other means would
give us a more equable flow throughout the year, come down upon us at a
time when we do not need them, and in a degree greatly in excess of any
possible need at any time, and we have to bear the sins of deforestation
and all of the other evils that come from the wholesale spoliation and
destruction of your forest lands (applause). We are vitally interested
in that question. We believe in forest reservations; we are sorry we
cannot furnish the basis for it in our own State, but so far as the
Government lands we have can be availed of for that purpose, we would be
more than glad to see the Government take hold of the matter and set our
people an example of how forests should be handled and preserved for the
present and for the future.
When it comes to water-power, to me, at least, and to many of us, the
question of conflict between State and Federal Governments, about which
so much has been said--especially with a view of eliminating the Federal
Government--we hardly understand that view of it. We trace our title
through the Federal Government (applause). As a lawyer of more than
thirty years' practice, whenever I have been given a question for
investigation pertaining to the title of land, the first thing I have
done was to examine the tract-books to see whether the Federal
Government had ever parted legally with its title. If it had not, the
question was ended; if it had, then we could proceed to deraign to those
properly entitled to it. So when the Federal Government owned the lands
and was the source of title, we do not understand how, even though the
lands may be within the State, its right as a land-owner is less on a
river bank than it is in the interior, or when the Federal Government,
as the owner of the lands, should not exercise riparian rights which any
other owner tracing title through it might exercise.
Now, we would like cooperation of the States, but we would like the
Federal Government to retain where it still possesses them those rights
of which the people could not be robbed through control of State
legislatures or local authorities (applause). You may say, What interest
have we, who are not a manufacturing people, in the mines and the
water-powers of other States? Why, we are all in a common country. State
lines may be changed; they are accidental; they are artificial; but the
national boundary is fixed. When we look for coal or iron, or commercial
or industrial products which we do not manufacture, we must look,
primarily, within the bounds of the United States. It is within the
power of the Government and beyond ours practically, through tariff
legislation, to exclude the minerals from outside. We have but one open
field, we have but one certain route to any natural or manufactured
product, and that is within the boundaries of the Union itself; and we
do not want, through monopolization of either coal or oil or
water-powers, to be hampered in the protection of the country as a whole
so that as consumers we shall have to bear the brunt of evils from which
the National Government, through the little influence we might have with
it, might protect us, and of which our State government, in the past at
least, has been very neglectful. Hence we stand for State rights and
Federal control in cooperation (applause). But if it is within the power
of the Federal Government, through leasing or otherwise, to retain
control of its mineral and coal lands and its water-power sites, to put
them beyond the possibility of handling by a State and its legislature,
to regulate corporations' rights so as to prevent monopolization, and at
the same time to prevent the Nation as a whole from being deprived of
any productive agency in our midst, we want the benefit of it.
(Applause)
Our patriotism on this score may be of that questionable type described
by Artemus Ward, who said that during the Civil War, when the stress was
great, he listened to a magnificent speech from an orator on the subject
of enlistment, and became so enthused that when the call for volunteers
came he, with others, went up to sign the roll; but when he observed
that the orator had not signed nor was likely to sign, because his
province was simply that of speaking while other's would be fighting,
his own ardor was somewhat cooled, and when he reflected that the
orator's eloquence had carried his hearers where he would not go
himself, it became cooler and cooler. Still, his patriotism did not
entirely vanish, for when his time came to sign the roll for enlistment,
he signed it with the name of his mother-in-law and offered her as a
sacrifice to his country (laughter). Yet we are not exactly in that
category, though we may seem to view the situation from a local
standpoint. But knowing of our own condition, knowing of the rights
which the Federal Government conferred upon the school children of our
State--the sixteenth section and other lands of which you heard in
Senator Nelson's address today,--and remembering how in a great many
instances, through local influences, legislative or otherwise, the
intended beneficiaries were largely deprived of the benefactions
intended for them we really think, What has gone is gone, except as a
lesson to us; and so far as we are concerned, we shall stand for the
right of the people as a whole for the enjoyment of its great resources
of coal, of oil, of water-power and other natural wealth, and we want to
be protected in such a way that no State or local influence shall be
able to take it from us forever (applause). That is our position on this
question.
In regard to the water-power question. A while ago I spoke of the
Mississippi rolling by; we have never been jealous of the Federal
Government's dealings with that river, not a bit (laughter). We are not
now. So far as we are concerned, we would be delighted if the Federal
Government would acquire the riparian rights, with all the
_liabilities_, from one end of the State to the other (laughter). The
county in which I live, that part of it in the Delta, as well as six or
seven other counties, have had to keep up, without Federal aid until
this year--and then only incidentally for the protection of navigation
against some caving banks--for five years more than 200 miles of levee,
and it has required an acreage tax of from three to five cents, an _ad
valorem_ tariff of about ten mills, and a cotton tax besides; and while
some of this is among the finest agricultural land in the world, it is
almost wrecked by the taxes on it. Missouri has fared better. Her levees
are not as extensive as ours; her people put them in good condition, and
the general government afterward took charge of them in the interest of
navigation; and if the Government will relieve us of the whole burden
from the waters which you send down upon us from the North and from east
of the Rocky Mountains, and will take the riparian rights from end to
end and preserve and use them for the benefit of the whole Nation, all
the people of our State will greatly rejoice (applause), and not a voice
will be raised on the question of State rights as to any use for the
people as a whole to which the Government may put those lands.
So, as we come to voice our wishes, our interests, our desires, they are
for cooperation of State and Federal Government, but of absolutely no
relinquishment on the part of the Federal Government either of its
water-power sites, its coal lands, its phosphate lands, or of any of
those other natural resources to which the people of the whole country
are looking for future development and prosperity (applause). We are
_in_ the country, we are a part of it; not merely a part of the
Government of the States but a part of the Government of the whole Union
(applause), and all that concerns the Union, or any part of it or any of
its people, affects us to a greater or less degree. And speaking for our
share and our part in the national destiny which invitingly presents
itself before us, we say that we stand for Conservation of natural
resources by all governmental agencies, State and Federal, which will
not only develop now but protect in the future for the proper use and
progressive benefit of the people of the whole country to whom they now
belong and from whom they should never depart. (Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman STUBBS--Ladies and Gentlemen: I am very glad indeed to
introduce to you as the speaker to follow our distinguished friend from
Mississippi, the only other democratic Governor in the Congress,
Governor Norris, of Montana. (Applause)
You will see whether the views of the southern democrat and the northern
democrat are the same after the two get through speaking. (Laughter)
* * * * *
Governor NORRIS--Mr Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen: A feeling has
prevailed in the West, or did a few days ago, to the effect that no
enlarged opportunities were going to be given to express ideas here
which were contrary to those held by the program committee of this
Congress (laughter). However, I am pleased to note that such is not to
be the case, and whether the conference of the Northwestern Governors at
Salt Lake City, recently held, has had anything to do with it or not I
don't know. Anyhow, we are thankful for small favors. If it had been
the intention and had been carried out, it would have been a mistake,
for the reason that the Conservation movement is national in scope, and
is a part of no section and no State alone. The Conservation
movement--in other words, the public conscience--received its awakening
some two years ago, and Theodore Roosevelt did the awakening (applause);
and I am pleased to note that the sentiment created by President
Roosevelt has ripened into practical action by President Taft (renewed
applause). I resent the insinuation that Montana and the Northwest, and
in fact the entire West, is opposed to Conservation; in fact, I insist
that the Northwest is the leader of the Conservation movement
(applause), and that the first practical act in Conservation was taken
by a western State, Montana (applause). I am proud of the fact that the
first Conservation commission, either State or National, was appointed
by me, in the State of Montana (applause). I am further proud of the
fact that the first Conservation law, comprehensive in extent, was,
under my recommendation, passed by the Legislature of Montana; and in
that respect we have led the National Government in the Conservation
movement (applause). Therefore, just for a moment, and not desiring to
be personal, permit me to state what we have done. And in every respect
we have kept step with the National Government and in the majority of
cases we have led the National Government, and you can come to us for a
lesson as to how to properly conserve the natural resources of the
country (applause).
The Legislature which assembled in Montana in 1900 enacted a law
conserving the resources possessed by us in our public lands, so
generously given us by the Government on our admission. That measure
provided for the disposition of the land to actual cultivators of the
soil, in 160-acre tracts where irrigated, in 320-acre tracts where it is
suitable for dry farming, and in 640-acre tracts where it was only
suitable for the raising of hay or for grazing purposes--that is, in the
high altitudes, in the mountains. So in that respect we have gone hand
in hand with the Government in the passage of the 320-acre homestead
act, applicable to entries where irrigation could not be had. In that
same law, passed in 1909, some eighteen months ago, Montana forever
reserved from sale, and in every patent on every acre of its lands that
might thereafter be issued retained the coal rights, and provided for
the leasing of those rights from time to time and for periods not
exceeding five years (applause). So today, when President Taft says he
hopes Congress will do the same with the Government coal lands, we say,
Mr President, we are with you and hope Congress will do this (applause),
and if you wish an illustration proving that the title to coal lands can
be retained and the coal rights leased from time to time, providing for
the right to mine the coal at not less than 12-1/2 cents per ton, come
to Montana and we will show you half a dozen coal leases with such
provision which have been in force for the last sixteen months
(applause). Have we lagged behind the National Government? Oh, no! In
fact, we have led the National Government in the matter of Conservation.
(Applause)
And as to the metalliferous ores of the mines--the same laws are
applicable to State lands that are applicable to Government lands. As to
the forests: in the making of those laws, I corresponded, and our
commission corresponded, and we made those laws with the consent of, and
they were afterward approved by, Mr Gifford Pinchot (applause). There is
but one provision which we made then differing from those of the
Government. We provided in that law, passed eighteen months ago, that
lands more suitable for agriculture than for reforestation should be
used for agricultural purposes and not for reforestation purposes.
President Taft described this morning how the Government had in the last
few months been doing the same thing, so it seems that, after awhile,
the Government will catch up to Montana in that respect (laughter and
applause).
Now, then, on the water-power question: That same commission is now
operating, and it is going to prepare suggestions for submission to the
next Montana Legislature with reference to adequate provisions for
conserving the waters of the State of Montana, and I have no doubt that
the recommendations of the commission will, at the next session, be
adopted. We would have done that two years ago except we cannot do all
these things at once; our session only lasted sixty days, while Congress
is in session all the time (laughter and applause). If we had even six
months instead of two years for it, we would have had those water
resources conserved long ago (laughter). Is Montana entitled to take a
place in the kindergarten class in the school of Conservation? And are
we who have conserved our resources to be distrusted as Governor Noel
says you must distrust the Legislature and the people of the State of
Mississippi? (Applause) I thank my God that I can trust the people of
Montana to protect their own! (Applause) And let me tell you one thing:
the whole can never be greater than the sum total of its parts, and the
Federal Government can never adequately preserve its resources until you
get at least a majority of the people in a majority of the States to so
agree, because it takes a majority for the Federal Congress or the
Federal Government to act (applause). You start at the wrong end. You
have got to start with the people of the State and build up.
Now, are we capable of passing legislation to preserve our water
resources? I think we are; and let me tell you some of our plans. In the
first place, the water and the land, during the territorial days of
each State, belonged to the Federal Government. When the State was
admitted, the lands were reserved by the federal Government, but the
waters flowing in the streams of the State passed into the control of
the State. You heard Senator Nelson, an able lawyer, refer this
afternoon to the fact that that was the law. Now, they tell us that you
cannot trust the States, you must trust the Federal Government; and yet
I listened for nearly an hour to one of the ablest presentations I ever
heard of how the Federal Government for a hundred years wasted its
resources with all the prodigality of a drunken sailor (applause). Trust
the Federal Government! Why, the Federal Government has been the
greatest sinner in that respect. I am glad the Federal Government has
awakened and is going to preserve its resources, but Montana, at least,
woke up a little before (applause). In this matter of the water-power:
The most valuable use that water can be put to, or, in other words, the
most valuable function that water can perform, is not the development of
electrical power; in the semi-arid States it is the applying of that
water to irrigation and the reclamation of the arid lands of the West
(applause). So bear that in mind.
In the State of Montana--and what is true in that State is true largely
in every other State in the West--not one-third of the arable lands that
can be irrigated have as yet been reclaimed; less than 2,000,000 acres
have been reclaimed in Montana, while there are 6,000,000, in fact there
are 10,000,000 acres that can be reclaimed. In other words, there are
from six to ten million acres yet to be reclaimed by use of the water
that flows in the streams of the State, and that is largely Government
land. So that when you talk about conserving the water for water-power
purposes, we say conserve it for reclamation purposes (applause); for
the reclamation of Government land, too (applause), that may make homes
for settlers who will come in and take it under the Homestead Act. There
is the reason why we say that the Federal Government must not by its
superior power step in and insist upon using the waters of the streams
of the West for power purposes, unless when it so does it makes
provision that the rights for irrigation purposes shall forever remain
inviolate; otherwise, what does it amount to, the building of a dam
across the stream? When the Government conveys the right to build a dam
across a stream, it means that the amount of water flowing over that dam
will determine the amount of power that may be developed; hence, when
that dam is built the Government, if it conveys anything of value, must
convey the right to the use of that water, and the right to the use of
that water flowing over that dam must accrue as of that date, and
forever thereafter the franchise-holder will have the right to demand as
a concession from the Federal Government that the same amount of water,
all the natural flow of that stream, must go over that dam forever. You
thereby absolutely prevent the diversion of any water on that stream
above that point for irrigation purposes. The use of water for
irrigation purposes does decrease the amount flowing in the stream. That
is the reason we object to the Federal Government coming in and taking
charge of our water-power and giving it out--we do not care so much
about the little income that may be received: that is the reason we are
insisting upon the rights of the State.
Now, remember this: In the first instance, there is no contention but
what the regulation of water for irrigating purposes is absolutely
vested in the State, and that the Federal Government cannot acquire that
right; hence a number of irrigators have already appropriated a part of
the flow of the stream. The Federal Government grants the right of
franchise for the building of a dam. Suppose we assume, for the sake of
argument, that it can grant the right to the remaining flow of a stream;
it not only thereby forever thereafter prohibits the use of that stream
above that point for further reclamation purposes, but the rights of
every irrigator, either before or after appropriation is made, comes in
conflict, or may come in conflict, with the Federal franchise-holder? In
other words, you transfer from the State courts and from the State forum
the right of every irrigator to use the waters of a stream to the seat
of power of the Federal Government at Washington. In other words, you
practically stop irrigation in the arid West when you insist upon having
that power (applause). Is that Conservation? True Conservation demands
that every acre of land shall be used for its highest purpose and be
made to serve its highest productive function (applause), whether in a
forest reserve or out of it. Therefore, in order to serve its highest
productive function in the West, water must be applied to the land.
Now, take the 6,000,000 acres of land that may be reclaimed in Montana.
If you do not insist upon the Federal Government taking charge of the
water-power and preventing its further reclamation, it means 6,000,000
acres of land reclaimed. It is fair to say that each year those
reclaimed lands will produce a total of $25--yea, and if I did not want
to be ultra-conservative, I would say $50--per acre; and at $25 per
acre, you have an annual income from those 6,000,000 acres of land of
$150,000,000. Isn't that worth thinking about? Isn't that a resource
worth conserving? Why, the 6,000,000 horse-power that might be developed
in Montana is not worth one tithe of that. You say, Give to the Federal
Government the right to the water-powers of the State and forever
prevent the further reclamation of our land? Why, you are asking of us
the most priceless gift that we have to convey--far more priceless than
our mines yielding $50,000,000 yearly, possibly the richest in the
world--because you ask us to surrender not $50,000,000 a year but the
opportunity to make $150,000,000 a year. Has the Federal Government this
right? We insist, as a matter of law, that the Federal Government has no
authority to grant any right to the use of water on any power site that
it may have. If the power site is situated along a stream, the title to
the power site rests in the Federal Government and it can grant the
right to erect a dam on that site, but the water that flows down the
stream by that power site belongs to the State, and unless the State
gives you the right to appropriate and take water you will develop no
power by a dam-site! (Applause)
Now, is the State ready to surrender any rights that it may have in the
waters of the stream to the Federal Government? The State of Montana is
not ready to so do, for the reasons I have given. The State of Montana
will insist upon every right it has. Let the Federal Government have
that which of right or in law belongs to it, but let the State keep that
which of right or in law belongs to it (applause). So sure am I that the
State has the right to use of its water that I think the next
Legislature of Montana will pass a law to regulate the use of water,
making its use for power forever subordinate to its use for irrigation
purposes, and then say to the Federal Government, You own your power
site, but you do not own the water; we own the water, but we do not own
the power site. Your site is worth nothing to you because it is valuable
only for power in connection with the use of water. We cannot develop
power on that site, but we can go a little farther down the stream and
divert that water for the irrigation of land, and it is valuable to us.
Now, that is what we mean by the rights of the State in and to the
waters of the State. You cannot trust the State? Why not? If you cannot
trust the people of Montana to conserve its resources, if you cannot
trust the State of Wyoming to conserve its resources, can we trust the
State of Maine, or the State of Florida to conserve them for us? What
reasons have we to assume that the people of the State of Massachusetts
or the State of Louisiana are more patriotic in that respect than are
our own people?
The creation of the forest reserves was the greatest act ever performed
in recent years. We would not have that act repealed. We have a double
purpose in supporting the forest conservation policies. You think of it
as valuable for the timber that it will grow. That timber is worth just
as much, and will shelter just as many people, in Montana as it will in
the Mississippi valley, but we desire it for a further purpose. The
forests of these mountains are Nature's reservoirs, builded there by an
Omnipotent Creator, and can better conserve the waters that fall in the
form of rain and snow than these artificial reservoirs that men may
build (applause). We want those waters. The water that comes from our
mountains and is conserved under those forests is the very life-blood of
the State of Montana. Would you take the water away and stop the
reclamation of the arid West? I know you would not; yet you would do so
did you not at the same time that you were saving the timber make a
provision that the rights to water for power purposes should forever be
subject to the rights for irrigation purposes.
Bear this in mind, also. The doctrine of riparian rights does not
prevail in the arid West; therefore the owning of the soil on each side
of the stream does not convey the right to have the water flow down that
stream undiminished in quantity or quality. In other words, the first
appropriator is the first in right. I think there has been a
misunderstanding as to the position of the West in this respect, as to
why we are insisting upon the rights of the State. We insist upon the
right of the State to control the waters of the State, not the
water-power particularly. There is a decided difference between the
waters and the water-power. The waters will irrigate land, the
water-power will develop electricity. Such is the position the West
takes. Will you not help us in that, and so help develop the land and
make it productive? Do you know it is your own salvation to do so? Ye
people of the populous East, where is the produce to come from to feed
the ever-increasing millions, unless it be from the reclamation of the
arid lands of the West? The time will soon be here, and it is not over
four years removed, when we will cease to be a wheat-exporting nation,
and in only a few years it must come that the children will cry for
bread, and the land must be made to produce it. Therefore we must
husband our resources and conserve our water for use for the purpose
which will permit the growing of something that will feed human beings;
and pine trees do not do it (applause). You of the Mississippi valley
who for years have wept great crocodile tears that your lands have been
cleared, suppose those lands had not been cleared, whence would come the
produce to feed the millions of today? So bear these things in mind that
when you come to conclusions you will take all these questions into
consideration. And I want to say to you that in the future, as in the
past, Montana will not lag in the Conservation movement, but will
continue to lead the Federal Government (applause).
* * * * *
A DELEGATE--Mr Chairman, are the propositions advanced by the Governors
to be discussed? I see no reference in the program to such discussion,
and ask for information.
Chairman STUBBS--The understanding of the Chair is that this afternoon
was turned over to the Governors. The intention is to give them an
opportunity to relieve their minds this afternoon (applause) and get the
way clear for the greatest man you will hear talk in thirty
years--Theodore Roosevelt (applause). We are clearing out the brush and
getting ready for the real thing that you will have tomorrow. (Laughter
and applause)
You can readily see that they have too much water in the South and not
quite enough water in the Northwest, judging by the views of the last
two speakers.
I now have the pleasure of introducing one of the greatest Governors in
the United States, and of one of the greatest States in the Union,
Governor Deneen, of Illinois (applause).
* * * * *
Governor DENEEN--Fellow Delegates, and Ladies and Gentlemen: The
Governors here have been somewhat confused regarding this program. I was
invited by my good friend Governor Eberhart, of this State, to prepare a
speech. I have it concealed about my person like a deadly weapon, and I
have been wondering whether I dare read it; for if I do, those who
follow me will, I fear, have no audience to address, while if I do not
follow the text already given to the printer there will be the
traditional print-shop "devil" to pay; but I have concluded to talk
rather than read, and I hope that my good friends the reporters will
publish what I should have said rather than what I shall say. I will
follow the example of a very distinguished statesman in our State, who
on a great occasion handed his speech to the reporters and said, "Now,
having given my speech to the reporters, I shall proceed to ramble;" and
so he did. (Laughter)
It is a pleasure to follow the two distinguished gentlemen who have
preceded me, the Governor of Mississippi and the Governor of Montana. It
is a pleasure to note how the conditions have reversed the attitude of
their States regarding State rights (laughter and applause). I am
interested in both States. A year or more ago I purchased a farm in
Montana where the three rivers join to form the Missouri river, and I
discovered after the spring freshets that I now have a farm scattered
all the way from Montana to Mississippi (laughter). I am interested in
all the States because of that, because I now own property in all. But I
cannot quite agree with my distinguished predecessor about the
Legislature--we, too, have a legislature (laughter), and whatever value
it may have had at one time it is not considered at par at present.
(Laughter and applause)
We have a water-power proposition, too, strange to say, even in the
flat, level, horizontal State of Illinois. Some time ago when the
Government was considering the matter of the Lakes-to-Gulf Waterway, our
State supplemented the investigation of the Government in considering
the by-products of that great channel which was to be built (and I hope
will be built), and we proceeded on the theory announced by the
President this morning; instead of going from agitation to legislation,
we considered it better to go on this theory: investigation, then
agitation, and later legislation. So our State appointed a very
distinguished commission to investigate some of the by-products that
would accrue to Illinois by reason of the Lakes-to-Gulf deep waterway.
We soon found we had several questions. First, the matter of
reclamation. We have the problem they have in Mississippi, of too much
water for too much time out of the year; an even 5,000 square miles of
our State is under water too much of the time--an area larger than the
State of Connecticut or the island of Porto Rico. We worked out a plan
by which, as an incident to the great waterway, we expect to reclaim
land which has been estimated to be of the value of $150,000,000 to the
State.
Then we found that in part of that waterway (in 62-1/2 miles of it from
Lockport to Utica) there is a fall of 106 feet, and that water-power can
be created to the amount of about 130,000 horsepower, worth about
$2,500,000 or $2,750,000 a year to begin with, and our engineers
estimated that by availing ourselves of that power we would be able to
contribute to the Government the entire expense of the waterway between
Lockport and Utica, and could afford to expend $20,000,000 in doing so
by reason of the by-product that would come to us; and that we would be
able, if the Legislature did as it should do, and the Governor did as he
should do, and the commission to be appointed would do as it should
do--to repay that vast expense in fourteen years as a minimum period,
and that in fact we could loan our credit and have the water-power pay
for the bonds as they matured. The question was submitted to the people,
and after an exhaustive discussion they approved the plan by the largest
majority ever registered on any issue in Illinois or in any State in the
Union, a majority of nearly 500,000 (I believe it was 497,345 to be
exact). Then we presented it to our Legislature. Now, this is the point.
When we presented it to our Legislature, what do you think has happened?
Why, nothing happened. (Sensation) We have talked, and talked, and
talked, but we haven't acted. We have had several sessions, regular and
irregular (laughter), on this subject, general and special, but we have
failed to act. After the failure of the regular session to act, on
December 14 last I called an extra session to determine the State's part
in this water-power and waterway subject. It adjourned on March 2
following (I want you to keep these dates in mind because they are
significant); the Legislature was in a deadlock--I am not blaming the
republicans for this, although Illinois is a republican State, and I am
not blaming the democrats; the fact is that a band of republicans and a
band of democrats joined to repudiate the pledges of both parties, and
they did it, effectually did it. They adjourned on March 2; on April 29
following (this year) a little corporation with a huge name was formed
in our State--the Illinois Valley Gas, Light & Electric Power Company,
I believe is the name--you are nearly compelled to take a vacation to
pronounce the name all at once--with a capital stock of only $1000; a
huge name for small capital. Then, on May 12 following--thirteen days
later--the organizers of the corporation met, and decided they had made
a mistake in capitalizing at $1000; so they made the capital accord with
the dignity and length of the name and increased it from $1000 to
$6,250,000. Since that time they have acquired fifty-year franchises in
the following cities: Joliet, Morris, Seneca, Ottawa, Wilmington,
Streator, Dwight, Odell, Gardner, Pontiac, Plainview, Yorkville, Coal
City, and Bridgewood. Now that has been doing a good deal of work in a
warm, humid atmosphere, such as we have in the summer time in Illinois
(laughter). They have not only done that, but they have also acquired
the other corporations that have had to do with the developing of
water-power in Illinois; and not only that, but they have reached out
and acquired certain riparian rights necessary to develop fully the
power at Marseilles. Now, what will happen? Our sanitary district of
Chicago has already expended $53,000,000 on this channel, and will
expend $20,000,000 more in its full development, and our State will
spend $20,000,000 on its part. In other words, Illinois will contribute
$100,000,000 to this Lakes-to-Gulf Deep Waterway, and a corporation
which has not expended one dollar to create this power comes along and
puts a toll-gate across it and collects the toll. Bear in mind that none
of this power is created by the surface or drainage water of the State;
all of it is created by diverting the waters of Lake Michigan to the
Illinois and the Mississippi. What would be thought, for instance, if
our State should expend $100,000,000 in building a road from Chicago to
Saint Louis and then some one who had not expended a dollar would throw
a toll-gate across it and collect a toll of every person and vehicle
that passed, and then when he tried to buy our own road back, charge us
$100,000,000 for it? That would be going some, even in these days of
"frenzied finance," wouldn't it? Yet that is exactly what they are doing
with the water-power situation in our State. For several reasons
(fancied or otherwise; it doesn't take much of a reason to occasion
debate) there is a strong effort being made to prevent the State from
acting, and our State is in the situation (and Chicago will be in the
same situation soon) where we will be compelled, in order to acquire the
riparian rights, to condemn them at their market value, and you can see,
from the array of towns I read you, that the market value is steadily
increasing (I collected their names about two weeks ago, and had not
time this morning to wire inquiring whether it was up to date, but give
you the list as an indication).
The point I want to make is that our State is a good deal like other
States: we are neither abnormally good nor abnormally bad--just an
average. Sometimes we are attending to things in such a way that we
would prefer to have no metropolitan newspapers to circulate and mislead
us; at other times we do things in a grand style in that great State,
and we are then very glad that we have such means of disseminating
knowledge about what is being done.
In regard to the Conservation movement: I sympathize very strongly with
my good friends here from the West. It has been a delightful pleasure to
meet them on a number of occasions, on the waterway trip down the
Mississippi from Saint Louis to Memphis, then at New Orleans, and again
at Washington, where we were all together at the Conservation Conference
in Washington called by Theodore Roosevelt. I believe that the
Government should not interfere to prevent the full development of the
States. A long time ago it was said that he was a benefactor who made
two blades of grass grow where only one had grown before, and the man
who can put two acres in cultivation where only one was cultivated
before is certainly a friend of mankind. So I think we want all the
acres put in cultivation by irrigation or dry farming. But the general
Government owns certain things: it owns coal lands, oil lands, gas
lands, phosphate lands, and forest lands. We heard the President say
this morning that the Government owns about a third of the forests that
we must have in the north in order to allow the Mississippi to have
enough water. The Government owns about a third of the coal, and if I
recall correctly, about a third of the phosphate lands, which will
become more and more necessary as we develop our agricultural resources.
Now the Federal Government should not permit itself to be put in a
position where these great natural resources could be wasted (great
applause); it ought to be in a position to develop the States by
irrigation, and in all possible ways, but it should not permit itself to
be put in the position where a Legislature of a State would take from it
power to control some of the very necessities of advanced civilization
(applause). They can have a crop of corn every year, they can turn on
and off water-power every year, and the rains will come again; if by
lack of attention the forests are burned or removed, they can be grown
again; but the great Creator provided there should be just one crop of
coal for all time, and provided, so far as we know now, that there would
be just a certain amount of phosphate lands, and they are for all time
and all men. These crops are not growing in Montana just now, they are
not growing in other States; and because they were meant for us all,
this great continental Republic ought to be able to conserve them so
they shall not be abused. We all have the right to use them now, and the
Government, in my judgment, should see that there is no possibility of
abuse.
It seems very likely that, so far as water is concerned, the State and
the Nation will have to cooperate and work together (applause). The
State may own the water in Montana because the streams are not
navigable, and I assume this is so in Wyoming and Idaho and the other
mountain States. The Government at present owns much of the land. The
Federal Government may not say to the State, "You cannot use the water
because you cannot get in my backyard," and the State may not say,
"Water is valueless without the use of the land that is situated
adjoining;" so they will have to work together, and they should work
together. That is the way it ought to be, and that is the way it will
be; and I believe that we here in the West, and in the East and in the
South, who have had our States developed by a vast expenditure of these
natural resources and vast waste, will have patience and consideration
for the views of these men who are somewhat fearful lest we do not
permit them to develop their own resources. I believe the Nation will
permit them not only to develop the resources, but will encourage them
in that development (applause).
Now, just a word about Illinois: I have told you so many bad things
about our State that it is not proper to cease speaking without saying
some good things. I was delighted with the statements made by Governor
Norris about Montana. It is a proud record. It has set a good example to
the Government. Our State has done something, too (laughter). Our State,
a long time ago, before we heard of this Conservation movement, had at
least six or eight commissions out doing this very work. We have an
agricultural experiment station that has explored every foot of our
land, I may say, in a phenomenal way; the fact is we are laying off our
State in ten-acre plats, and the University of Illinois is surveying
each ten acres and making a record indicating the kind of soil, later to
give advice as to the development of each ten acres; and the gentleman
under whose supervision that is done is a Delegate to this Congress and
likely to address you. He is a specialist on soil. And we have had a
geological commission that has taken stock of all of our minerals, and
although we are a prairie State we are the third in the Union in our
mineral output. We are not only locating and taking stock of our coal
but showing how to mine it, how to send it by freight, how to store it,
and how to burn it--for nine-tenths of its energy is wasted before you
get it to the place where you should apply it. We have made a survey of
our rivers, studying the fishery question; Illinois river is the second
in its output of food products in the United States, being only exceeded
by Columbia river in the remote West; it has more than doubled in the
last eight years. We have a commission on floriculture and horticulture;
and we have an internal improvement commission that is studying every
stream in our State and giving the information to our counties and
districts for the purpose of forming drainage districts so that the
land may be drained and more of it cultivated. In every
department--water, soil, minerals--our State has made a most careful
investigation, so that we feel we have a complete stock of our
resources; we believe, too, in their development, and we are developing
them. All the departments of our State work are going along as they
should, and our resources are being well conserved.
I have dwelt on a disagreeable feature only because I believe that the
example of Illinois should be beneficial elsewhere. We are having
trouble in attending to our public utilities, as other States will.
Illinois will have expended a hundred million dollars in the making of a
water-course that creates water-power, and you are all familiar with the
disgraceful story as to how the State has tried to cope with that
water-power monopoly through its Legislature and conserve to us what we
created ourselves. It is likely that we shall be compelled to see
certain corporations or private individuals sowing where they didn't
reap, and levying a toll upon a vast expenditure of money made by our
commonwealth; and other States may profit by our experience. (Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman STUBBS--I am very glad indeed to have the opportunity of
introducing Governor Hay, of the great State of Washington (applause).
* * * * *
Governor HAY--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I desire to take this
opportunity to thank the good citizens of Saint Paul for seeing to it
that the Western States were given representation at this Congress
(applause). It was not, and never was, the intention of the managers of
this Conservation Congress to allow those who differed with them in
opinion to be heard at this meeting, as I know by long correspondence
myself with the management. In reading the numerous papers published
here in the East relative to the "wild and woolly western men" and their
ideas on Conservation, I said to my wife, before leaving home, "It looks
to me that I am going down to Saint Paul to get the most glorious
spanking a white man ever got." My wife said, "Go down and take it"
(laughter). But since arriving here, I am pleased to say that I have
found innumerable people who look upon this Conservation question
exactly the same way as do the majority of the people of the Pacific
Coast.
All that is needed to solve the problem of conserving our natural
resources is common sense and the application of the square deal
(applause). It is because of a departure from these two essential
elements in the consideration of Conservation, that an unsound, unjust,
and impracticable policy has been advanced in this country. Common sense
has given place to humbug and fairness to intolerance. Instead of calm,
dispassionate, logical discussion of the subject, we hear and read on
every hand exaggerated statements, misrepresentation, false accusation,
dire prophecy, and passionate appeals to prejudice, avarice, and
lawlessness. This has given rise to a wholly perverted notion of true
Conservation, and has brought about a condition hurtful to the West, and
one that, if persisted in, is bound to prove injurious to the Nation.
The only sane and sensible kind of Conservation is that which permits
the fullest and freest development of our natural resources under
provisions that will perpetuate those resources that can be renewed, and
that will obtain the greatest economic good from those that cannot be
replaced. But to many of us of the Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain
States, Conservation, as practiced, means to tie up and not to utilize.
It signifies to us the letting of our waters run unfettered to the sea
for fear some one might develop their power and turn their energy to the
benefit of mankind in this generation. To us it means the locking up of
our vast forests that they may go to decay or become the prey of the
fire king. It means that, to please some bureaucrat, the people of our
section are held up to allow the timber trust to secure a profit of a
few extra millions each year. It means that our vast coal areas must go
undeveloped, and that we be compelled to spend our money with foreign
mine owners for fuel, importing the coal at no small expense for the
item of transportation alone. It means that the State of Washington is
robbed of the use of 500,000 acres of land that the Federal Government
granted to it for educational purposes at the time it was admitted to
the Union. Conservation as practiced in the past developed into a vast
profit-making scheme for certain southern land grant railroads, which
under it were given scrip in place of worthless desert land included in
forest reservations, treeless since time began and bound to remain
treeless to the end of time. And we have seen this scrip brought north
and placed upon our timber lands that will cruise from 5,000,000 to
50,000,000 feet per section, and are worth from $20 to $100 per acre.
This brand of Conservation means to us that 27-1/4% of the total area of
the State of Washington paid a paltry $16,000 into the public coffers in
1909. It means we are called upon to expend large sums each year for
policing these Federal reserves, which contribute practically nothing to
the cost of State government, while at each session our State
Legislature is compelled to appropriate large sums to build roads
through Federal reserves. Last year we appropriated $205,000 for this
purpose. To us, Conservation means that settlers within forest reserves
who have taken up homesteads in good faith are harassed, browbeaten, and
often forced to abandon their claims and lose the fruits of the labor of
years. As an illustration of this, permit me to read a letter I received
recently from a fellow citizen of mine who, by the way, is a prominent
logger, and while a very wealthy man and a large timber owner, is one
of that kind of men who came up from the bottom; he started in at day's
wages in the State of Washington a little over thirty years ago. This is
what he says:
Speaking for myself and from a selfish standpoint, the present
Conservation by our National Government suits me fine, but in
the interests of the poor settlers who make our country, a
change should be made. Four-fifths of these settlers come out
here from Eastern States and endeavor to take up homesteads,
but they are so harassed and driven from their homesteads
through technicalities and forest rangers under orders that are
absolutely foreign to the best interests of our country and the
settler, that instead of making good citizens the Conservation
laws have made anarchists, and if the thing is kept up,
everything that will burn I expect to see burned within the
next ten years. You cannot drive a man from his home, with a
wife and from one to six children, penniless and hungry and the
children in rags, while the land that would support them lies
idle and wild just to gratify the theory of some man who may be
honest but who is ignorant of the conditions of the frontier. I
will name a case of a man I met in Aberdeen, who told me that
he tramped forty miles three times to make proof on his claim.
He had lived with his family on his homestead for seven years
and endeavored to make proof, coming out with witnesses and
spending money he needed for his family, only to be told the
last time he came out that his hearing was indefinitely
postponed. This man came out a good, loyal, American citizen;
went back a fire-eater. I know another case on the head of
Nooksack river where a man endeavored to take up a homestead on
meadow land, and after he made application it was set aside for
forest rangers' quarters No. 1. He then tried to take a second
homestead and it was set aside for Forest Ranger No. 2; he then
endeavored to take a third, and that was set aside for Forest
Ranger No. 3. The land is fertile beyond description, but there
is nothing living on it, and it is supporting no one.
On the head waters of Skagit river there are tracts of land
that will support from three to four hundred homesteads. This
is purely meadow land with brush and worthless scrub timber,
like all our western Washington meadows. Any five acres of this
land will sustain a family in comfort. This land is held in the
forest reserve, absolutely worthless so far as sustaining
people is concerned, or paying taxes to the State. If our State
is to give up one-third of its taxable property and carry on
its government with two-thirds, she has very little interest,
if any, in that portion of the State reserved by Conservation,
and naturally will not aid in the preservation of the same as
she would were the revenue from these resources to become the
revenue of the State. Up on Quinault river, ten years ago,
there was a flourishing settlement with every prospect for
opening up the country. Since this Conservation law has been in
force, many of these settlers have left their homesteads,
others have been driven off and gone to British Columbia. The
United States Government does not build a road into the
settlement, and the people are too poor to build out. Take it
up in the Northern Peninsula (the greater portion covered by
forest reserve), the land would sustain hundreds of thousands
of comfortable and independent homes; but today it is a howling
wilderness, and the meadow land is as wild as it was a hundred
years ago. The people are too poor to build roads in and across
the forest reserve, and the Government does not.
I sincerely hope and trust that the people of the East who are
not acquainted with the conditions in the State of Washington
will permit this State to control and conduct her own
Conservation, both water, timber, coal and oil, if necessary,
to the best interests of the State and Nation. We have a State
that has upwards of ten million horse-power in our waterfalls
going to waste every minute. With proper State laws this could
be utilized, and so protected that monopoly could not control
it. We have millions of tons of cheap anthracite and bituminous
coal on our coast. Still, the people of Alaska are buying
British Columbia coal and shipping it up to themselves two
thousand miles, while the coal is sticking out of the
mountain-sides of Alaska and cannot be touched. We are shipping
hundreds of thousands of tons of Maryland coal to our navy on
the Pacific Coast, in foreign ships, while we, of the State of
Washington, are prohibited from shipping our cheap lumber to
our own people on the Atlantic Coast, and are compelled, if we
ship at all, to ship it by rail to New York and the thickly
settled portions of the East at a freight rate that is
prohibitive. The only people receiving the benefit of our lower
grades of lumber and cheap prices are the Chinese and Japanese.
If we were permitted to ship our lumber in foreign vessels from
Washington to New York or other ports on the Atlantic Coast, we
could give them lumber that they all need and that we would be
glad to sell at a very reasonable figure. It is the fool laws
that are oppressing the people, both of the East and the West,
and many of them have been made in the interest of monopoly and
many through ignorance.
The West is not here to fight Conservation, for, properly directed, it
is one of the greatest movements inaugurated in this country since the
abolishment of slavery. Our former President instituted many reform
movements that, properly directed, mean happiness and prosperity for our
people; and of all the movements started by him, in my opinion none
means more to the financial welfare of ourselves and our children than
Conservation, as vouched for by President Roosevelt (applause). The
complaint we have is not against the principle of Conservation, but
against the prostitution of that great movement to the impractical ends
of certain men out of sympathy with our institutions. They would
disregard the rights of the people of the Western States to regulate
affairs within their borders; they would retard development of the
younger States; they would compel the citizens of the Western States to
contribute annually large sums of money to the timber, coal and power
companies operating in those sections. While these bureaucrats claim to
be working in the interest of the people, they could not better serve
the Special Interests if they were employed by them. In the past they
laid unusual burdens upon the Western States, and have ruthlessly
crushed and brushed aside the honest homesteader who did not have funds
to fight or carry his case to the highest court. They are attempting to
bottle up and make useless the natural resources of our Western States,
and have our local affairs administered through an irresponsible bureau
located 3,000 miles away. All the people of the West ask is a chance
with the older communities and an honest shuffle--a square deal above
the table--and a show to develop our resources and build up prosperous
communities made up of innumerable happy homes. I believe the people of
the West are as good citizens, and are just as true and loyal to the
interests of the Nation as are the citizens of any other locality. As
States we do not like to be looked upon as provinces or colonial
possessions to be exploited for the benefit of the other sections of
this Nation. I have faith enough in the fairness of the citizens of the
other sections of this Nation to believe that they do not covet or
desire to rob us of what rightfully belongs to us. We believe the profit
arising from the development or exploitation of the natural resources of
each State should be applied to the benefit of and to the cost of
government of that State.
Let me get this fact set in your minds: 95-1/2% of the national reserves
are located within the eleven Pacific Coast and Rocky Mountain States,
and 27-1/4% of the total area of the State I have the honor to represent
is taken up by forest reserves, an area in which could be placed the
States of Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, and the
District of Columbia, with room enough to spare to accommodate another
Rhode Island. The extreme Conservationist argues that the people of the
Western States are not competent or qualified to manage the natural
resources within their borders and that a guardian in the shape of a
Federal bureau should be appointed to handle them for us. This is a
gratuitous insult to the intelligence and integrity of the people of the
West. Almost the worst kind of government that can be placed upon a
people is a bureaucracy. Let me call your attention to the fact that
practically all of the land, mineral, coal, timber, and power-site
steals perpetrated upon the people were made when these titles were
vested in the Federal Government.
Now, let us deal a little with common-sense Conservation: The people of
the State of Washington started a practical system of Conservation long
before Conservation became a national issue. The Governor of Montana has
said that Montana was the first State in the Union to practice
Conservation. Evidently the Governor of Montana is not up on the laws of
the State of Washington or he wouldn't have made that statement
(laughter). One of the great natural assets of our State is our
fisheries. Because of over-fishing it became evident to our people some
years ago that, unless proper steps were taken, our fishing industry
would be ruined. Laws were passed regulating the taking of fish, and
numerous hatcheries were established throughout the State. We are now
putting more salmon fry into salt water than is the Federal Government,
and today the State of Washington stands first in the Union in the value
of the products of its fisheries, all because our people a few years ago
started a practical system of Conservation. The expense of enforcing our
laws regulating fisheries and the cost of maintaining and operating
hatcheries is assessed against that industry. We cannot bring ourselves
to consent to turn over the management of this industry to the Federal
Government. In fact, so opposed are the fisher-folk of Puget Sound to
Federal control of the fishing industry, which is threatened because of
the proposed treaty with Great Britain, that they are fighting the
ratification of the treaty by the United States Senate.
Let us now take up the question of the national forest reserves as
administered in the western States. I doubt that there is a thinking man
who does not love the trees, the deep woods and vast forests of our
land; but a tree, like everything else that grows, has its youth, its
maturity, its old age and death. A tree not used at maturity decays,
falls, and becomes a fire-trap and is a serious menace to standing
timber. I believe that when a tree reaches its maturity it should be
used and not allowed to go to decay (applause). Failure to make use of
our natural resources which are going to waste is the antithesis of
Conservation. I believe that all non-forested lands adapted for
agricultural purposes should be opened to settlement and homesteaders
allowed to file upon them. Within the national forest reserves are vast
areas with not a stick of timber on them, and on which timber can never
be made to grow profitably. These tracts should be thrown open to
settlement. It is people we want in the West, not game preserves
(applause); it is happy, prosperous communities, not idle wastes. I
would not advise the acceptance of homestead filings upon timbered areas
until after the timber is removed and it is found the land is suitable
for agriculture. If it is valuable only for timber raising, then the
land should be turned over to the State for reforestation. It is the
duty of the State to all the States to start a system of reforestation.
At the last session of our Legislature, an appropriation was made to
start a survey and have maps made showing the areas of our State better
adapted for timber-growing than for any other purpose. This work is now
well under way. A commission composed of twelve of our leading citizens,
interested in forestry, have been appointed to draft a forestry bill to
be submitted to the coming Legislature, when, without doubt, the State
will start in upon a plan of reforestation; something which every State
of the Union should take up. It is the duty of the States to attend to
the growing of forests within their borders, and not the duty of the
Federal Government. I am not in favor of abolishing the Federal forestry
department. This department should stand in the same relation to the
State forests as the Department of Agriculture stands to the farming
interests of the Nation (applause). We would hardly expect Secretary
Wilson to go around the country, preparing the ground, planting and
harvesting our crops, and collecting the revenue therefrom, and we do
not expect the Federal Government to go inside of the State and start a
system of reforestation where it is absolutely the duty of the State
itself to undertake that work (applause).
The greatest infringement upon the rights of the State to handle their
own internal affairs is the attempt on the part of the Federal
Government to gain control by indirection of our water-power for the
purpose of supervising and deriving the revenue from any possible
development of the powers. This, by the way, is a policy particularly
waged by the National Conservation Association, an organization which is
making of this Conservation question a cult, which has practically set
up a dogma, and whose members are now quarreling over their claims to
orthodoxy. So far about all it has done has been to play into the hands
of the power monopoly, which the first apostles of Conservation claim to
fear so greatly.
Of all the lame arguments I have heard, the one that the people of the
country have not the brains or authority to regulate the charges of any
public service corporation, is the worst. We have two means of reaching
them: by regulating the rates, and by taxation. No State in the Union
was probably ever more troubled than was the State of Washington a few
years ago with a railway lobby. In the year 1905 the Legislature of the
State of Washington passed a railway commission law, and placed the
regulation and control of railroads under this commission. Three years
this commission studied the conditions in the State. It was one of the
first States in the Union to make a physical valuation to determine the
cost of these plants. In 1909 the railway commission of Washington
placed an order into effect that saved to the farmers of the State, in
the hauling of wheat and other grains alone, $750,000. At the same time
they placed an order reducing the general distance tariffs of the
railroads, which cost the railroads of the State $75,000, and the
railroads have never appealed from its decision and those rates are in
effect today. In 1909 the railway commission traveled over every mile of
road in our State, visited every station, held hearings, and as a result
of that trip they made 250 orders ordering new stations, enlargement of
waiting-rooms and train facilities; all those things that the people
complained about they remedied, and of the 250 orders put into
effect--which cost the railroads hundreds of thousands of dollars--they
never have appealed from but 16, and 234 have gone into effect; so the
argument that the States cannot control affairs within their own
borders, it seems to me, is very fallacious (applause). If we are not
competent to handle affairs within our own borders, if we are not
competent to regulate corporations, then let us surrender our
Constitution and go back to territorial days and let the Federal
Government administer our affairs for us. (Applause)
Now, with reference to the water-power bill: The bill before Congress
introduced by Senator Smoot, of Utah, and a similar bill introduced by
Senator Jones, of Washington, are perfectly satisfactory to the people
of the Coast, so far as I know. Governor Norris has explained to you
that the beds and banks of all streams, up to the limit of medium high
tide and medium high water, belong to the States; they do not belong to
the Federal Government. That property is just as much ours as is the
jack-knife in our pockets. Senator Smoot's bill provides that all the
interest the Federal Government has in this is that it owns the sites.
We own the water, we own the power. There is no question about that. The
Supreme Court has passed upon it time and time again. The Government
owns the sites. The Smoot bill provides that the sites in the Federal
reserves shall be turned over to the State government, but that in no
instance shall the State pass the fee-simple title to the land, and no
lease shall be longer than fifty years. This is perfectly satisfactory,
and the people of the State of Washington have no objections to that
form of relinquishment to the State.
The high-handed manner in which a Federal bureau attempted to hold up
the development of the western States was the result of a false
conception of the principles upon which the Government is founded, and a
dangerous assumption that honor and efficiency existed nowhere but in
one self-appointed guide, philosopher, and so-called friend of the
people. I believe it is the intention of those now in authority to
administer the natural resources of the West according to law and with
some respect for the welfare of the State in which the resources are
located. But outside of governmental and administrative circles, an
element composed of faddists, dreamers, and enthusiasts is striving to
bend popular sentiment to certain impractical and unfair policies of
applying Conservation, and it is against this element that the West has
taken arms. We want Conservation that benefits all the people, not a
Conservation that plays into the hands of a few. Conservation that does
not make use of resources rapidly going to waste is Conservation gone
daffy. I have noticed that there are some States down here shouting loud
for Federal control of our natural resources. I want to say that those
Governors who are here shouting the loudest for Federal control are from
the States that have the least amount of natural resources. It is the
desire of these people that the revenue received from these natural
resources shall be surrendered to the Federal treasury. That is what the
western States certainly object to. Some people and papers here are
charging that "the interests," whatever you may call them, are favoring
State control of the natural resources. I want to say to you that "the
interests" are always against local control in any case, and always
prefer that monopoly of all kinds shall be placed in the Federal
Government and as far away from the people as it is possible to get it.
The address made here by President Taft this morning is in line with the
western idea of Conservation as I understand it, and I believe those of
us from the West who look at this question as I do endorse the same safe
statement that has been made by our great President (applause). Let
western men, using up-to-date western methods and familiar with western
conditions, deal with and manage western matters. I thank you.
(Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman STUBBS--Professor Condra will make an announcement before I
introduce the next speaker.
* * * * *
Professor CONDRA--Mr Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen: You know that
we have State Conservation Commissions and associations representing
various States. We have recently perfected an organization of these with
a view to cooperation among States and with the Federal departments. The
Federal representatives forming our national committees have thought it
better not to issue any suggestions to the State delegations, preferring
to leave this duty to the committee of the interstate organization, of
which I have the honor to be Chairman, as the more democratic method. We
propose that the chairman of each State Conservation Commission or
Association call his State delegation together at some stated time and
place (in the absence of the chairman the secretary or some other
commissioner may act) to organize the delegation and select
representatives to serve on the resolutions committee and any other
committees, to the end that we may have fair discussion and full
representation of all our States.
* * * * *
Chairman STUBBS--I now take pleasure in introducing Governor Brooks, of
Wyoming. (Applause)
* * * * *
Governor BROOKS--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: It has been my good
fortune to visit nearly every State in this great Union, and to spend
considerable time in nearly all the larger cities, though, strange to
say, this is the first time I have ever visited this particular spot;
and yesterday, while enjoying a beautiful ride through the Twin Cities
and around the great parks and other resorts, I felt that my education
had been sadly neglected (applause). This is certainly one of the garden
spots of the Union, and I think the people here showed the proper spirit
when their Governor in his address this morning stated that a State
convention on Conservation had been held, at which the attendance
numbered some 7,000 people, to consider the proper conservation of the
soil and to bring about increased production of the farms. I know that
the State of Minnesota is on the right track--that is the important
thing, after all. (Applause)
A few days ago the western Governors held a meeting at Salt Lake City,
and spent two days discussing this question of Conservation. After full
and complete discussion they adopted, unanimously, a brief set of
resolutions, which I think express their views in this important matter.
Colorado, Utah, California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming were represented; and since the resolutions, which have been
published in all the western papers, have met with unqualified public
endorsement, and as it will only take me about a minute, I am going to
read them, as embodying the views of the western Governors--and, I might
add, of 95 percent of the citizens of the great western States:
_Resolved_, that the Governors of the Rocky Mountain and
Pacific Coast States affirm as a platform of principles to be
urged upon the National Conservation Congress to be held at
Saint Paul, September 5-9, 1910
_First_, that in legislatively solving the problem of
Conservation the National Congress adhere to the doctrine of
Abraham Lincoln that the public lands are an impermanent
national possession, held in trust for the maturing States.
Right on that point, I wish to refer to the splendid paper read here at
the opening of this afternoon's session by that brilliant, honest, and
patriotic statesman, Senator Nelson (applause), outlining the public
land laws. I call your attention to the fact that at the beginning of
this great Nation of ours the Federal Government acquired, by cession
from the States, by treaties with the Indians, and by purchase and
conquest, all this vast public-land territory, the early idea being that
this public domain was to be sold for the payment of the Revolutionary
War debt and for the running expenses of the Government; though that
early idea was quickly transformed and changed, owing to the insistent
demand of the settlers, and the pre-emption laws (with which you are all
familiar) followed as the second step. They were a sort of settlement
and revenue measure combined; but still the insistent demand of the
settlers would not stop, and gradually we reached that stage where the
homestead law was passed, and signed by Abraham Lincoln in 1862, giving
the settlers 160 acres of land as the result of settlement and
cultivation, doing away entirely with the old revenue idea; and under
that one law this great State of Minnesota, and every other State in
this central country, has developed to a degree unparalleled in the
history of human progress (applause). Now, all the West asks is an even
break; all the West asks is an equal opportunity. How can we educate our
children, how can we maintain good government and good law, how can we
do all those necessary and essential things to maintain a high state of
civilization and progress, if over one-half of the State is to be held
permanently as a Federal resource, giving no taxation or revenue
whatever to the support of our State governments? (Applause) It is
utterly impossible. We of the West are just as bitterly opposed to
monopoly, just as bitterly opposed to any misuse of the natural
resources of this country as any of you gentlemen here assembled
(applause); but we do believe that the States themselves can in a great
measure work out the safest and best conservation. I might get started
here and go on talking, and I do not want to do it; I want to read the
other resolutions:
_Second_, that State government, no less beneficently than
National Government, is capable of devising and administering
laws for the conservation of public property; and that the
National and State governments should legislatively coordinate
to the end that within a reasonable period of time the State
governments be conceded full and complete administration of
such Conservation laws as may be found adaptable to the varying
conditions of the several States.
The idea being that conditions vary so tremendously--just as you have
heard from the Governor of Mississippi and the Governor of Illinois, the
latter of whom told you about a monopoly stepping in and stopping the
State development of the water-power along one of their streams. Such a
condition is absolutely impossible in the West, because that old law of
riparian rights does not apply; there is no law in the West whereby we
are compelled to allow the water in the streams to flow by your property
undiminished in quantity and undefiled in quality. In the West the law
of appropriation applies, the law of use. Under the Constitution of
Wyoming, granting twenty years ago, we were given all the water of the
State, everywhere and every place; we cannot part title with it, we hold
it, and we will always hold it. Talk about monopoly! How absolutely
impossible, under the laws of Wyoming! We have used this water wisely
and well. I picked out of a paper this afternoon a certificate of
appropriation for power granted in 1900, ten years ago: "Whereas, F. V.
Andrews has presented to the Board of Control of the State of Wyoming
proof of the appropriation of water from Sand creek, tributary to the
Redwater territory, for enlargement of Beulah flouring mill ditch, under
permit 517 (enlargement for power and milling purposes), now, know ye,
that the Board of Control under the provisions of Division 1, Title 9,
Chapters 10 and 14 of the Revised Statutes of Wyoming, 1899, has, by an
order duly made and entered on the 28th day of December, 1909, in order
record No. 4, page 287, determined and established the priority and
amount of such appropriation as follows: name of the proprietor, F. V.
Andrews, postoffice, Beulah, Wyoming; amount of appropriation, 145 cubic
feet of water, date of appropriation, April 6, 1900. Said ditch so
located, the right to use water herein defined, shall not at any time
exceed the volume of 145 cubic feet per second, and the right shall at
all times be subject to any future regulation and restriction that may
be placed on the same by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming."
(Applause) It is absolutely impossible to get a monopoly of water-power
in the State of Wyoming, and such an instance as referred to by the
Governor of Illinois would be impossible. The State of Wyoming could
simply refuse to allow that company to use one drop of water; they have
the power to do it, it is so provided for in the Constitution, just as
the State of Wyoming, if it chose, could absolutely refuse to permit the
general Government itself to use one drop of water for power purposes.
We have never had any power monopoly in the State of Wyoming, and we do
not intend to have.
_Third_, that experience of the Conservation States
demonstrates that dispositions of public property made under
existing National Conservation laws and regulations have tended
to intrench monopolies and interests menacing the common
welfare; and that modifications of such laws and regulations
should be promoted by the Conservation Congress.
Our great President this morning stated a great truth, and it came right
to the hearts of the western people. You can't understand it here,
perhaps, but we realize the importance of Conservation; but we have been
talked to death on it. _What we want is action!_ We want the people to
get busy; we do not want all these things bottled up in cold storage; we
want them used for the generation of today. That is the important thing.
As it is now in Wyoming, every big coal company in the State is adding
an increased price to its coal to the consumer, who is already burdened
beyond the point of endurance, simply because there is no further
development in these coal lands as they stand today under the
withdrawals; every ranchman in the State of Wyoming is paying ten
dollars a thousand more for his lumber than he had to a few years
ago--ten years ago, five years ago--owing to the fact that development
has ceased. The only monopolies that we are troubled with out there are
those that are unable to appraise their capital at present simply
because competition cannot come up and meet them on the markets under
present conditions.
_Fourth_, that the elimination from the forest reserves of all
homestead and untimbered grazing lands is immediately
expedient.
_Fifth_, the use and control of all water-power inheres of
right in the States, within restrictions insuring perpetual
freedom from monopoly.
_Sixth_, that the privilege of American citizens to seek and
develop mineral wealth wherever it may be found should be fully
amplified and secured by laws.
_Seventh_, that the idea of deriving Federal revenue from the
physical resources of the States is repugnant to that
adjustment of constitutional powers which guarantee the
perpetuity of the Union. (Applause)
And with only one thought more I leave you: If the western States, never
having had the opportunity so far to develop their great natural
resources as you people of the East have, as Minnesota and the Atlantic
States have, are now to be changed entirely from the time-honored policy
that has made these States great and powerful; if now we are to be
taxed, as we have been, $150,000 a year for the forest-reserve grazing
privileges, when that same money is used in the great Empire State for
forest protection free of cost, then we of the West have a hard row to
hoe. We simply ask the same fair treatment as accorded every central and
eastern State of the Union. It is not right to tax the West for anything
which you would not apply in one of the great eastern States. We want
our resources protected, we want them safeguarded for our children and
our children's children, but we want the opportunity to make our young
States grow and be prosperous, so that we of the West will have those
things of which we can be as proud as you people of Minnesota are when
you take a gentleman to your magnificent State Capitol, to your great
Agricultural College, and to your other great schools--we want the same
for our children and our children's children, without Federal
interference. (Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman STUBBS--I want to say a word here about a suggestion made by
the Montana Governor. I would like to ask Governor Norris if it is not a
fact that the Federal Government has led in irrigation in Montana?
Governor NORRIS--Has led?
Chairman STUBBS--Yes sir. Haven't they done a great deal of work to
develop your irrigation projects?
Governor NORRIS--For the last three or four years, yes.
Chairman STUBBS--Well, it is within the last three or four years that
this Conservation idea has been spreading out, taking root, and going
out from Washington; they didn't get started until Theodore Roosevelt
got hold of it (applause). As to the Federal Government undertaking to
dominate the West and discriminate against the West, I don't believe
that it is in the heart or mind of Gifford Pinchot or Theodore Roosevelt
or anybody else to do that (applause); but Gifford Pinchot has stood
like a rock and fought like a tiger to keep the thieves out of the
Alaska coal fields (applause), and you ought to build a monument to his
memory for keeping the Cunningham claims off the statute books and from
legalizing by Congress, for it would have been an everlasting disgrace
to the American Nation to have millions and billions of tons of coal
stolen there. What did President Taft say this morning? He said, "We
believe in leasing those lands out there in Montana and in Wyoming and
all over this country." He does not believe in selling those things; he
doesn't believe in turning them over to the State, either. He said as
much here this morning (applause). He says, "Lease them for the benefit
of the people they belong to."
I tell you this Conservation idea, when it is put on the right sort of
basis, is the biggest thing that we have struck in a financial way in a
long while; and I tell you right now (I do not know how it happens, but
it is a matter of fact) I do know that the great syndicates and the
great corporations that want to gobble up all these coal lands and
control these power sites, every bloody one of them, want State control.
(Applause, and cries of "Right, Right!") And the reason they want State
control is because the meshes are too small in the national net; the
Federal Government has given them genuine supervision and genuine
control of national resources, and I thank God for it, too (applause). I
want it to keep coming right along. I would not stand for one minute to
see the West discriminated against; I do not believe in taxing Montana
or Wyoming for anything that you would not tax New York or Pennsylvania
for; neither does Theodore Roosevelt, for he grew up out in that country
and he is one of them and his whole heart is with them; he wouldn't see
one iota of discrimination, and nobody else would; but I say to you that
it is the great electric power organizations and combinations--it
centers down to four or five or six fellows--that are trying to
monopolize all the power sites in the United States! That's what's the
matter now; and those fellows think if they could get the whole thing in
the hands of State legislatures they could dicker and trade with them
(applause and cheers). They know they cannot do it at Washington. That
is all there is to this whole problem; and I say to you today that the
American people ought to build a monument to Theodore Roosevelt and
Gifford Pinchot for the work they have done in this line (great
applause), to say nothing about the other great work that has been done.
I would like to see those Alaska coal thieves sent to jail (laughter and
applause), and for my part I do not take any stock in the Ballinger idea
of running things up there, either (tremendous applause). If I were
President of the United States, I'd kick Ballinger out of that Cabinet
in five minutes, that's what I'd do. (Great and enthusiastic applause)
We might as well tell the truth about it, too. I say to you that this
work has started, and it has started along broad, decent, National
lines; the States have plenty to do right now if they will attend to
business; they have seventy-five percent of the forests now in private
hands with only about twenty-five percent under Federal control, and
two-thirds of all the great coal interests of this country in private
hands with only one-third vested in the Federal Government; I'd like to
see the Federal Government look out for these power sites, and when the
contract is made, let it be made in such a way as they can control it.
Taft made some good suggestions this morning, and I want to give him
credit for it (laughter and applause).
* * * * *
I did not mean to make a speech; I meant to introduce Governor Vessey.
(Laughter and applause, and cries of "Go on, go on") We have great men
here that are ready to talk, and I must close in a few minutes. Governor
Vessey, of South Dakota. (Applause)
* * * * *
Governor VESSEY--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: You can readily see
by the color of that man's hair (indicating Governor Stubbs) that he
wears the Kansas emblem on his head (laughter and applause) and is not
afraid to say something.
Now, in regard to Conservation, I am a good deal like John was the
afternoon he was out riding with Mary. For some reason or other he
wanted to know whether Mary thought enough of him to marry him, and yet
he wasn't quite ready to make her his wife. But he put the question
anyway, and she immediately accepted him. They rode along for some
distance in silence. Finally she asked, "John, why don't you say
something?" He replied, "There's been too much said already!" (Great
laughter and applause) And there have been lots of good things said
today.
South Dakota is in a peculiar position. It is not in the southern part
of the United States, neither is it in the extreme northwestern part; it
doesn't even join Kansas (laughter), though it has _some_ of the same
kind of spirit (applause). The eastern part of South Dakota is a strip
of country two hundred miles square, and there is no richer, no more
uniform, no better farming land in the United States than that part of
South Dakota; the western part of the State goes into the foothills of
the Rocky Mountains. In this western part is a great forest reserve; and
I want to say I believe that in the State of South Dakota the National
Government is doing the best work in preserving the natural forest done
anywhere in the United States. Still you find in the western part of our
State a great deal of the same spirit that you find in Wyoming, Montana,
and Washington. Why? Because of local interests. You see this is largely
a local question; and what suits Kansas or Mississippi, somehow or other
does not suit Wyoming. It is like the tariff question; and it will
probably never be settled until it is settled by an expert commission
which will deal with the matter as a whole. (Applause)
I believe largely--very largely, indeed--in State rights. I believe the
State should control and own the water-power of streams that are not
navigable and that it should be within its province to provide that the
waters should first be used for the soil and secondarily be used for
furnishing water power to turn the wheels of industry and thereby make
the State richer. For we must admit--just as your great Governor of
Minnesota has said--the first duty of the people of the United States is
to preserve the soil (applause), because the crop that comes annually
from the soil yields the greatest revenue that the United States will
ever have; and we must have it, and must have it increased if we expect
to support the increasing population of the United States at a
reasonable cost so that they can work at reasonable wages and support
homes--possibly not of luxury, but of all the comforts that citizens are
entitled to.
I appreciate the position that has been taken in the conservation of
coal; I appreciate the conservation of timber, of phosphate lands, of
oil, and of gas; but I want to say that the same conditions that have
been referred to upon this platform with reference to the disposing of
power from water-power plants at the lowest minimum cost should apply in
the same way to these other natural resources--yet you will notice that
in the report of the National Forester it is shown that we have been
selling stumpage at market prices. They propose to sell the coal and the
gas and the oil, and possibly the phosphate, at market prices. If that
is true, it is not real Conservation in the interest of the consumer;
because if we only own one-third of the coal and the private individuals
who own two-thirds fix the prices, and if the Government follows them in
fixing the prices, where does the consumer derive any benefit
(applause). The same rule should apply to timber. I can show you, in our
own State, where there are parts of the national forests that are ripe
and should be cut into lumber, and that lumber should be building homes
on our broad prairies. But the price the Government has fixed on the
stumpage is too great for mill-men to buy it and manufacture it and sell
it, even at the high price of lumber out in that country. Now, who is
suffering? The men that are endeavoring to build homes on that prairie.
I think we ought to be intelligent on those things. I think we ought to
use the timber, and we ought to use the coal, and we ought to use the
phosphates, in the upbuilding of this country, and give it to the
consumers, if possible, at a price at which they can use it, and not at
a price that may be set by the large combinations or trusts that control
these products. I thank you. (Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman STUBBS--We were expected to get through here at 5 oclock and it
is now ten minutes after 6. I regret that there is not time to allow a
dozen or fifteen mighty fine men to continue this discussion. The
session is adjourned.
_THIRD SESSION_
The Congress convened in the Auditorium, Saint Paul, on the morning of
September 6, 1910, and was called to order by President Baker.
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen. We have a few minutes before our
honored guest Colonel Roosevelt arrives. We shall occupy that time in
routine business. At Seattle, where this Congress was formed, the
organization was left to an Executive Committee and a Board of
Directors. They are now prepared to submit a report; but the first and
most important question relates to credentials, on which the Congress at
large may properly act.
A DELEGATE--Mr Chairman, I move that the Chair be authorized to appoint
a committee of five on credentials.
President BAKER--Gentlemen, you have heard the motion. Is it seconded?
(The motion was seconded) If there is no discussion, the motion will be
put. All those in favor of the motion will signify their pleasure by
saying aye.
A VOICE--What is the question?
President BAKER--The motion is that the Chair be authorized to appoint a
committee of five on credentials. All in favor will say aye. Contrary
nay. It is a unanimous vote.
The Chair will appoint on that committee Edward Hines, of Chicago,
chairman (and will ask him to call his committee together as soon as
possible); George K. Smith, of Saint Louis, R. W. Douglas, of Seattle,
Charles H. Pack, of Cleveland, Lynn R. Meekins, of Baltimore.
The next important business will be consideration of a Constitution and
By-Laws, which Professor Condra will read.
Professor CONDRA--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am asked to read
the draft of a constitution that you may know that it comes from the
State organizations. Your various State committeemen met and adopted the
draft submitted to us by the Executive Committee; therefore the proposed
Constitution has the approval of two bodies, one State and one National.
(Professor Condra proceeded with the reading of the Constitution as
submitted; after reaching Article VI--)
A DELEGATE--Mr President, as the time is late, and as the Executive
Committee have passed upon Constitution and it has been approved by the
representatives of the States in the form presented, I move that the
further reading be suspended and that the Constitution be adopted.
(Applause)
President BAKER--Is the motion seconded? (Several voices seconded the
motion) All in favor will say aye; contrary nay. Carried without
dissenting voice. (Applause)
Some announcements will now be made by the gentleman from Nebraska.
Professor CONDRA--Ladies and Gentlemen: In order that there may be
proper representation of the various delegations in the Committee on
Resolutions, it is again urged that all members of each delegation meet
and select their representatives. If chairmen of delegations will give
us the place and time of meeting we will gladly announce it from this
platform. Thus far we have not heard of time and place for meeting of
delegations from New Hampshire, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Ohio, Minnesota, Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, or Nevada.
[Several announcements of meetings of delegations were here made.]
* * * * *
President BAKER--We will now listen to an address from Honorable John
Barrett, a man known around the world as the Director of the Bureau of
American Republics. (Applause)
* * * * *
Mr BARRETT--Ladies and Gentlemen: If I had the fascinating capacity of
Governor Stubbs, of Kansas (applause), I might be able to do justice to
this occasion; but I have been sitting in yonder corner, behind three
noble Governors each ready to speak, beside the representative of the
British government--which today is watching with great interest this
gathering--not expecting for a moment that I would be called upon today;
and it is only that I may be true to my New England birth and my western
training that I rise in response to the suggestions of your Chairman.
(Applause) If any reason renders it at all fitting that I should say a
word, it is because perhaps I have the honor of representing here today
some twenty nations as showing their interest in this great Conservation
movement which is sweeping over the wide world (applause). I want to
tell you that as this movement grows, under the splendid leadership of
the men who are blazing the way, it will become the policy of every
American country from Alaska and Canada on the north to Argentina and
Chile on the south (applause). We shall hear not only from the United
States but from our sister nations of Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and
Chile in this effort to make the world realize that if we are to provide
for ourselves and for all men who are to come, we must be
minute-men--the minute-men of the present day.
Ladies and Gentlemen, all the world is listening to what was said
yesterday, on this platform, and all the world will listen, even more
earnestly, to what is said today (applause and cheers); and these two
great pronunciamentos on Conservation will be read in every corner of
the globe, and you and I will be proud that we have participated in this
great movement. (Applause)
* * * * *
[Numerous calls were made for Governor Stubbs.]
Governor STUBBS--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: It gives me great
pleasure to be here this morning in anticipation of hearing a great
speech from the greatest American and the greatest citizen of the world.
(Vociferous applause) I am proud of our country; I am proud of her
achievements; I am proud of the great State of Kansas, the greatest
State in America (great applause), and I am proud to tell you that we
won't meet in a bar-room today (laughter and applause), and that we do
not have bar-rooms to meet in down in Kansas (great applause and
cheers); and I want to tell you that in Kansas the idea of letting men
spend their money for shoes and clothes and schools and homes has proved
a blooming success (laughter and applause and cheers) as compared with
the fellow who works by the week and makes ten or twenty or forty
dollars and spends it in a saloon Saturday night. (Renewed applause)
You have come here today to consider one of the great problems of the
age and you will hear from a master mind, from the great leader of this
movement, the policies and the plans and the propositions by which the
work will be carried forward. I do not propose to take up your valuable
time this morning in any discussion of a question of such splendid
proportions that I would not have time to get started nor time in which
to stop. (Applause)
* * * * *
Ex-President Roosevelt here entered the hall amid cheers and rousing
enthusiasm and mounted the platform.
* * * * *
President BAKER (when silence was restored)--Reverend Doctor J. S.
Montgomery, Pastor of Fowler Methodist Episcopal Church, Minneapolis,
will now offer an invocation.
INVOCATION
_Almighty God, Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Thou art the
source of all mercy, love, and blessing. Lift upon us all the light of
Thy holy countenance._
_From the beginning Thou hast never been without a witness in the world,
and Thou hast never left us comfortless. Give unto us, O God, the Source
of all wisdom, a great measure of Thy wisdom, truth, and blessing. We
recognize in Thee the source of every good and perfect thing in all the
world. Thou hast opened up this new great world; and on this auspicious
occasion, look Thou upon us in mercy. Bless our great land. Grant that
every source of material blessing may be conserved to serve all the
people; grant that our citizenship may be blessed and directed from
border to border. Remember our country; remember the great Southland,
the great Northland; bless the great East and the great West; and may
all of our people everywhere have bread enough and to spare, and may we
recognize that our supremest duty is not to build up institutions fit
for man but to build up man fit for institutions._
_Bless Thou the Governors of all the States. Remember our great
Government, its legislative, its judicial and its executive branches._
_Remember in mercy the President of these United States; and bless Thou
our most distinguished guest and most conspicuous citizen in all the
world, who is with us this day. Look upon him in mercy, guide him and
direct him in wisdom, and grant that no peril may come nigh him._
_Bless Thou our flag; may it float on until all nations see the
blessings of our great Republic; may it float on until all selfishness
dies out of the world's heart; may it float on until all ignorance shall
be gone; may it float on until the nations of the earth shall be united
in a brotherhood around and about which are wreathed the blessings and
the wisdom of Thy holy and undying self._
_Be Thou in the deliberations of this great body; grant that wisdom and
truth may be uppermost in the minds of all who are here. Accept Thou our
gratitude for thy abiding mercy, and at the last, O Lord, gather us all
into the haven of eternal rest. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord, we ask
it. Amen._
* * * * *
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: It is now my pleasure to present
that citizen of our country who in three continents has evoked the
greatest enthusiasm, and who has done for this country no greater
service than in forwarding and extending the work of Conservation to
protect the natural resources and in carrying out the principles of fair
dealing between man and man; our most honored citizen, Colonel Theodore
Roosevelt. (Great applause and cheers for many minutes)
ADDRESS BY THEODORE ROOSEVELT
Mr Chairman, and Governor; Governors, and fellow-guests; Men and Women
of Minnesota: It is a very great pleasure to me to be here in Minnesota
again, and especially to come here to speak on this particular subject
of "National Efficiency." (Applause)
Minnesota is one of the States that almost always takes the lead in any
great work (applause), and Minnesota has been one of the first to take
hold of the Conservation policy in practical fashion; and she has done a
great work and set an admirable example to the rest of us (applause)--a
work representing a policy well set forth in your Governor's address
yesterday--and I am glad that this Congress is held in such a State,
where we can listen to such an address made by a Governor who had the
right to make it. (Prolonged applause)
Much that I have to say on the general policy of Conservation will be
but a repetition of what was so admirably said on this general policy
by the President of the United States yesterday (great applause); and
in particular all true friends of Conservation should be in heartiest
agreement with the policy which the President laid down in connection
with the coal, oil, and phosphate lands (applause), and I am glad to be
able to say that at its last session Congress finally completed the work
of separating the surface title to the land from the mineral beneath it.
(Applause)
Now, my friends, America's reputation for efficiency stands deservedly
high throughout the world. We are efficient probably to the full limits
that are permitted by the methods hitherto used. The average American is
an efficient man; he can do his business. It is recognized throughout
the world that that is his type. There is great reason to be proud of
our achievements, and yet no reason to think that we cannot excel our
past (applause). Through a practically unrestrained individualism, we
have reached a pitch of literally unexampled material prosperity. The
sum of our prosperity in the aggregate leaves little to be desired,
although the distribution of that prosperity, from the standpoint of
justice and fair dealing, leaves a little more to be desired (laughter
and applause). But we have not only allowed the individual a free hand,
which was in the main right; we have also allowed great corporations to
act as though they were individuals, and to exercise the rights of
individuals, in addition to using the vast combined power of high
organization and enormous wealth for their own advantage. This
development of corporate action is doubtless in large part responsible
for the gigantic development of our natural resources, but it is also
true that it is in large part responsible for waste, destruction, and
monopoly on an equally gigantic scale. (Applause)
The method of reckless and uncontrolled private use and waste has done
for us all the good it can ever do, and it is time to put an end to it
before it does the evil that it well may (applause). We have passed the
time when heedless waste and destruction and arrogant monopoly are
longer permissible (applause). Henceforth we must seek national
efficiency by a new and a better way, by the way of the orderly
development and use, coupled with the preservation, of our natural
resources; by making the most of what we have for the benefit of all of
us, instead of leaving the sources of material prosperity open to
indiscriminate exploitation (applause). These are some of the reasons
why it is wise that we should abandon the old point of view, and why
Conservation has become a great moral issue, and become a patriotic
duty.
One of the greatest of our Conservation problems is the wise and prompt
development and use of the waterways of the Nation (applause). There are
classes of bulk freight which always go cheaper and better by water if
there is an adequate waterway (applause), and the existence of such a
type of waterway in itself helps to regulate railroad rates (applause).
The Twin Cities, lying as they do at the headwaters of the Mississippi,
are not on the direct line of the proposed Lakes-to-Gulf Deep Waterway,
and yet Minnesota, with its vast iron resources and its need of abundant
coal, is peculiarly interested in that problem (applause); and the Twin
Cities, therefore, have their own real personal concern in the deepening
and regulation of the Mississippi to the mouth of the Missouri and on to
the Gulf. (Applause)
Friends, I have spoken on how progressive Minnesota is and how
progressive these Twin Cities are, but there are other progressive
cities in the West, too (applause). I have just come from Kansas City
(applause)--it's a pretty live proposition (laughter), and there the
merchants themselves have undertaken, by raising over a million dollars,
to start the improvement of the waterway lying at their doors so that
they shall be able to benefit by it. It is sometimes said that the
waterway projects are only backed by people who are delighted to see the
Government spend its money but who are not willing to show their faith
in the proposition by spending their own. Kansas City is spending its
own (applause). The project for a great trunk waterway, an arm of the
sea extending from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes should be
abandoned (applause). Of course, before any project is entered upon, an
absolutely competent and disinterested commission should report thereon
in full to the Government so that the Government can act in the interest
of the whole people and without regard to the pressure of special
interests (applause), but subject to the action of such a body the
Lakes-to-Gulf Deep Waterway, and the development of the rivers which
flow into it, should be pushed to completion vigorously and without
delay. (Applause)
In nearly every river city from Saint Paul to the Gulf the waterfront is
controlled by the railways. Nearly every artificial waterway in the
United States, either directly or indirectly, is under the same control.
It goes without saying that (unless the people prevent it in advance)
the railways will always attempt to take control of our waterways as
fast as they are improved and completed; and I do not mention this to
blame them in the least, but to blame us if we permit them to do it.
(Great applause and cheers) If Uncle Sam can't take care of himself,
then there is no particular reason why any railroad man should act as
his guardian. (Great laughter and applause) If he attempted the feat he
would merely find himself lonely among other railroads (laughter), and
Uncle Sam wouldn't be materially benefitted. Uncle Sam's got to do the
job himself if he wants to be protected (applause). We must see to it
that adequate terminals are provided in every city and town on every
improved waterway, terminals open under reasonable conditions to the use
of every citizen, and rigidly protected against being monopolized
(applause); and we must compel the railways to cooperate with the
waterways continuously, effectively, and under reasonable conditions.
Unless we do this, the railway lines will refuse to deliver freight to
the boat lines either openly or by imposing prohibitory conditions, and
the waterways once improved will do comparatively little for the benefit
of the people who pay for them.
Adequate terminals, properly controlled, and open through lines by rail
and boat, are two absolutely essential conditions to the usefulness of
internal waterway development. I believe, furthermore, that the railways
should be prohibited from owning, controlling, or carrying any interest
in the boat lines on our rivers (applause), unless under the strictest
regulation and control of the Interstate Commerce Commission, so that
the shippers' interests may be fully protected.
And now here another word in supplement: You are the people; now don't
sit supine and let the railways gain control of the boat lines and then
turn around and say that the men at the head of the railroads are very
bad men (laughter and applause). If you leave it open to them to control
the boat lines, some of them are sure to do so, and it's to our interest
that the best and ablest among them should do so. But don't let any of
them do it, excepting under the conditions you lay down (applause). In
other words, my friends, when you of your own fault permit the rules of
the game to be such that you are absolutely certain to get the worst of
it at the hands of some one else, don't blame the other man; _change the
rules of the game_. (Laughter and applause and prolonged cheering)
Take the question of drainage, which is almost as important to the
eastern States as irrigation is in the western States: Where the
drainage of swamp and overflow lands in a given area is wholly within
the lines of a particular State, it may be well, at least at present, to
leave the handling of it to the State or to private action; but where
such a drainage area is included in two or more States, the only wise
course is to have the Federal Government act (applause); the land should
be deeded from the States back to the Federal Government, and it then
should take whatever action is necessary (applause). Much of this work
must be done by the Nation, in any case, as an integral part of inland
waterway development, and it affords a most promising field for
cooperation between the States and the Nation (applause). The people of
the United States believe in the complete and well-rounded development
of inland waterways for all the useful purposes they can be made to
subserve. They believe also in forest protection and forest extension.
The fight for our National forests in the West has been won, and if
after winning it we now go on and lose it, that is our own affair; but
_we are not going to do it_! (Applause) After a campaign in which her
women did work which should secure to them the perpetual gratitude of
their State, Minnesota won her National forest, _and she will keep it_
(applause); but the fight to create the Southern Appalachian and White
Mountain forests in the East is not yet over. The bill has passed the
House, and will come before the Senate for a vote next February. The
people of the United States, regardless of party or section, should
stand solidly behind it and see that their representatives do so
likewise (applause). Because our ancestors didn't have sufficient
foresight, the Nation is now obliged to spend great sums of money to
take responsibilities from the States. We, the people of the East, our
State Governors--I have been a Governor of an eastern State myself
(applause)--showed that the States in the East couldn't do the work as
well as the National Government and we are now getting the National
Government to take, at large cost to itself, these lands and do the work
the public good requires (applause). When we are now doing that in the
East, it seems to me the wildest folly to ask us to start in the West to
repeat the same blunders that are now being remedied (applause and
cheers). My language shall at least be free from ambiguity.
If any proof were needed that forest protection is a National duty, the
recent destruction of forests in the Rocky Mountains by fire would
supply it. Even with the aid of the Army added to that of the Forest
Service, the loss has been severe. Without either it would have been
vastly greater. But the Forest Service does more than protect the
National forests against fire. It makes them practically and
increasingly useful as well. During the last year for which I have
figures the National forests were used by 22,000 cattlemen with their
herds, 5,000 sheepmen with their flocks, 5,000 timbermen with their
crews, and 45,000 miners. And yet people will tell you they have been
shut up from popular use! (Applause) More than 5,000 persons used them
for other special industries. Nearly 34,000 settlers had the free use of
water. The total resident population of the National forests is about a
quarter of a million, which is larger than the population of some of our
States. More than 700,000 acres of agricultural land have been patented
or listed for patent within the forests, and the reports of the forest
officers show that more than 400,000 people a year use the forests for
recreation, camping, hunting, fishing and similar purposes. All this is
done, of course, without injury to the timber, which has a value of at
least a thousand million dollars. Moreover, the National forests protect
the water supply of a thousand cities and towns, about 800 irrigation
projects, and more than 300 power projects, not counting the use of
water for these and other purposes by individual settlers. I think that
hereafter we may safely disregard any statements that the National
forests are withdrawn from settlement and usefulness (applause).
Conservation has to do not only with natural resources; it has to do
with the lives of those who enable the rest of us to make use of those
natural resources. The investigations of the Country Life Commission
have led the farmers of this country to realize that they have not been
getting their fair share of progress and all that it brings. Some of
our farming communities in the Mississippi valley and in the middle West
have made marvelous progress, and yet even the best of them, like
communities of every other kind, are not beyond improvement, and those
that are not the best need improvement very much. As yet we know but
little of the basic facts of the conditions of rural life compared to
what we know about the conditions, for instance, of industrial life. The
means for better farming we have studied with care, but to better living
on the farm, and to better business on the farm--I mean by that, having
the farmer use the middleman where it is to the farmer's advantage and
not be used by the middleman chiefly to the middleman's advantage
(applause)--scant attention has been paid. One of the most urgent needs
of our civilization is that the farmers themselves should undertake to
get for themselves a better knowledge along these lines. Horace
Plunkett, an Irishman, for many years a Wyoming ranchman, has suggested
in his recent book on "The Country Life Problem in America" the creation
of a Country Life Institute as a center where the work and knowledge of
the whole world concerning country life may be brought together for the
use of the Nation. I strongly sympathize with his ideas. Last spring,
while visiting the capital of Hungary, Buda-Pesth, I was immensely
impressed by the Museum of Country Life, which contained an
extraordinary series of studies in agriculture, in stock-raising, in
forestry, in mining. It was one of the most interesting places I ever
visited, and the exhibits were not merely interesting and instructive,
they were of the utmost practical importance; and I felt rather ashamed
that I, a citizen of what we suppose to be a very go-ahead country,
should be in Hungary and obliged to confess we had nothing at all like
that in our own country. I wish we had such a museum in Washington, and
some of your farmer congressmen ought to get a detailed report of this
Buda-Pesth museum to be printed for distribution as a public document
(applause). I would like to see a study made of such museums, so that we
may take what is good in them for our own use here in America.
(Applause)
As a people we have not yet learned the virtue of thrift. It is a mere
truism to say that luxury and extravagance are not good for a Nation. So
far as they affect character, the loss they cause may be beyond
computation. But in a material sense there is a loss greater than is
caused by both extravagance and luxury put together. I mean the
needless, useless and excessive loss to our people from premature death
and avoidable diseases. It has been calculated that the material loss to
the Federal Government in such ways is nearly twice what it costs to run
the Federal Government.
One of the most important meetings in our recent history was that of the
Governors in the White House in May, 1908, to consider the Conservation
question (applause). By the advice of the Governors, the meeting was
followed by the appointment of a National Conservation Commission. The
meeting of the Governors directed the attention of the country to
Conservation as nothing else could have done, while the work of the
Commission gave the movement definiteness, and supplied it with a
practical program. Now, my friends, so far, I have had nothing but
praise to speak of Minnesota; but I cannot continue to speak only words
of praise. At the moment when this Commission was ready to begin the
campaign for putting its program into effect, an amendment to the Sundry
Civil Bill was introduced by a congressman from Minnesota, with the
purpose of putting a stop to the work so admirably begun. (Sensation)
Congress passed the amendment. Its object was to put an end to the work
of a number of commissions which had been appointed by the President,
and whose contributions to the public welfare had been simply
incalculable. (Voice: "Now, what do you think of Tawney?" and laughter)
Among these were the Commission for Reorganization of the Business
Methods of the Government, the Public Lands Commission, the Country Life
Commission, and the National Conservation Commission itself. When I
signed the Sundry Civil Bill containing this amendment, I transmitted
with it, as my last official act, a memorandum declaring that the
amendment was void because it was an unconstitutional interference with
the rights of the Executive and that if I were to remain President I
would pay to it no attention whatever (enthusiastic applause and
cheers). The National Conservation Commission thereupon became dormant.
The suspension of its work came at a most unfortunate time, and there
was serious danger that the progress already made would be lost. At this
critical moment the National Conservation Association was organized. It
took up work which otherwise would not have been done; if it had not
done it we wouldn't have had this meeting here (applause), and it
exercised a most useful influence in preventing bad legislation, in
securing the introduction of better Conservation measures at the past
session of Congress, and in promoting the passage of wise laws. It
deserves the confidence and support of every citizen interested in the
wise development and preservation of our natural resources (applause)
and in preventing them from passing into the hands of uncontrolled
monopolies (applause). It joins with the National Conservation Congress
in holding this meeting. I am here by the joint invitation of both.
(Applause)
When the Government of the United States awoke to the idea of
Conservation and saw that it was good, it lost no time in communicating
the advantages of the new point of view to its immediate neighbors among
the nations. A North American Conservation Conference was held in
Washington, and the cooperation of Canada and Mexico in the great
problem of developing the resources of the continent for the benefit of
the people was asked and promised. The Nations upon our northern and
southern boundaries wisely realized that their opportunity to conserve
their natural resources was better than ours, because with them
destruction and monopolization had not gone so far as they had with us.
So it is with the republics of Central and South America. Obviously they
are on the verge of a period of great material progress. The development
of their natural resources--their forests, their mines, their waters,
and their soils--will create enormous wealth. It is to the mutual
interests of the United States and our sister American Republics that
this development should be wisely done. Our manufacturing industries
offer a market for more and more of their natural wealth and raw
material, while they will wish our products in exchange. The more we buy
from them, the more we shall sell to them. Thank Heaven, we of this
hemisphere are now beginning to realize, what in the end the whole world
will realize, that normally it is a good thing for a Nation to have its
neighbors prosper (great applause). We of the United States are
genuinely and heartily pleased to see growth and prosperity in Canada,
in Mexico, in South America (applause). I wish we could impress upon
certain small Republics to the south of us, whose history has not always
been happy, that all we ask of them is to be prosperous and _peaceful_
(laughter and applause). We do not want to interfere, it is particularly
the thing that we dislike doing; all we ask of any Nation on this
hemisphere is that it shall be prosperous and peaceful, able to do
reasonable justice within its own boundaries and to the stranger within
its gates; and any Nation that is able to do that can count on our
heartiest and most friendly support. (Applause)
It is clear that unless the governments of our southern neighbors take
steps in the near future by wise legislation to control the development
and use of their natural resources, they will probably fall into the
hands of concessionaires and promoters, whose single purpose, without
regard to the permanent welfare of the land in which they work, will be
to make the most possible money in the shortest possible time. There
will be shameful waste, destructive loss, and short-sighted disregard of
the future, as we have learned by bitter experience here at home. Unless
the governments of all the American Republics, including our own, enact
in time such laws as will both protect their natural wealth and promote
their legitimate and reasonable development, future generations will owe
their misfortunes to us of today. A great patriotic duty calls upon us.
We owe it to ourselves and to them to give the other American Republics
all the help we can. The cases in which we have failed should be no less
instructive than the cases in which we have succeeded. With prompt
action and good will the task of saving the resources for the people is
full of hope for us all.
But while we of the United States are anxious, as I believe we are
able, to be of assistance to others, there are problems of our own which
must not be overlooked. One of the most important Conservation questions
of the moment relates to the control of water-power monopoly in the
public interest (applause). There is apparent to the judicious observer
a distinct tendency on the part of our opponents to cloud the issue by
raising the question of State as against Federal jurisdiction
(applause). We are ready to meet this issue if it is forced upon us
(applause), but there is no hope for the plain people in such conflicts
of jurisdiction. The essential question is not one of hair splitting
legal technicalities (applause). It is not really a question of State
against Nation, it is really a question of the special corporate
interests against the popular interests of the people. (Tremendous
applause and cheers) If it were not for those special corporate
interests, you never would have heard the question of State against
Nation raised (great applause and cheers). The real question is simply
this, Who can best regulate the special interests for the country's
good? (Voices: "Theodore Roosevelt!" and prolonged applause and cheers)
Most of the great corporations, and almost all of those that can
legitimately be called the great predatory corporations (laughter), have
interstate affiliations: therefore they are out of reach of effective
State control, and fall of necessity within the Federal jurisdiction
(applause). One of the prime objects of those among them that are
grasping and greedy is to avoid any effective control either by State or
Nation; and they advocate at this time State control chiefly because
they believe it to be the least effective (applause). If it grew
effective, many of those now defending it would themselves turn around
and declare against State control, and plead in the courts that such
control was unconstitutional (applause). I had my own experience
(applause and laughter); I'll give you an example of it. When I was
Governor of New York, there came up a bill to tax the franchises of
certain big street railway corporations. As originally introduced, the
bill provided that the taxation should be imposed by the several
counties and localities in which those corporations did business.
Representatives of the corporations came to me and said that this would
work a great hardship upon them, that the State authority would be more
just, that the local authorities (especially where a railroad ran
through two or three towns or counties) would each endeavor to get the
whole benefit of the taxation for their own locality, and that, in the
name of justice, I ought to agree to have the State and not the
localities made the taxing power. I thought their plea just, and
recommended and sanctioned the change. The bill was made a law; and
those same corporations instantly entered suit against it on the ground
that it was unconstitutional (laughter and applause) to take the power
of taxation away from the localities and give it to the State (renewed
laughter and applause); and they carried the suit up to the Supreme
Court of the United States where, during my own term as President, it
was decided against them. (Applause)
In the great fight of the people to drive the special interests from the
domination of the Government, the Nation is stronger, and its
jurisdiction is more effective than that of any State (applause). I want
to say another thing, which the representatives of those corporations do
not at the moment believe, but which I am sure that in the end they will
find out; because of its strength, because of the fact that the Federal
Government is better able to exact justice from them, I also believe it
is less apt, in some sudden gust of popular passion, to do injustice to
them (applause). Now, I want you to understand my position--I do not
think you can misunderstand it. I will do my utmost to secure the rights
of every corporation. If a corporation is improperly attacked, I will
stand up for it to the best of my ability; I'd stand up for it even
though I was sure that the bulk of the people were misguided enough at
the moment to take the wrong side and be against it (applause). I should
fight to see that the people, through the National Government, did full
justice to the corporations; but I don't want the National Government to
depend only upon their good will to get justice for the people. (Great
applause) Now, most of the great corporations are in large part financed
and owned in the Atlantic States, and it's a rather comical fact that
many of the chief and most zealous upholders of States' rights in the
present controversy are big business men who live in other States
(applause). The most effective weapon is Federal laws and the Federal
Executive. That is why I so strongly oppose the demand to turn these
matters over to the States. It is fundamentally a demand against the
interest of the plain people, of the people of small means, against the
interest of our children and our children's children; and it is
primarily in the interest of the great corporations which wish to escape
effective Government control. (Applause)
And I ask you to consider two more things in this connection: Waters
run; they don't stay in one State (laughter and applause). That fact
seems elementary, but it tends to be forgotten. I have just come from
Kansas. Practically all the water in Kansas runs into Kansas from
another State, and out of it into other States. You can't have effective
control of a watershed unless the same power controls all the watersheds
(applause and cries of "Good"), as the water runs not merely out one
State into another but out of one country into another. One of the great
irrigation projects of Montana has been delayed because the Waters that
make the Milk river rise in Montana, flow north into Canada, and then
come back into Montana. You can't settle that matter excepting through
the National Government (applause); the State can't settle it. So much
for what we see here. Now, take the experience of other Nations--of the
little Republic of Switzerland. It actually tried what some of our
people ask to try; it actually tried the experiment of letting each
Canton handle its own waters, and a conflict of jurisdiction arose, and
the squabbling and the injustices became such that about nine years ago
the National Government of Switzerland had to assume complete control of
all the waters of Switzerland, on the explicit ground that all of the
waters belonged to all the citizens of the Swiss nation (great
applause). Now, I am not asking that we go ahead recklessly; I am only
asking that we do not go backward where other countries have gone ahead.
(Applause)
As the President yesterday pointed out, one of the difficulties that we
have to meet, in connection with the fight for Conservation, is that our
aim is continually misrepresented--that the effect is constantly made to
show that we are anxious to retard development. It has been no slight
task to bring ninety millions of people to understand what the movement
is, and to convince them that it is right. Much remains to be cleared up
in the minds of the people, and there are many misunderstandings to be
removed. For example, we find it constantly said by men who should know
better that temporary withdrawals, such as the withdrawals of the coal
lands, will permanently check development. Yet the fact is that these
withdrawals have no purpose whatever except to prevent the coal lands
from passing into private ownership until Congress passes laws to open
them under conditions just alike to the public and to the men who will
do the developing (applause). And, now understand me; if there is any
doubt whether the conditions are liberal enough to the men who are to do
the developing. I always solve the doubt in favor of liberality to those
men; I want to give them every chance, I want to give them every
opportunity to do well for themselves, but I want to see that in doing
well for themselves they also do well for the rest of us. (Applause)
In spite of these difficulties, most of which are doubtless inevitable
in any movement of this kind, the cause of Conservation has made
marvelous progress. We have a right to congratulate ourselves on it, but
there is no reason for believing that the fight is won. In the beginning
the special interests, who are our chief opponents now, paid little heed
to the movement, because they neither understood it nor saw that if it
won they must lose. But with the progress of Conservation in the minds
of the people, the fight is getting sharper. The nearer we approach to
victory, the bitterer the opposition that we must meet and the greater
the need for caution and watchfulness. Open opposition we can overcome,
but we must guard ourselves; and you of this Congress must especially
guard yourselves against the men who are really corporate agents but who
pose as disinterested outsiders (applause). Now I heartily approve the
action of any corporation which comes here openly because it is
interested in the deliberations of a meeting such as this, and by its
openly accredited agents presents views which it believes the meeting
should have in mind (applause); I approve of the corporation that does
that, and I would despise any of our people who feared instantly to give
the most ample and respectful hearing and real consideration to any such
plea thus put forward. (Applause and cries of "Good!") The corporation
through its agents not only has a right to be heard, but if it did not
volunteer you ought to endeavor to see that its views were presented. My
protest is not against the man who comes here openly as the corporation
agent, but against the man who comes here openly as something else and
really as the corporation agent. (Laughter)
It is our duty and our desire to make this land of ours a better home
for the race, but our duty does not stop there. We must also work for a
better Nation to live in this better land (applause). The development
and conservation of our national character and our free institutions
must go hand in hand with the development and conservation of our
natural resources, which the Governors' Conference so well called the
foundations of our prosperity. Whatever progress we may make as a
Nation, whatever wealth we may accumulate, however far we may push
mechanical progress and production, we shall never reach a point where
our welfare can depend in the last analysis on anything but the
fundamental qualities of good citizenship--honesty, courage, and common
sense (applause). The homely virtues are the lasting virtues, and the
road which leads to them is the road to genuine and lasting success.
What this country needs is what every free country must set before it,
as the great goal toward which it works--an equal opportunity for life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all of its citizens, great and
small, rich and poor, great and humble, alike. (Tumultuous applause and
continuous cheers)
_FOURTH SESSION_
The Congress reassembled in the Auditorium, Saint Paul, after luncheon,
September 6, and was called to order by Vice-President Condra.
* * * * *
Professor CONDRA--Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: President Baker has
asked me, as one of the vice-presidents, to preside pending his arrival.
We are to be congratulated in that we are to hear from many
distinguished speakers on many interesting topics this afternoon. We are
especially happy in that the first speaker is one who has done much, not
only in Washington but throughout the world, for conserving human life
through the work of the Red Cross. I have great pleasure in presenting
to you Miss Mabel Boardman, of Washington. (Applause)
* * * * *
Miss BOARDMAN--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: Of what value would
Conservation be without human life? For the benefit of man's life are
given all these energies which are devoted to the Conservation of our
natural resources. So at the very foundation of Conservation must lie
the preservation of that for which Conservation exists.
It is in this principle of Conservation of human life that the Red Cross
has its being. Though first inspired by Florence Nightingale in the
Crimea, it was born on the bloody battlefield of Solferino, more than
fifty years ago, when Henri Dunan witnessed the terrible waste of human
life because of the lack of medical and nursing care. The Red Cross has
become one of the great conserving forces of all the world. It acts
under the only universal Conservation treaty in existence. One after
another all the nations of the world have signed this Treaty of Geneva,
first drafted in 1864, revised in 1906, and its provisions extended to
naval warfare by the Treaty of The Hague.
The opening words of the Geneva Treaty read: "Officers, soldiers, and
other persons officially attached to armies, who are sick and wounded,
shall be protected and cared for, without distinction of nationality, by
the belligerent in whose hands they are. The belligerent in possession
of a field of battle must search for and protect the wounded, and may
grant immunity to those inhabitants who have taken into their homes the
disabled men. The neutrality of hospitals and ambulances with their
personnel, who cannot be made prisoners of war, must be respected, and,
for humanity's sake, lists of the dead and wounded must be exchanged for
transmission to the families of these men by the authorities of their
own country." This wonderful treaty provides its own insignia, and
wherever throughout the world the grating doors of the Temple of Janus
open wide their terrible portals it flings to the winds of heaven its
merciful banner of Conservation of the sick and wounded, the flag of the
Red Cross.
The treaty provides, moreover, protection for the volunteer aid
societies which have received official authority from their respective
governments. These are the three great Red Cross Societies. Recognizing
two facts, _first_, that no medical service of any nation can be
adequate to the demands of war, and _second_, that at such times the
humanity and patriotism of a people become deeply stirred into active
life and that this activity should be utilized in such a systematic way
as to be of real value in the saving of life for the sake of humanity
and for the sake of the country, the members of the original Geneva
Conference recommended to the signatory powers the formation of these
volunteer aid societies. Thus, the Red Cross had its origin in the
purpose of conservation of human life in time of war. How efficiently it
has carried out this duty where well organized is shown by a glance at
the remarkable statistics of the work done by the Red Cross of Russia
and Japan during the late war in the Far East.
I am tempted here to dwell for a moment on one or two facts connected
with the Japanese Red Cross. It has today more than 1,522,000 members,
and its annual revenue in 1909 amounted to more than $2,000,000. In
spite of the late war which was such a serious drain upon the resources
of the country, the Japanese Red Cross never depleted by a single yen
its permanent fund. The report for 1909, just received, gives this
permanent fund as more than $5,000,000, and it has besides in other
funds more than $2,000,000 on hand. By 1913 it plans to have increased
its permanent fund to $7,500,000; and knowing what Japan has already
done, we cannot doubt the carrying out of this expectation.
But though since the beginning of history wars have been from time to
time the misfortune of mankind, the great forces of nature bring a far
more frequent need for such assistance as the Red Cross is able to
render. Because of this ever recurring need of organized aid the Red
Cross reached out its strong and well-trained arms into this broader
field to succor the victims of great disasters.
The charter granted by Congress to the American Red Cross, and which
created it the officially authorized Red Cross of our Government,
provides that it shall not only "take charge of the volunteer relief in
time of war" but that it shall "carry on a system of national and
international relief in time of peace, and apply the same in mitigating
the sufferings caused by pestilence, famine, fire, floods, and other
great calamities, and to devise and carry on measures for preventing
same." Under this charter our own American Red Cross is not a private
association of certain people, but an officially authorized agency of
our Government, responsible to the people, and whose existence Congress
may at any time cancel by annulling the charter. Its accounts are
audited by the War Department. The chairman and five members of the
Central Committee, representing the Departments of State, Treasury, War,
Justice, and Navy are appointed by the President of the United States.
The State Department is represented because of participation in
international relief. The Treasury provides the National Red Cross
treasurer, the Department of Justice, the counselor, and the army and
navy have their reasons for representation not only because of war
association but because, during National disaster relief as at San
Francisco, Hattiesburg, and Key West, the Red Cross has the heartiest
and most invaluable aid of our army, while in international relief, as
in Italy after the earthquake and at Bluefields, Nicaragua, it receives
the equally hearty and valuable aid of our navy. Briefly, then, of what
does the American Red Cross organization consist? Since its
reorganization in 1905, William Howard Taft, now President of the United
States, has been yearly elected as its president, and largely to his
constant interest, wise counsel, and valuable assistance is its success
due. It has, besides the other usual officers, a national director Mr
Ernest P. Bicknell, whose particular duty it is to proceed immediately
to the scene of any serious disaster and take charge of or advise in
regard to the Red Cross relief work. It has a central committee of
eighteen, which elects an executive committee of seven. Under this
committee the work of the Red Cross is segregated into three departments
for war and for national and international relief, each under a board of
fifteen members. The chairman and vice-chairman of each board are
members of the central committee.
The war relief board, of which the surgeons representing the army and
navy on the central committee are respectively chairman and
vice-chairman, has prepared a complete list of every coastwise vessel
suitable for a hospital ship, so that such a ship could be chartered at
a moment's notice. It has moreover drawn up a complete and detailed list
for the equipment of such a ship with estimates of the cost of this
equipment and the necessary transformation for hospital purposes. It is
studying the questions of civil hospital accommodations for war-time
need, of hospital trains, of field hospitals, rest stations, the use of
private automobiles for ambulances, and other kindred subjects. A
sub-committee, six of whom are members of the board and nine of whom are
representative women of the trained nursing profession, and whose
chairman is Miss Jane Delano, Superintendent of the Army Nurse Corps,
has systematized the Red Cross nursing service, prepared uniform
regulations, organized State and local committees, and is fast enrolling
the best trained nurses in the country for active service in time of
need. These splendid nurses at such times not only undertake the most
difficult work under frequently severe hardships, but when on this
active duty accept from the Red Cross only half of their usual salary.
This Red Cross nursing committee will later take up the plan of
providing courses for women in simple home nursing of the sick.
Another sub-committee of the war relief board is the First Aid
Committee, the chairman of which, Major Charles Lynch, of the Army
Medical Service, is detailed for this particular duty by the
Surgeon-General. The work of this committee is the organizing of courses
in first-aid instructions throughout the country. On this committee such
men as Mr John Hays Hammond represent the mine companies; Mr John
Mitchell, the miners; Mr Julius Kruttschnitt, the railroad companies; Mr
W. G. Lee, the trainmen; Dr D. A. Mansfield, the sailors' interests; Dr
J. A. Holmes, the U. S. Bureau of Mines. The Y. M. C. A. is also
represented on the committee, as it now gives all its first-aid courses
in collaboration with the Red Cross. Dr M. J. Shields is employed as the
agent to organize these courses among miners. It is expected this autumn
that a special car will be donated by the Pullman Company for the
purpose of sending with Dr Shields a traveling first-aid equipment and
safety-device exhibit. A number of railroads have already most kindly
consented to transport this car free of expense to the Red Cross. I may
say that in every case of a great calamity, the railroad companies,
express companies, telegraph and telephone companies, have placed their
services free at the disposition of the Red Cross in a most helpful and
generous spirit.
The first-aid courses will soon be extended to trainmen and employees of
large industrial concerns, as has been done by the British and German
Red Cross. Major Lynch has prepared for the Red Cross a most excellent
general text-book on first-aid, also a special book for miners and
trainmen, and another, at its request, for the Bell Telephone Company.
Furthermore, valuable and inexpensive anatomical charts have been
printed for these courses, and small metal boxes hermetically sealed
containing first-aid bandages and a leaflet of directions have been made
for the society, as well as a larger box for railroad stations, mines,
factories, etc. Competitions in first-aid have been held, and prizes and
medals awarded. More than sixty thousand posters calling attention to
precautions to be taken to prevent personal injury on railroads, and
over thirty thousand of a like nature for trolley cars, have been issued
by the Red Cross and are distributed on application from various
companies.
To spread abroad throughout the country the knowledge of first-aid among
our industrial classes, in fact, among all classes of our people, is the
aim of this department of Red Cross work. Not only in time of war or
disaster will such knowledge prove of great value, but in all of the
frequent accidents of daily life will this training be of help.
(Applause)
The second board, that of the national relief, has to do with the study,
planning and overseeing of relief after national disaster. It is not
possible, nor would it be wise, for the Red Cross to maintain a corps of
trained workers for active duty after disaster, when such duty comes
only from time to time; so to provide itself with an experienced
personnel, it has created an institutional membership consisting of the
best charity organization societies of the country. These associations
in accepting membership consent to utilize their personnel under
direction of this board and of Mr Bicknell, the national director, for
active relief duty. For example, Mr Logan of the Atlanta organization,
went on Red Cross orders to Key West last September, systematized relief
work so as to avoid imposture, unfortunately prevalent at such times,
advised with the Mayor and commanding officer of the army post there,
arranged that the contributions be mainly expended in rehabilitating the
fishermen who had lost their little boats, their only means of earning
their livelihood. As each boat was completed, the owner who had been
provided with material for his boat and paid a daily wage while building
it, was again on his feet, able to support himself, and his name was
taken from the list of those being aided.
At the time of the Cherry Mine disaster, Mr Kingsley of the United
Charities of Chicago, went immediately to the scene of the disaster,
remaining until Mr Bicknell could arrive. Then for several months, at
the request of the Red Cross, his assistant and two good women who could
speak Italian and Polish to the poor distracted miners' widows, remained
at Cherry while Mr Bicknell's plan for permanent relief could be
perfected and accepted. By this plan, which is now being carried out,
the generous funds contributed by the people of Illinois, by its State
Legislature, and by the miners' unions, amounting to about $300,000,
have been consolidated and are being administered by a joint commission
so that a pension can be paid to each widow and minor child until the
children are of an age to become wage-earners themselves and the fund is
exhausted. (Applause)
The national relief board has also had charge of the little Red Cross
Christmas stamp--next year to be called a "_Christmas seal_"--placed on
the back of letters out of deference to the wishes of the post office
department, which has suffered from a multiplicity of stamps issued by
others because of the success of the Red Cross stamp. That stalking
spectre of pestilence, tuberculosis, had laid its devastating hand on
every nation; it invades the palace as well as the hovel, and the youth
of the people are its surest prey. With a weapon tinier than the stone
in David's sling, the Red Cross sends forth this little seal to do its
part. In the last two years it has netted more than $350,000 with which
to war against this grim destroyer. Here again the Red Cross carries out
its principle, the conservation of the _human life_. (Applause)
The third board is that of international relief with a representative of
the state department as its chairman. Two maps hang on the walls of the
Red Cross office at Washington, one of the world, the other of the
United States with its insular possessions. Starred over these large
maps are little red crosses marking the fields of its noble labors for
Conservation. Not alone within our own borders lies its merciful
service. Far away in Russia, China, and Japan, when famine claimed its
thousands of tortured victims, went the Red Cross, aided by the
_Christian Herald_ of New York, with food for the starving multitudes:
when earthquakes in Chili, Jamaica, Italy, Portugal, and Costa Rica
brought destruction and desolation, when floods in Mexico, France, and
Servia devastated the land, when massacres in Armenia brought suffering,
misery, and even death to thousands, when internal war in Nicaragua left
regiments of wounded, naked, and starving boy prisoners, our American
Red Cross stretched out her helping hand to these, her sister nations in
distress (applause). If in Conservation lies thought for men yet
unborn, thought must also be given for the men who live today, and the
Red Cross recognizes its duty toward the conservation of all human life.
(Applause)
But a moment more on its organization: In over thirty States, boards of
representative men, with the Governor in each State as president of the
board, have already been appointed, and before the end of the year the
boards for all of the other States and for the insular possessions will
probably be completed. The duty of such a board is to act as a financial
committee for the receipt of contributions of the people of the State in
case of war, local, national or international disaster. The Governor
being president of the board, may issue an appeal to the people of the
State when in his judgment a disaster of sufficient magnitude within the
State justifies such an appeal. On the occurrence of disasters without
the State, appeals are issued only on advice from the National officers.
The Governor or State board may, in case of any disaster within the
State of sufficient magnitude, request of headquarters the assistance of
the National body. Chapters of the Red Cross may exist in any town, city
or county where there are five or more members who pay the annual dues
of one dollar. It is the duty of these chapters to respond promptly and
vigorously to any request for action on the part of the Red Cross in
time of war or disaster at home or abroad. Appeals issued by the
president of the State board or from Washington will state the needs for
money or supplies, or both, which the chapter should at once begin
collecting. In case of a serious local disaster, the chapter acts as the
supply agency for the National director and institutional member, when
such member is present. In case no institutional member is at hand, it
is expected to take prompt relief measures pending the arrival or
instructions of the National director. This, then, in brief, is the
organization of the Red Cross for active service: National officers, a
central committee, relief boards with their sub-committees; State
hoards, chapters, and institutional members.
It seems impossible in a non-military country like ours to obtain and
retain a large supporting membership with small annual dues, as is done
in other countries. When reports of great calamities fill the papers,
our people give with wonderful generosity, but the minor disasters,
whereby small communities suffer greatly, receive but little notice from
our public. If Japan plans to increase its Red Cross permanent fund to
$7,500,000, could not the people of this country raise for our American
Red Cross a permanent fund of $2,000,000? I, for one, believe they will,
for New York City alone has already promised nearly quarter of that
amount, and this autumn endowment committees of prominent men, appointed
by the President of the United States, will make an appeal to our people
all over the country to raise this permanent fund for the American Red
Cross.
And, last, may I say a word or two for some of the by-products of
Conservation in Red Cross service? In the work of the Red Cross
first-aid department lies the far-reaching results of conservation of
the life of the wage-earner of the family as well as the labor-producer
of the country, or in case of his death in disaster, as at Cherry, the
administration of the relief funds so that the unfortunate widows can
keep their little children at home (applause),--a by-product, the
conservation of the family.
The preservation of life in time of war has not only its humane feature
but its patriotic reason. In fact, the Japanese Red Cross puts this
principle first. The saving of one of the most important assets of any
country, that of its young manhood, becomes a by-product of Conservation
for the sake of patriotism.
Another by-product is the conservation of communities. Whether some
little hamlet or some large city suffers from the overwhelming calamity
of fire, flood, storm, earthquake or pestilence, or the still more
pitiful disaster of widespread famine settles over a great province or
empire, its people are brought down to desolation and despair. Their
neighbors suffer as well and there are none at hand to help. Without aid
they must die or drift away from their homes like unmoored boats after a
storm, to be swamped at sea or wrecked upon the rocks of unknown shores.
It is then to these communities as well as to the individual that the
Red Cross comes. It calls to the disconsolate "Comfort ye, my people,
build again your homes. Sow again your fields; the strong arms of the
Red Cross are here to aid you, held up by your brothers of the Nation,
yea, by your brothers of the world, if there is need" (applause). On a
beautiful silver tablet, presented by an Italian relief committee to the
American Red Cross, are engraved in Latin the words of an old Roman
historian, "Your bounty has repaired the catastrophe not merely of
individual citizens but of entire cities."
And there is one more by-product of Conservation not having so much to
do with things material but for the well-being of the world. Is there
not need of a conservation of higher things? Above the passion of war,
amidst the desolation of terrible disasters, in the dangers of the daily
occupations so many of our fellowmen must undergo to earn their
livelihood, does not the Red Cross conserve, protect, and extend the
great bond of human brotherhood, and, touched by sorrow, make the whole
world kin?
Strangely taking its inception on the field of battle, this great
international organization of the Red Cross for the conservation of
human life was born, has passed from infancy into a strong and noble
maturity ever ready to protect and preserve human life, for which the
Conservation of all material things has its reason and its purpose.
(Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman CONDRA--We shall now have the privilege of hearing the
Commissioner of Corporations, called to that responsible duty by
President Roosevelt, and continued in his responsibilities by President
Taft, Honorable Herbert Knox Smith, whom I have great pleasure in
introducing (applause).
* * * * *
Commissioner SMITH--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: My text is that
superb word "power"; and it has no more appropriate place for
enunciation than this center of gravity of imperial power, the
Mississippi valley.
In our complex civilization there are many things that are necessaries
of life. Control over any of them represents a power that is essentially
governmental. This is plainly true of basic necessaries like food,
clothing, transportation, heat, and light; it is true also of the
natural resources that are back of these. It is no less true of the
mechanical power that produces and delivers them. Private control of any
one of these, unrestrained either by business competition or by
governmental authority, means that irresponsible individuals hold a
command over the daily life and welfare of the citizen which the men of
our race have never willingly granted to any except their own
representatives chosen by them.
For us of our generation, mechanical power is a basic necessary. Our
daily existence is borne on its current, and our power demand steadily
increases. Our chief present sources of power supply--coal, petroleum,
and natural gas--although at present ample, are absolutely fixed in
quantity and cannot be replaced. Water-power is the one important source
of mechanical power now practically available which is self-renewing.
Its importance, therefore, to our present vision, must steadily
increase.
Effective restraint, imposed by competition on its control, is becoming
more and more improbable. There has been a marked concentration of
water-power control in private hands, and this process is advancing
rapidly. Public regulation of water-power, the only other alternative,
therefore, becomes a necessity.
Electric transmission has worked this change within the last decade. As
now commercially practicable, such transmission allows a given
water-power to reach a market area of at least 80,000 square miles. It
has raised water-power from purely local work, and made it the vital
energy for great communities and distant enterprises. It has brought our
water-power resources suddenly within the sweep of great economic
forces.
Within these market areas just described, there are strong practical
reasons for consolidation of water-powers--what is known as "coupling
up." A power plant must be constructed to meet the highest point of its
expected demand--the "peak of the load." The nearer the "load" (the
power demand) approaches that peak for all the time, the more fully
will the entire fixed investment be earning a return. Suppose there are
two independent power plants in two neighboring communities where the
demand in one community is mainly for power during the day time, and in
the other at night. These plants can advantageously combine, throwing
the surplus of their joint power by day to one place and by night to the
other, thus bringing their normal load in each case up nearer to the
peak. Similarly, such coupling up is obviously advantageous in two
neighboring watersheds where the excess water-power occurs at different
times. In general such combining of varying conditions to produce a
closer parallelism of supply and demand is in itself an entirely proper
industrial development. We have no reason to oppose it if accomplished
by fair methods; we must simply be prepared to regulate such
monopolistic power as may result therefrom.
The investigation of developed water-powers now being made by the Bureau
of Corporations shows that up to date 18 concerns or closely allied
interests control over 1,800,000 horsepower of the water-power developed
or in process of construction, and, in addition, over 1,400,000
horsepower of undeveloped water-power. As to undeveloped powers, this
information was secured merely as an incident to our main work, and
certainly much understates the case. As it stands, however, it makes a
total water-power controlled by these 18 groups of over 3,200,000
horsepower. The total water-power in use in the United States in 1908,
as estimated by the Census and Geological Survey, was only 5,300,000.
And this total includes a very large number of small powers which the
Bureau did not include, as it dealt almost wholly with powers of over
1,000 horsepower. The total now commercially capable of development is
variously estimated at from 30,000,000 to 60,000,000 horsepower, the
smaller figure being the preferable one. The great bulk of both
developed and undeveloped water-power lies on the Pacific Coast, in the
Northwest and Northeast, and in the South Atlantic States. Our power
demand as measured by the total unduplicated capacity of all prime
movers--steam, water, and gas--is now at least 30 million horsepower.
It is obvious that a local monopoly of power covering simply one market
area is nevertheless as complete in its effects on the inhabitants of
that area as if it covered the entire country. Conditions in separate
sections are therefore important. In California, for example, four
principal hydro-electric companies dominate the water-power industry.
They have a total developed horsepower of 259,000, with probably 500,000
additional undeveloped, and a very strong hold on the most important
power markets. And between these four concerns there is also evidence of
considerable harmony. This is not a unique case. Conditions somewhat
like this exist in the Puget Sound territory, in the southern peninsula
of Michigan, in Colorado, in Montana, and in the Carolinas. In each of
these sections, one, or at most two concerns are predominant in their
control of water-powers, public-service companies, and power markets.
The horsepower figures do not fully represent the extent of actual
commercial control. The best powers have of course been developed first.
These will always hold a disproportionately dominant position over later
developed and less favored powers, because of their lower operating cost
and prior hold on the important power markets.
There is also going on a concentration of a wider sort--a process of
deep significance, but as yet little recognized. There is a marked
progress toward a mutuality of interests among public service companies
generally, electric light, power, gas, and street railway concerns. The
significant identity of officers and directors in a large number of such
companies throughout the United States is very remarkable. This is due
in part to specialization by financial houses in given lines of
investment; in part to the common employment of certain eminent
engineering firms; and in part to relations with certain leading
equipment companies. Electric equipment is usually supplied by one of a
few great equipment concerns and frequently paid for, at least in part,
in the securities of the proposed project. Thus the equipment company
acquires interests in widely separated power and light concerns.
Take a single example, the General Electric Company, the most powerful
electric equipment concern in the world. Men who are officers or
directors of the General Electric Company, or of its three wholly
controlled subsidiary companies, are also officers or directors in many
other corporations. These other companies, with their subsidiaries, and
the General Electric with its subsidiaries, make thus a group
interconnected by active personal and financial relationship. This one
group includes 28 corporations that operate hydro-electric plants, with
at least 795,000 horsepower developed or under construction, and 600,000
undeveloped in 16 different States, a total of 1,395,000 horsepower
(equal to more than 25 percent of all the developed water-power in the
United States in 1908). This group includes also over 80 public-service
corporations, not counting their minor subsidiaries; more than 15
railroads; 6 companies that use their power in the manufacture of cotton
goods, with 35,000 hydraulic horsepower developed; and over 50 banks and
financial houses, many of them in the first rank of importance. This
remarkable financial connection in itself is very significant.
Fifty-three General Electric men, in all, constitute this chain of
connection. Nor are these men, as a rule, of the figurehead type; their
presence on a directorate means something. Of course these facts in no
sense always mean identity of control. They certainly do mean a striking
degree of non-conflicting interests and personal relationship which
makes further concentration easily possible.
This wider concentration is still in a formative stage, developed almost
wholly within the last decade. The forces compelling thereto are still
operative. It is like a physical solution of chemical elements which is
still in suspension but which a single jar may precipitate into
crystallization. Water-power, being naturally allied with public-service
business, will be included in any movement that affects that business
generally. So wide is this interrelationship, and so comparatively few
are the constantly recurring names in the directorates, that a few brief
conferences, given the necessary impetus, might conceivably at any
moment concentrate into definite legal form a sweeping control over the
dominant water-powers of the country, as well as their related public
service interests.
Here, then, is the present situation of the hydro-electric industry:
(1) It deals with a basic necessary, and its importance inevitably
increases as the fixed supply of other sources of power decreases.
(2) Substantial control of mechanical power means the exercise of a
function that is essentially governmental in its effect on the public.
(3) Driven by underlying economic and financial forces, concentration of
control of water-powers in private hands has proceeded very rapidly. It
is doubtful if anything can arrest this process, and a swift advance to
a far higher degree of concentration is entirely possible.
(4) Any chance, then, of restraint by competition is rapidly
disappearing, certainly over given sections, and public regulation is
therefore an imminent necessity.
The extent of such regulation will depend mainly on constitutional
limitations. A State, roughly speaking, can at any time exercise a high
degree of control over power companies as quasi-public servants. The
jurisdiction of the Federal Government covers a wider range
geographically, but involves some difficult constitutional questions.
Over water-powers on the public lands it has full control. I concede no
merit to doubts as to the Government's unlimited jurisdiction there.
As to powers on navigable streams not in the public domain, there is an
undetermined constitutional question. It is well settled that no power
dam can be maintained on a navigable stream without the consent of the
Federal Government. Nearly everyone admits that the Government may
impose upon such grants any desired time limitation, and may thus
require readjustment of terms at any desired period. But some hold that
the Federal Government, in exercising its arbitrary power as grantor,
may also impose any further conditions it chooses upon such grant, as,
for example, that the grantees shall pay a rental for the power
acquired. Others hold that the Federal Government can only impose such
conditions as are directly connected with the Federal power over
interstate commerce, such as navigation. Even this view would apparently
at least permit a rental charge, if applied to navigation improvement.
Personally, I am strongly inclined to the former and broader view that
any conditions whatsoever may be imposed (applause), both on general
principles and on well-established legislative precedents. In numerous
bridge and dam acts Congress has used the broad power and imposed
conditions in no way related to interstate commerce. In the California
Debris Commission Act, operative since 1893, Congress imposed a straight
charge on placer miners for the privilege of emptying their refuse into
the streams.
The scope of the Federal jurisdiction is of first importance, because
the water-power problem is, in the main, a National one. Much of the
power is transmitted across State lines, or is used by interstate
carriers. The bulk of the capital that is developing our most important
powers comes from interests outside the States where the powers are
located, and from the brief survey I have already given of the
interrelationships existing between public-service companies it is
obvious that State lines and State jurisdiction have no practical
relation whatsoever to the sweep of these forces (applause). The
hydro-electric industry has been largely nationalized by those who are
foremost in it.
The Nation and the State will have to use their full powers to meet the
water-power situation. The most effective time to use them is before,
not after, private rights accrue. The one certain method is for the
State or the Federal Government, to retain its interest, or impose its
conditions, at the inception, as a part of the grant. Then public
control and private rights go together, as they must if we are to
safeguard the public interest in water power. (Applause)
Let there be no unnecessary hampering of hydro-electric development, but
let the public be in on the ground floor at the start: for at the start
the public must grant the power and for all time the public will be the
party chiefly interested in its use. (Applause)
As President Taft very justly said yesterday, when a man talks to you
about conservation, you have the right to ask him to specify what steps
he desires to take. I am going to specify.
(1) The _status quo_ of all water-power still controlled by the Nation
or State should be maintained until we know what we have, and can act
intelligently thereon.
(2) No water-power grant should be made except for a fixed period, with
at least the reserved right to readjust terms at the end thereof. That
period, however, should be long enough to permit adequate financing and
complete development.
(3) Complete publicity of accounts and transactions should be required,
as well as a record of cost, and the real relation of investment to
stock and bond issues.
(4) Power to revoke the grant for breach of conditions should be lodged
in a specified public authority. Otherwise there will always be the
possibility of protracted litigation to determine the status.
(5) So far as is possible, direct provision should be made against
excessive charges and monopolistic abuse.
(6) Public authorities should reserve such constitutional compensation
or rental as will establish the principle of underlying public interest.
(7) All public easements of navigation, fisheries, etc., should be
safeguarded.
(8) In the case of new grants, all these provisions should be made
conditions of the grant.
Finally, the purpose and probable effect on the public of any
water-power grant should first be fully ascertained and carefully
considered, in order to determine whether public interest justifies
beyond a reasonable doubt the surrender by the public of even a part of
its power over this great public resource. Where reasonable doubt
exists, the surrender should not be made. (Applause)
* * * * *
[During the delivery of the address President Baker arrived and resumed
the Chair.]
* * * * *
Honorable JOHN BARRETT--Ladies and Gentlemen: President Baker has
requested me to announce that Professor George E. Condra, of Lincoln,
Nebraska, has been appointed chairman of the Committee on Credentials in
lieu of Mr Edward Hines, of Chicago. (Applause)
Governor Pardee has an announcement to make in regard to the Committee
on Resolutions.
Governor PARDEE--Simply that the Committee on Resolutions will meet at
the Saint Paul hotel this evening at 8 oclock, in Room 534.
President BAKER--The program in your hands announces that an address
entitled "Safeguarding the Property of the People" will be delivered by
Honorable Francis T. Heney, of California. He is prevented from being
here this afternoon, but will arrive later.
We have now the opportunity of hearing from one whose name has been so
closely associated with the work of Conservation that he is regarded as
one of its greatest and ablest advocates; I have great pleasure in
introducing, to speak on "The Federal Government's Relation to
Conservation," Honorable James R. Garfield, of Ohio. (Applause)
Mr GARFIELD--Mr President and Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen (renewed
applause): I appreciate your applause at this time very much, for I fear
me at the end of what I have to say it may not be forthcoming.
The subject I have chosen is one that affects very directly what may not
merely be talked about but can actually be done by the people of this
country in connection with Conservation problems. It was often said a
few months ago that Conservation was an enthusiasm--that it was an idea,
or perhaps an ideal, and that those who were urging Conservation were
not practical men and looking forward to practical work-a-day solutions
of their own problems. So I chose to speak on the relation of the
Federal Government to Conservation--a very practical subject, one on
which we have been working, as well as talking, for a number of years.
There are two good reasons why the Federal Government is directly
interested in Conservation. In the first place, it is the largest
land-owner in this country; and, in the second place, it has high duties
to perform for the interests of all the people of this country. For
these reasons, the Federal Government comes directly in touch with the
practical questions of Conservation in dealing with what is left of the
natural resources of our public domain. The value of these resources
cannot be measured in mere terms of acres. Some 700,000 acres of our
public lands remain; but that means nothing unless we know what is
contained in or on the land represented by the mere statement in
figures. Now we are learning that this great area, both on the mainland
and in Alaska, is filled with priceless treasures in the resources
needed for the lives of the people of our country; and it is in the
handling of these resources--either disposing of them or providing for
their use or development--that the Federal Government must deal
practically with the problems of Conservation. Only as we know this
tremendous area and its priceless treasures do we realize that we must,
in the practical handling of these resources, make as few mistakes as
possible, and constantly keep in view the interest of all the people as
a guide in the solution of any given problem.
Now, we meet with serious difficulties in attempting to decide how best
to use the property owned or held by the United States Government as
trustee for all the people. We have under our system of government a
dual jurisdiction, or rather, two jurisdictions--that of the Nation on
the one hand, and that of the State on the other. Yet between these two
jurisdictions there is no real conflict; there ought to be no
insuperable obstacle to such cooperation between States and Nation as
will make possible a wise solution of all questions in which both
jurisdictions have duties to perform. We hear much about States' rights,
as though the problems of Conservation have brought to life again an old
doctrine, as though in some way the Conservationist is endeavoring to
take something away from the States. The very opposite is true. There is
no effort on the part of the Conservationist to interfere with any duty
that the State ought to and can perform. Those duties devolving on the
States should be performed by the States; and the people of each
commonwealth should see to it that their State representatives not only
do what is wise and necessary each year but exercise foresight in
dealing with all resources subject to their jurisdiction (applause).
That, however, does not mean that the Federal Government is debarred
from proper use of the public domain within the areas of the several
States; it likewise has great duties devolving on it in so administering
its property as to safeguard the interests and the rights of all the
citizens of the country. The State lines are merely accidental in many
instances. The States of the old Northwest and the States of the Middle
West today were carved out of public territory simply by drawing of
lines; they were not political entities in the first instance, but a
few people got together and agreed that so many square miles of
territory would be made into a State, and whether that State line was
drawn here or a hundred miles over there should not determine how we are
to deal with the public resources contained within the area.
In the early period of our development there was but little need of
giving heed to the questions that are now uppermost in our minds in
relation to the public domain. There was land enough and to spare; and
the early purpose of the Federal Government was to provide easy methods
for getting the public domain (which in those days was considered
chiefly useful for agriculture, as it is in the middle West) into farms,
and building up commonwealths that are now theatres of agricultural
industry. But today the conditions are very different. The remaining
agricultural land that can be used without irrigation or drainage is
very little in comparison to the needs of our people; and in handling
what is left of the public domain it becomes the duty of the Federal
Government to see to it that not one acre of land that can be used for
agricultural settlement and development is directed to any other
purpose--and likewise to see to it that land capable of mineral
development or of water development is not stolen from the public domain
under the guise of homestead entries. (Great applause)
In order to understand exactly what the Federal Government can do in
relation to the use of the public domain, let us keep clearly in mind
the powers granted to it under the Constitution, and the laws enacted in
accordance with the Constitution by Congress. The Constitution provides
that--
The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and
other property belonging to the United States.
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America.
* * * he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Now, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Congress
has enacted the following laws affecting the public domain:
The Secretary of the Interior is charged with the supervision
of public business relating to * * * the public lands,
including mines.
The Commissioner of the General Land Office shall perform,
under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, all
executive duties appertaining to the surveys and sale of the
public lands of the United States, or in anywise respecting
such public lands.
The Commissioner of the General Land Office, under the
direction of the Secretary of the Interior, is authorized to
enforce and carry into execution by appropriate regulations,
every part of the provisions of this title [the public land
laws] not otherwise specifically provided for.
Congress, acting under these general provisions, has from time to time
enacted laws affecting portions of the public domain. It has provided
the Homestead Act, the Timber and Stone Act, the Mineral Entry Act;
provided for the creation of the National Forests; enacted laws
relating to the use of the public domain for reservoir sites, for
pipe-lines, and for transmission lines; and as the needs of each
generation have been made known, Congress, acting for the interests of
all the people, has enacted direct legislation for the purpose of
providing method for the disposition and use of the public domain.
Meantime, the Executive on his part has performed the duties devolving
on him under the Constitution--duties few in number and easily
expressed, though of great importance to the public welfare. They are,
in brief, to see to it that the laws of the United States are faithfully
executed; and he is granted all the executive power that could have been
given by the use of the English language. There is no limitation. It is
simply "executive power"; whatever that may be was granted to the
President of the United States.
One of the great objects for which this Nation was created was to
promote the "general welfare." That object was not only stated in the
preamble of the Constitution, but was likewise written into the body of
the instrument; and the power was specifically granted to Congress to
provide for the general welfare of the United States. That was not an
idle phrase. The founders of the Republic recognized that it was
impossible for them to foresee all the things that it might be necessary
for the Federal Government to do; it was not possible for them to define
in specific language all the powers that were to be exercised, nor was
it possible for them to indicate to what extent these powers, once
granted, might properly and wisely be used; and this welfare clause has
made it possible to carry out by both the Legislative and the Executive
branches of the Federal Government the beneficent purposes of the
founders in ways which they never contemplated or could have
contemplated in detail. Fortunately, during the early days of our
National existence we had at the head of the Supreme Court a master
mind. Marshall was as profound a statesman as he was a great jurist. He
recognized with that great far-seeing insight that amounts almost to
inspiration, that it would have been to sound the death-knell of the
Republic if he, as the chief law interpreter from the judicial seat,
should so interpret the Constitution as to tie the hands of the
Government and prevent the people from doing the things necessary to
make themselves a great and permanent Nation. In one of the earliest
decisions involving interpretation of the Constitution (McCullough vs.
Maryland. 4 Wheaton 315) Marshall used this language:
Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the
Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are
plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited but
consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are
constitutional.
Another sentence in the same opinion sets a standard for judging
existing or proposed law; he says--
But where the law is not prohibited, and is really calculated
to effect any of the objects entrusted to the Government, to
undertake here to inquire into the degree of its necessity
would be to pass the line which circumscribes the judicial
department and tread on legislative ground. This court
disclaims all pretensions to such a power.
Clearly, Marshall saw at that time that if the Supreme Court endeavored
to prevent Congress from exercising to the full a power granted under
the Constitution, it would at that very moment overstep its legitimate
ground and interfere with the functions granted to the legislative body;
and in dealing with the powers granted to the Executive, exactly the
same rule of interpretation applies. Now, it is most interesting to
notice how from generation to generation Marshall's interpretation has
made possible the doing of the things that have been done by our people.
In those days it was impossible for men to conceive of the commercial
development that has taken place during the hundred years. They could
not have realized that within a hundred years we would be a great
manufacturing Nation, and that our commercial relations would not be
confined to the thirteen colonies but would spread broadcast throughout
the entire world.
A striking example of the application of this wise interpretation arose
in dealing with the questions of the Philippine government. We there had
an entirely novel proposition. The forefathers of the Republic had never
contemplated the acquisition by us of territory in the Pacific, or
islands elsewhere. Yet when we faced that problem, we found that under
Marshall's interpretation, our Constitution was broad enough and big
enough, and the powers granted therein were great enough, to permit us
to fulfill the Nation's duty to the islands and islanders. President
Taft, discussing our work in the Philippines, used this language three
years ago:
It is said that there is nothing in the Constitution of the
United States that authorizes National altruism of that sort.
Well, of course, there is not; but there is nothing in the
Constitution of the United States that forbids it. What there
is in the Constitution of the United States is a breathing
spirit that we are a Nation, with all the responsibilities that
any Nation ever had, and therefore when it becomes the
Christian duty of a Nation to assist another Nation, the
Constitution authorizes it because it is part of National
well-being.
That interpretation of the power of both the Executive and the Congress
is exactly in line with the power that is exercised by both in dealing
with this question of the public domain and the welfare of our people
(applause). It would be a childish interpretation of the Constitution to
hold that we as a Nation could act for the people in the Philippine
Islands as was best necessary for their well-being, and yet within our
own confines as a Nation would be prohibited from doing that which is
necessary for the well-being and the welfare of our children and their
children. (Applause)
The interpretation by Marshall gave vigor to the young Nation. He was
not afraid of great responsibilities. He recognized that great
responsibilities likewise meant the possibility of great mistakes, but
that did not deter him from so interpreting the Constitution as to make
possible the doing of the things that have been done. He was not of
that class of timid folk who fear to exercise great power lest they may
make a mistake. He was not that type, either as statesman or jurist, who
because they do not see plainly written in the Constitution specific
authority for the doing of every act necessary, therefore hold back and
maintain that no such authority exists. This is the type of mind that
prevents all progress. The timid man is often side by side with the
dishonest man, because the timid man refuses to act from fear while the
dishonest man raises the cry, "There is no power," in order to gain for
himself that to which he is not entitled, or to escape Governmental
jurisdiction or evade governmental regulation of any character.
(Applause)
But we are not left simply to academic discussion as to whether the
Federal Government has power to deal with the National domain. The
Supreme Court has held, over and over again, that the Federal
Government, acting through both the Legislative and the Executive
branches, has the power to do what is best for the people's interests in
handling the public domain. The Court has wisely and properly held that
the power granted under the Constitution to dispose of the public domain
carries with it every lesser power (applause)--that because Congress has
the right to provide for the sale or the gift of land, it can likewise
provide for the lease of land under such conditions and regulations as
it may prescribe or as it may permit the Executive to prescribe.
Therefore, the way is clear for the Federal Government to do whatever
may be wise and necessary to protect the interests of the people in the
use of the public domain.
Let us take another view of Executive authority. The chief Executive,
above all other officers, is recognized and properly held as the great
steward, the immediate custodian of the public property and of the
people's rights. He is single-headed. He is one upon whom responsibility
may be fixed. He is constantly at his desk; he is ever vigilant; he is
constantly in touch with the things that interest the people and their
rights therein; and as the custodian and guardian of the people's
interests, it is to him that we must look for the protection of the
public domain. It is not enough that the Executive shall simply carry
into effect the specific language of a statute. He must go farther than
that; he must be as aggressive in his vigilance as are those who would
take the public property without conforming to the law (applause). The
Executive is required to see to it that the laws are enforced. Now, in
the enforcement of law he often finds that while the paper record
presented to him or to his subordinates by those who seek to acquire the
public domain is perfect (there is no difficulty about making a land
title good on paper) his duty is only partially fulfilled unless he goes
behind the paper record; and when the last Administration took hold of
the question of the land frauds, the Executive decided that there was
but one way to enforce the law, and that was to see to it that the paper
record conformed to the facts in every case presented (great applause).
The greatest land frauds that have been perpetrated against the people
of the United States were perpetrated because the public officers in
years past did not make that direct, careful investigation of the facts
and of the condition of the lands which would have enabled them to save
for the people hundreds of millions of dollars of valuable property that
in the last generation has gotten illegally into the hands of the big
interests. (Applause)
The founders of our Republic recognized and understood the vital need of
giving ample power to the Executive. It is well to recall what Hamilton
wrote when defending the Constitution:
Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the
definition of good government. It is essential to the
protection of the community against foreign attacks; it is not
less essential to the steady administration of the laws; to the
protection of property against those irregular and high-handed
combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of
justice; to the security of liberty against the enterprises and
assaults of ambition, of faction and of anarchy.
There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or
examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble
execution of government. A feeble execution is but another
phrase for a bad execution, and a government ill-executed,
whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad
government.
Thus the Executive must be held responsible for much that is done in
connection with the administration of our laws. Congress enacts the
laws; they may be faulty; if so, they may be amended. If they are
faulty, it is the duty of the Executive to carry them into effect, but
to recommend their amendment, alteration, or repeal; but under no
circumstances is he fulfilling his duty if he sits supinely by and
allows the public domain to be despoiled because the law is not as
efficient as he thinks it should be. (Applause)
Much has been said in recent years regarding Executive usurpations. It
has been held by those who objected to the new order of things--those
who objected to that change in methods by which the public frauds were
stopped--that the Executive was usurping powers not granted to him under
the Constitution. Now, if it be usurpation to so enforce the law as to
prevent dishonesty, fraud, and theft, then there has been usurpation
(applause). But I as yet have failed to have presented to me a single
instance of actual usurpation. The Executive is as much subject to the
courts of the United States as is the ordinary citizen. If the Executive
has transcended his power, if he has in his execution of law gone beyond
what someone thinks is his power, then the Executive can be haled into
court; and over and over again I have said to complainants who came to
me when I was in office "All you have to do is to go into the courts of
the United States, and if the Executive power that is being exercised is
improperly exercised, there in that jurisdiction you can bring us to
account." But no one has yet seen fit to bring such an action; and the
reason is that there has been no usurpation of executive authority.
(Applause)
There is a wide difference between simply being within the law and
executing the law. A man may be within the law and yet do absolutely
nothing to further the spirit of the law; like an engineer, he is on the
track whether he is standing still, going backward, or going forward;
but I take it that what we want in executive office is an engineer who
stays on the track yet is constantly driving forward the engine
(applause). We may rest assured that those who are seeking to acquire
the public domain will not be idle if the Executive is standing still.
(Applause)
That brings me again to a subject mentioned a moment ago, namely the
relation of the Nation to the States; and the Executive here plays an
important part. An example will show how the executives of both the
Nation and the States should cooperate in working out any given problem:
A great water course is a natural entity; the water-shed must be
considered as a unit--otherwise the people within that water-shed will
not have equal justice done them in their right to the water. For
example, the waters of the Rio Grande rise in Colorado; they cross the
line into New Mexico; they then become the dividing line between Mexico
and Texas. If we admit for a moment that the power to use and control
all the water of the Rio Grande shall be left solely with Colorado
because it rises in the great mountains of that State, then we instantly
jeopardize the rights of all the people who live south of the Colorado
line (applause). If the Chief Executive of the Federal Government had
feared to exercise his power to prevent water-power sites and reservoir
sites in Colorado from being taken exclusively by Colorado people; if he
had been unwilling to exercise the power granted him by the
Constitution, then the people below would have had just cause for
complaint that the Executive instead of obeying the law was in effect a
party to a violation of law in jeopardizing their rights. The only way
in which that matter could properly be handled was for the Executive of
the Federal Government to withdraw certain lands from sale or entry; and
by so doing he made it possible for the people of New Mexico and Texas,
and of the Republic of Mexico in conformity with the treaty made by the
Federal Government, to have their fair share and just proportion of the
use of that water.
The best way to deal with conflicting water rights between States is for
the Federal Government to continue to hold every acre of public land
capable of use in water development pending agreement with the various
States as to how the lands shall be used, to the end that the rights of
all the people of each water-shed, rather than the special interests of
a few, shall be protected in the use and disposition of that great
resource. (Applause)
What I have said in relation to water applies equally to the development
of our coal, our phosphates, and our timber. The phosphates recently
discovered in the West lie in four States. When the matter was first
called to my attention by the report of the Geological Survey and the
special report of Dr Van Hise, I was astonished to learn the conditions
then existing in our country. Practically all of the mineral phosphates
known in the United States were held by one great corporation, and over
40 percent of the products of the Southern mines were being shipped
abroad to be used on the fields of Europe; and the same men were already
endeavoring to get hold of the phosphate deposits in the West. Therefore
I instantly made a recommendation to the President, and he instantly
acted on it and withdrew the phosphate lands (applause). Now that
withdrawal was not an interference with the rights of the people of any
of those four States, nor was it an act of usurpation, or an improper
extension of Executive authority. It simply meant this: that we would
hold, prevent the acquisition of those lands under laws not adapted to
them, report the matter to Congress, and hold the lands until Congress
provided a method for wise disposition of them (applause). And my
recommendation was that the phosphate deposits of the country should be
disposed of only under lease and with such conditions as would prevent
export to foreign lands (applause). We need every ton of our phosphates
for our own use. (Applause)
So, if you trace the actions of the Executive and of Congress in dealing
with the public domain, you will find that wherever there has been a
vigorous execution of law coupled with recommendation of further
legislation looking to the welfare of all of our people, there we have
made advance along lines that will promote the development of our
country in future years; and that wherever there has been laxity in the
enforcement of law, wherever we have allowed the interference of big
business interests to interrupt the enforcement of law as it should be
enforced, land frauds there have crept in and in those conditions we
have found the big interests getting control of more than their fair
share of the resources of the public domain.
Sometimes we have been accused of being unfair to the big interests. We
have been accused of assailing these interests simply because they were
big; and we have been charged with raising ghosts to frighten the
people, and naming those ghosts water-power trusts, timber trusts, land
trusts, or coal trusts, when in reality there was no danger of trust
development or of monopolistic holding of these resources. And yet, my
friends, if you trace back the history of the acquisition of the public
domain you will find that in every instance where there has been a
failure to strictly enforce the laws the special interests have slipped
in and have gained control of the resources of the public domain. They
have never been idle. We ourselves have been indifferent, we have been
negligent; and it is not for us now altogether to blame the
beneficiaries of our neglect, but we must blame ourselves--and must
blame our representatives in office now if by any chance they permit a
return to the old conditions. (Applause)
The power of the Executive and of Congress is ample to do all that is
necessary to protect the public welfare and the common good. There must
be no backsliding in what has already been so splendidly started. We
must see to it that our representatives, both in the Senate and in the
House, are men who will take a long look into the future--men with
imagination. Men with enthusiasm? Yes! Nothing great has ever been
accomplished without enthusiasm and without imagination (applause). And
we want practical men who will lead us, as I said in the beginning, step
by step, to better things. Thus and thus only will the Federal
Government exercise to the full the powers granted under the
Constitution, and thus and thus only will the people of this country
safeguard their property rights, their personal and their political
rights as well, and hand down the great heritage that has come to us not
only unimpaired but in better condition than we received it. (Great and
prolonged applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: Now that this subject has been so
ably opened by Mr Garfield, we are going to call upon another man who
has been militant in the work of Conservation--an Ex-Governor who is
even more active as an ex than he was as Governor, a sort of
characteristic, these days, of prominent men (laughter). I am sure you
will have great pleasure in hearing from Ex-Governor George C. Pardee,
of California. (Applause)
Ex-Governor PARDEE--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I hope the Chair
will forgive me if I differ from him very radically in one statement
that he made, to the effect that _all_ of us who have been things
(laughter) are now more active than we were when we were things.
(Laughter)
I sat here today in this vast Auditorium and saw thousands of men and
women and children, gathering to do honor to the man whom we, in common
with the rest of the world, consider to be the greatest American now
alive (great applause). When I saw those thousands of people filling
this great Auditorium, row on row and tier on tier, until the heads of
those standing in the topmost row touched the very roof, I thought to
myself that the activities of him who _was_ in office are being only
continued since he left the office which he filled to our entire
satisfaction. (Applause)
I come here this afternoon to discuss the very able paper so well
presented to you by him who was once Secretary of the Interior, in the
cabinet of the President of the United States (applause); and I hope you
will not consider it presumptuous that I should attempt to discuss that
very able paper. Mr Garfield was good enough to furnish me with a copy
of his address several days ago, and I am free to confess to you that I
have given it prayerful consideration and that I can find nothing in it
to discuss (applause), because it calls a spade a spade and a thief a
thief (applause); and with both of those propositions I have no doubt
the ladies and gentlemen here assembled will thoroughly and totally
agree. (Applause)
Every now and then we hear of some poor, miserable fool sent to the
penitentiary for crimes and frauds against the land laws; but will any
one be kind enough to mention to me the name of any principal in such
crimes and frauds who, with shaved head and striped suit, is looking
through the bars of the penitentiary today? I take it that you will
agree with me that the time has come when the rights and duties of the
plain American citizen should be again placed within his grasp, and that
the rights and duties of the very meanest of us should be regarded as
equal to those of the most powerful and the richest and most
influential. Our representatives have too often forgotten the fact that
they represent the great mass of the people, and that they represent
unborn generations of American citizens--that they are plowing legal
furrows and building legal fences and making things ready for the coming
generations of Americans who will fill this great land of ours.
So when I speak of my own State of California, and say that its people
have been robbed and plundered and pillaged; when I say that its
government has been debased and corrupted; when I say with shame and
with blushes that my native city of San Francisco has been humbled and
shamed into the very dust by the corrupting influences of men and
public-service corporations who, with us as their benefactors, have
turned and stung the breast that warmed them into life; when I say these
things I have but to call to your attention conditions which have
existed in almost every large city, in almost every State of this Union.
(Applause)
Like Mr Garfield, I do not find it in my heart to blame the men who have
taken advantage of our laxness; I cannot find it in my heart to blame
the two men who own each over a million acres of the best timber land in
the State of California for having taken advantage of the laxness in
administration of the law in times past--not of the law itself, for the
law has been good, and if it had been administered as it should have
been administered these two men could not have owned a million acres
apiece of the best timbered land in the State of California (applause).
But who of us has not heard--in times past more than since the time of
Theodore Africanus (laughter)--who of us has not heard those who,
perhaps with a selfish interest, have sneered and said, "Well, we're all
a little crooked, and why should we take exceptions to the man who is a
little more crooked?" when the question of frauds against the land laws
was in discussion? I take it that the officials who had those matters in
charge should be, as Mr Garfield has so well said, ever vigilant within
the law to do those things which the law does not prohibit and not wait
for the prods and stings of outraged public opinion that compel them to
do the things which they should, in common honesty to the people whom
they represent, perform and do for the protection of you and me and your
children and my children. (Applause)
I listened yesterday afternoon with mingled feelings to the statements
of the gentlemen who four short years ago I would have hailed as brother
governors. I heard some most violent utterances concerning the feeling
of the people of the Pacific-coast States in regard to State rights. One
good brother governor said that 95 percent of the people of the Pacific
Coast were in favor of State rights. We had in California on the 16th
day of August (less than a month ago) a direct-primary election. At that
election there was nominated as the republican candidate for Governor of
the State of California Hiram W. Johnson. Out of something over 200,000
votes cast he received over 100,000 votes. His next nearest opponent
received 55,000 votes. Mr Johnson's campaign was made on a platform
containing three principal planks--Roosevelt, Pinchot, and Conservation.
(Great applause) If it be necessary, I can read a telegram from Mr
Johnson in which he assures me that he has not yet recanted from his old
Rooseveltism, his Pinchotism and his Garfieldism, or his Conservationism
(applause); so I think I am safe in saying that instead of 95 percent of
the people of at least one Pacific-coast State being in favor of State
rights, I am entirely within the bounds of conservative statement if I
say that 80 percent of the people of California have not forgotten the
Civil War and remember that the ghost of State rights was laid so many
fathoms deep at that time that no ingenious argument of any Governor
from the Northwest, the Southeast, or any other portion of this country
can revive it and make it walk. (Great applause) If necessary, I could
read from this little packet that I have in my hand a portion of a
letter from the Grand Master of the Patrons of Husbandry (that is the
Grange) of the State of Washington (applause), whose Governor addressed
this Congress yesterday afternoon and declared himself and his State as
both being entirely in favor of State rights. In that letter the Grand
Master of the Patrons of Husbandry of the State of Washington, whose
Governor addressed this Congress yesterday afternoon, says that he
represents 19,000 of the people of Washington, and that no man has the
right to represent them upon the floor of this Congress and say that
they are in favor of State rights (great applause). And in this little
packet I also have a telegram from the Conservation Association of the
State of Washington, signed by its president, which says that its
membership in the State of Washington is not in favor of State rights
(applause). So, our good southern brethren having forgotten the bloody
past (as my Yankee blood has forgotten it), having come again into the
Union and declaring themselves loyal sons marching under the American
flag and having forgotten the obsolete doctrine of State rights, I think
I am safe in saying that the people of the North and Northwest have not
changed places with them, but that they believe that the Federal
Government should keep and administer the things that belong _to all the
people_ of the country. (Applause)
We have in California, my fellow-citizens of other States, a great deal
of _your_ property. We have several millions of acres of National
forests that belong to you. They cannot belong exclusively to the people
of the State of California until the people of the United States, to
whom they belong, give them to us. And I thank God that the National
Government, representing the people of other States, has not given those
millions of acres of National forests in the State of California to the
State of California. For if it had, just as sure as you are sitting
here, those acres would have been given over into private ownership,
just as thousands and hundreds of thousands of acres of the public lands
which were given to the State of California have been squandered with a
prodigal hand and given to men who have not obeyed either the letter or
the spirit of the law conveying and granting to them those hundreds and
hundreds of thousands and millions of acres of the public lands.
(Applause)
Let me instance one case. The Oregon and California Railroad begins at
Portland and runs south toward California. The California and Oregon
Railroad begins at Sacramento and runs north toward Oregon. They meet
somewhere north of the Oregon line. They are both adjuncts of the
Southern Pacific. When those roads were contemplated, the Government, by
an act of Congress, donated to them 6,000,000 acres of land, much of it
covered with as fine timber as grows out of doors--I bar none. In the
act of Congress donating that land it was specified that the land should
be sold in 160-acre tracts for $2.50 per acre to all actual settlers who
might apply therefor. Was any of it sold to actual settlers? A very few
acres of it. Half of the 6,000,000 acres was sold, however, in large
tracts to land speculators, to timber corporations, and to people of
that kind and class, for $5.00, $10.00, $15.00, $20.00, $30.00, $50.00
an acre. And when the Southern Pacific was brought to bar and asked why
it hadn't lived up to the letter and spirit of the law, it said it had.
And then we asked, "How do you make that out?" And it said, "Why, only a
few actual settlers have applied for the land." And we asked, "Haven't
people gone there and attempted to buy that land of you in order that
they might settle upon it?" "Oh, yes, but they are not actual settlers."
"Why not?" "Because we construe the words 'actual settlers' to mean
those persons who had actually settled in that country before the act of
Congress was passed." (Laughter and applause.) And when, at the
Sacramento session of the National Irrigation Congress, Mr E. H.
Harriman was asked why his company was holding 3,000,000 acres of that
land grant, he said, "For future generations." And everybody laughed.
Now, let that sink into you. The absolute arrogance, the indecent
indecency of that kind of a proposition ought to make the blood boil in
the veins of every American citizen who is face to face, or who was
seven or eight years ago face to face with the proposition whether or
not the American people were to rule themselves or whether they were to
continue to be ruled by the "big interests," as Jimmie Garfield puts it.
(Applause)
The sun rises every morning, three hundred and sixty-five days in the
year, in California; it reddens the cheeks of our girls; it makes our
boys strong and healthy; it brings the gold to the oranges that hang
upon our trees. And for all these years we have been thanking God for
the rising of the sun in California. "The gentle rain from heaven" has
fallen alike upon the just and the unjust out there in California--upon
those who deserve to be rained on and those who do not deserve to be
rained on (laughter). And all these years we have been thanking God for
the gentle rain that falls from heaven. But yesterday as I sat here in
this great Auditorium and listened to the Governor of Montana tell what
Montana had been doing for this Nation, I began to think (I do not wish
to be irreverent in saying it) that we were under no obligations in
California to God for the rising of the sun or the falling of the rain;
but that we were under great obligations to Montana (laughter and
applause) for all the good things that belong to California and
Californians. And as my good friend, Governor Norris (to put a name to
him) was telling his lurid history of Montana's great doings, I couldn't
help but think that as an American citizen some of the things that lie
in the State of Montana belong to me, belong to you, belong even to
those who live on the hook of Cape Cod or away up in the northeastern
corner of Maine or down on the tip of Florida; that those things which
belong to the people of the United States even in Montana belong to us
all, and that Montana has no exclusive right to them until our
representatives in Congress give them to that State, and I am one of
those who pray God that it will be a long time before the State of
Montana gets from us the exclusive right to, and ownership of, those
things that are ours. (Great applause)
Some time ago a good friend of mine, who has never denied when I have
charged him with receiving $20,000 per annum (and by the way, he is a
delegate from California to this Congress) as the chief counsel of one
of the power trusts of California, said to me, "Oh, how the President is
usurping the powers of the Government! Isn't it awful?" But I never
could see anything very awful about it when Roosevelt and Garfield and
Pinchot and the rest of them were hustling around trying to keep my
friend's corporation from stealing from us of California the few things
we have left (laughter and applause); nor have I forgotten that, before
the time of Roosevelt, Garfield and Pinchot, the corporations
represented by my friend did not believe in State rights. But since the
time of Roosevelt, Pinchot and Garfield they have begun to sing a
different song. That song is State rights. Nor have I forgotten that my
friend used to be and still claims to be one of the most hide-bound
republicans that mortal man ever looked upon (laughter and applause).
_Now_ he says that the rights of the people of the States are being
pillaged and plundered and robbed away from them. I speak again for my
State of California when I say that if there is anything in the State of
California that the National Government has not nailed down that has not
been stolen, I would like to know what it is. (Great laughter and
applause)
There are, as you heard Mr Herbert Knox Smith say here on this platform
an hour ago, four great power corporations in the State of California.
That is so; but there are practically only two power trusts in the
State of California. When the Government declared its intention to hold
on to the few power sites that are left in the State of California in
the National forests, all of a sudden these power trusts wanted all the
water-power of California developed in the interests of the people; and
they can't say it fast enough or often enough (laughter and applause).
But, as you heard Mr Smith say, they have developed and are using only
half of the power that they already have in their possession. So when
they get gay around where I am, I generally say, "Well, that's all
right, but go on and develop all the power you have got _now_; and after
you have got that developed, then we'll talk about giving you some more;
because I know just as sure as you fellows get an opportunity to lay
your hands on any of those power sites in the National forests you'll
steal _them_ and put them in cold storage, and you'll make my children
and their children, so long as there are any children in the State of
California, dig up the last dollar that they have to pay you for the
necessary electric current to do their business during the next century
and the century after that until the end of time in California"
(applause). And I, for one, as I say to them, while I am somewhat
hardened and calloused by being robbed myself, don't want my children or
their children to be robbed into the poor-house and the penitentiary by
anybody's power corporation (applause). Therefore I hope and pray that
those gentlemen who are so apprehensive that the people of the country
will not get, unless they get it through the States, the right to use
the things that belong to all the people of the country, will pause
until the State of Montana, the State of California, the State of
Washington, and all the Pacific-coast States, at least, if not the rest
of the Nation, are governed by the _people_ of those States and not by
the public-service corporations. (Great and prolonged applause)
* * * * *
CHRISTOPHER G. HORR--Mr Chairman: The State of Washington having been
mentioned, I wish one minute to speak in behalf of that State.
President BAKER--Is the Gentleman a Delegate from the State of
Washington?
Mr HORR--Yes. It has been stated from the platform that the State of
Washington believed in State rights. I want to contradict that. As one
of the Delegates of the State of Washington, I want to declare my belief
that not only the Granges of the State of Washington, as Brother Pardee
has stated, but the majority of the citizens of that State, will
repudiate any such sentiment coming from anyone in this Congress (great
applause and cheers). I want to say that the State of Washington is
peopled in part by 25,000 former residents of the State of Minnesota,
and that they have full confidence in the National Government--they have
full confidence in President Taft, they have full confidence in your
Senators Nelson and Clapp, and in Congressman Stevens and the other
congressmen of the United States; and I consider it an insult to the
Congress and the President of the United States to say that they will
not treat the people of the State of Washington as they should be
treated. I want to say to you, Ladies and Gentlemen, that the State of
Washington will keep step to the music of the Union. (Great applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--After the next address on the program, any further
discussion of the subjects presented will be welcome.
It was gratifying to hear from California through the voice of
Ex-Governor Pardee. One of the fortunate features of this Congress is
the presence of men of prominence and influence from all sections of the
country. Not merely the North and the East and the West are represented,
but the sunny South; and we will be pleased to hear from a
representative of the great State of Louisiana, who has always been
deeply interested in Conservation, and is no less competent to speak on
the subject now than when he wielded the power of Governor of that
commonwealth. I have great pleasure in introducing Ex-Governor Newton C.
Blanchard. (Applause)
Ex-Governor BLANCHARD--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen of the
Congress: I am not on the program for a formal address, but I am here to
supplement and endorse and support the admirable address delivered you a
little while ago by Ex-Secretary Garfield. (Applause)
The times change, and men's opinions seem to change with them. On
yesterday, in this Auditorium, I listened to a number of western
Governors preaching the doctrine of State rights. For many years prior
to the fateful year of 1861, and for four memorable years following it,
the question of State rights was forcefully discussed in the forum of
the Republic, and afterward practically settled on the battlefield
(applause); and we of the South, who went down in that struggle to
determine whether these rights of the States were paramount to the
authority of the Federal Government, accepted the situation in good
faith (great applause)--and we are now marching side by side with the
North and the East and the West in that grand procession of progress
that makes for the might and power of our great Republic. (Renewed
applause)
It seems strange to a southern democrat like myself (applause) that "a
voice should come out of the West" (laughter) telling us that this
movement for Conservation must be abandoned by the Federal Government
and relegated to the tender mercies of the western States (laughter and
applause). Gentlemen of the Congress, was the question of State rights,
the _real_, genuine doctrine of State rights, behind that demand? No;
everyone of you know that it was not. It was a mere pretext; and the
history of all nations is full of examples where strong men, having
risen to ascendancy and ruling power and wanting to do something not
exactly right (some usurpation of power or act of tyranny), first sought
a pretext to justify it (applause). Why, then, does this voice come out
of the West--a country that in the time preceding and following 1861 was
known as "the wild and woolly West," and out of which at that time came
not a whisper in advocacy of State rights? Why, now that the "wild and
woolly West" has gone and magnificent commonwealths are there, now for
the first time comes from the West, in former renegade garb or present
robe of splendor, the cry that State rights must dominate the
Conservation of the natural resources of the country? Gentlemen, some
years ago a great citizen and soldier of our Republic was the candidate
of a political party for the high office of President of the United
States at a time when the tariff was the dominant issue, and becoming
involved in the intricacies and embarrassing problems of the tariff, he
declared, "the tariff is a local issue." Listening to the western
Governors last afternoon, I perceived the same idea arising again, only
in a different form; for the western Governors would make State rights a
local issue.
The natural resources of the United States belong to all the people
(applause), not alone to those who happen to live in the States where
what is left of the public domain is principally situated today; you and
I have just as much concern and interest and proprietorship in the
natural resources on and in and springing from the public domain in
Wyoming, in Montana, in Idaho, and in other western States, as have the
people of those States themselves (applause). Gentlemen, as has been
well said already during this Congress, the smaller the community the
easier it is for special interests to control it; and that is the reason
for this demand that the Conservation of the natural resources in the
western States should be turned over to the States themselves. If you
want Conservation to amount to anything--if you wish it to go forward in
the fullness of development so that what is left of the public domain,
of the coal lands, the phosphate lands, the oil and gas lands and the
forests belonging to the United States may be preserved and conserved
and utilized without present waste and handed down to our children and
children's children without exhaustion, then I say the power that should
lead in this movement is the mighty power of the Federal Government.
(Applause)
When the distinguished and able gentleman who occupies the executive
chair in the State of Montana was speaking yesterday, he claimed for his
State "the earth and the fullness thereof" in respect to the
Conservation of natural resources. He claimed that the movement there
had antedated anything done by any other State or by the Federal
Government, and to hear his eulogy of what Montana had done in this
respect and his absence of expression as to what the Federal Government
had done there, one might think, to use the vernacular of the day, that
Montana was "the whole cheese" (laughter) in matters of conservation.
And yet, when I met the gentleman today and asked him if the Federal
Government had not been doing considerable work in Montana and
expending large sums of money to irrigate the arid regions of that
State, he admitted that it had. I asked him if the Federal Government
had not expended many times more money in doing just that kind of
Conservation work in his State than Montana had, and he admitted that it
had. I asked him if what the Federal Government had already done in the
way of irrigating the arid regions of his State and the projects now
under way would not when completed yield to the farmer and the
husbandman many hundreds of thousands of acres of valuable land, and he
admitted it would and that the aggregate would be more than 600,000
acres (applause). That is what the Federal Government has done and is
doing in one western State; and yet that same Governor, and others from
the West, advocate that in the matter of Conservation the Federal
Government should take a back seat, and permit the States to take the
lead in Conservation.
Gentlemen, you heard today from the lips of Theodore Roosevelt a truth
that struck me most forcibly, and that was this: It is not so much the
question as to who shall take the lead in the matter of Conservation,
whether it be the power of the States or the authority of the Federal
Government, but which of these powers is best equipped and most able to
keep what remains of the public domain and the natural resources from
falling into the hands of the special interests and the monopolists
(applause). Some of those western Governors, when the imputation was
made that if the natural resources were turned over to the States in the
manner proposed by them the special interests might handle their
legislators, grew virtuously indignant; and yet all of us remember that
it has been charged time and time again--and I think no one will have
the temerity to deny it--that powerful interests with unlimited money
have put forward their own selections for the high office of Senator of
the United States and elected them (applause). That has been done
repeatedly in the past; and is anyone here bold enough to say that even
now there does not sit in the Senate of the United States men from the
western States who owe their election to that position through the
instrumentality of money? (Applause) No; that is true; and everyone of
you knows it is true. If the Legislatures--and I do not mean to imply or
to charge that the Legislatures of those particular western States are
any more corrupt or more subject to the blandishments of corporations
and men of means than the Legislatures of other States, whether they be
North or South or East or West--can be induced through those
instrumentalities to elevate men to high position, then I say those
Legislatures can be controlled by the same means in other respects; and
all of us know that special interests have always out a grabbing hand
for what there is in the way of coal lands, in the way of water-power
sites, in the way of phosphate lands and oil and gas lands. So I say,
gentlemen of the Congress, we had better leave this matter of
Conservation in the hands of the Federal Government to lead in this
great work wherever the Conservation relates to the natural resources
springing from the public domain. I am here to advocate that first; and
I am here to say that in other respects, where the State authority finds
jurisdiction, there should be cooperation between the States and the
Federal Government. (Applause)
We have heard much from these western Governors in their speeches last
afternoon relative to the waters in the rivers of their States, and the
position was taken that the waters belong to the States. Flowing through
the public domain, the land and the water-power sites would belong to
the Federal Government, and where that is the case there is good ground
for cooperation; but I am far from admitting that those waters belong to
the States. There are some decisions of the Supreme Court that so
declare, but such decisions were made by the courts under peculiar
circumstances and facts differing from the circumstances and facts set
before us in the matter of Conservation. Take the great Mississippi; to
whom does the Mississippi river belong? Do its waters belong to the
States through which those waters flow? Why, don't you know that every
drop of water precipitated from the clouds, except that which is taken
up by evaporation, every drop of rainfall from the top of the
Alleghenies to the summit of the Rocky mountains finds its way through
the innumerable channels and smaller streams to the great main trunk
that we call the Mississippi river? Don't you know that it is the
receptacle for the drainage of half of this great Republic of ours, that
much of even the waters that fall in the western part of the great State
of New York find their way into the channel of the Mississippi? All of
the water thus gathered into the main channel flows by the cities of all
the States from Minnesota down to Louisiana, my own State; and all of
that water flows through the State of Louisiana to find lodgment at last
in the Mexican Gulf. Now, does all the water thus garnered from this
immense watershed to flow through the State of Louisiana belong to the
State of Louisiana? If so, _we don't want it_! (Laughter and applause)
It fell on these great western States, and too much of it comes down
upon us, and we have had a great struggle, extending through many years,
to keep that water off our land (laughter). I have known one great flood
in Louisiana to cause destruction to the extent of ten millions of
dollars. The State of Louisiana alone has expended, by State taxation
and levee district taxation, more than thirty millions of dollars since
the War in keeping the waters that fell upon your territory off our
fertile lands (applause); and not being able to perform the herculean
task ourselves, we have appealed, in season and out, to the Federal
Government for aid, and a liberal hand has been extended to us.
(Applause)
I was for years in Congress from Louisiana and for years a member and
chairman of the committee on rivers and harbors of the House of
Representatives, and I had to deal with this question. When I went first
to Congress the idea prevailed there that the Federal Government had no
constitutional authority to appropriate and expend money on Mississippi
river except in aid of navigation; it was admitted that could be done
under the commerce clause of the Constitution, but Congress denied that
it owed any other duty to the river. Myself and others from the lower
Mississippi valley, the lands of whose constituents were flooded every
now and then by the great river, contended that Congress owed a two-fold
duty to the river: to improve its navigation, and to prevent the waters
from remaining a terror to those who lived in its lower valley
(applause). Congress admitted it owed the first duty, but asked where
there was any constitutional authority for the appropriation of public
money to redeem private property from the flood and ravages of the
river; and it took the representatives and senators from the lower
valley States many years--I know I worked at it myself for ten years, in
season and out, as a member of Congress--to demonstrate that the Federal
Government owed it to the great river to prevent its floods as well as
to improve its navigation. In answer to the demand for constitutional
authority we cited a principle of law, recognized alike by the civil law
system and by the common-law, which long antedated the Constitution of
the United States, a principle embodied in a Latin maxim, "_Sic utere
tuo ut alienum non laedas_"--so use your own that it shall not become an
injury to others (applause). And we asked in that connection, "Who owns
the Mississippi river? Does the Federal Government own it? If so, it is
its property as a great feature of our country; and if the
proprietorship of the river is in the Federal Government, then should
not the Government so regulate and control its own that it will not
injure or prove a detriment or damage to those who live in the lower
valley?" (Applause) And that argument won.
Prior to 1892, large appropriations were made by Congress for the
Mississippi river, all of them with a proviso that none of the money
should be expended for the purpose of preventing the floods of the
river; and not a dollar was available for the repair and construction of
levees. That was the situation in 1882 and on down to 1892, when the
argument that the river belonged to the Federal Government and it must
so regulate and use it that it should not be a damage and a hurt to us
in the lower valley prevailed; and in the river and harbor bill of 1892,
at a time when I was chairman of the committee, the Secretary of War was
authorized to expend $10,000,000 on the lower Mississippi from Cairo to
the Gulf, and the restrictions and provisos that had hampered the
Mississippi River Commission theretofore in the expenditure of money for
the two-fold purpose of improving navigation and preventing floods were
removed (applause). We wrote these limitations all out; Congress had
been educated up to the point where it recognized the second duty it
owed to the great river in preventing its floods. The bill passed, and
the Mississippi River Commission allotted $6,000,000 of the $10,000,000
for levee construction and repairs (applause). We followed this two
years later by another bill using the same phraseology and appropriating
$9,000,000 more, and these two great bills, carrying $19,000,000, with
no restrictions on the expenditures for the prevention of floods in the
river, have given us along the lower river the greatest and finest levee
system ever known in any age or on any river in any country--1350 miles
of levees that stay the floods of the Mississippi so that a general
flood in the river is a thing of the past; and on every mile of our 1350
miles of levees on the two banks of the river _is the stamp of the
Federal Government_. (Applause)
And yet they tell you that these waters do not belong to the Federal
Government? They admit that they belong to the Federal Government for
purposes of navigation. Congress is committed already to the principle
that the waters of the river belong to the Federal Government, because
Congress has undertaken to help us to keep those waters off of our
lands. But I go further than that; I agree with my distinguished friend
Mr Garfield that the jurisdiction of the Federal Government extends,
where the navigable waterways of the United States are concerned, far
beyond the point to which they are navigable; it extends to the
headwaters of those rivers, and for the very good reason that if the
jurisdiction of the Federal Government did not so extend, then where
these rivers take their rise some of these western States might
undertake to divert from the great Mississippi channel the water needed
to supply that river with enough water for navigation purposes. Every
river, therefore, must be treated as a unit (applause). That is the view
we take of it in the South; and in taking that view we hold to the
National idea that water, being one of those natural resources which
needs conservation in respect to its greater and wiser use, ought to be
controlled by the Federal Government. Water is one of those natural
resources that man can do nothing to add to or diminish in quantity;
the snows and the rains are the result of great cosmic action--and
fortunate it is that such is the case, for past experience in this
country shows that if man could diminish the supply he would long since
have done so by his neglect and his wastefulness. (Applause)
I have spoken long enough. I wanted to supplement, from the standpoint
of the South, the admirable remarks made by the distinguished Governor
of Mississippi on last afternoon. We of the South are hand in hand with
the Federal Government in this great question of the Conservation of the
natural resources; and we look to the Federal Government to lead in that
movement (applause). At the same time I repeat that this great movement,
so auspiciously inaugurated by Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot
(applause), needs for its full consummation and for the realizing of the
greatest benefits possible the cooperation--with the Federal Government
leading--of the Federal Government, the States, and all the people
(applause). When we shall have brought these three great agencies into
harmonious action looking to proper Conservation, then will our country
grow greater even than it is now in all that goes to make up the might
and glory of a great nationality of the earth; our country will then
continue to present the example of a great continental republic
possessed of every variety of climate and production, whose people are
as one again, loyally devoted to the perpetuity of the Union, fearing no
foreign foe, following the pursuits of peace, serving God according to
the dictates of conscience and solving practically the great problems of
self-government. (Great and prolonged applause)
* * * * *
[In the course of the foregoing address, President Baker surrendered the
Chair to Professor Condra.]
Chairman CONDRA--Ladies and Gentlemen: Before continuing the program, a
few announcements will be made.
Ex-Governor PARDEE: I again announce that the Committee on Resolutions
will meet at the Saint Paul Hotel this evening at 8 oclock in Room 534.
Those having resolutions will please write them out, sign them, and hand
them in.
Several announcements were made on behalf of State delegations.
Chairman CONDRA: In place of Honorable B. A. Fowler, of Phoenix,
Arizona, who was to speak on "Water as a Natural Resource," I call upon
a man who has done much for the advance of irrigation, and who organized
the first National Irrigation Congress, Mr William E. Smythe, of San
Diego, California.
Mr SMYTHE--Mr Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Congress: I am
called upon at very short notice to speak for our distinguished
president of the National Irrigation Congress on water as a natural
resource. I need not remind you how valuable this resource is. Some
years ago I went to the White House in company with a cabinet officer to
confer with the then President of the United States concerning a mooted
irrigation question. Secretary Moody presented me to President
Roosevelt, saying that I was a democrat interested in the subject of
water; whereupon the President turned to me with a smile and said,
"What! a democrat interested in _water_?" (Laughter) "Yes, Mr
President," I said, "for democrats have sense enough to know that in a
country where it seldom rains water is too valuable to drink."
(Laughter)
Water is so valuable that we want to guard it carefully as a natural
resource. I have but a moment at my disposal, and I am glad to take the
advice of the President of the United States who yesterday told us to
come out of the clouds, get down to brass tacks, and talk business. He
asked us to say what we mean by Conservation, to tell what are the evils
that we want to remedy, and explain how we propose to remedy them
(applause). In a word, the evil that we want to remedy in the arid
States of America is the great evil of permitting men to make
merchandise of the melting snow and the singing brook (applause). I
stand here to say that no man can possibly be good enough to own the
water which another man must use in order to live (applause). It may be
that private enterprise can be employed in the form of a construction
company to build the reservoir and the means of distribution; but in
that case, after our people have paid for the work, and paid for it once
and twice and three times, then the Nation should answer our prayer,
"Let my people go."
We should have joint ownership of land and water. Today we have a
magnificent construction company at work in the seventeen States and
Territories of arid America; the name of it is "The United States of
America, Unlimited." (Applause) That construction company turns the work
over to the people at actual cost, with ten annual payments, _and
without one dollar of interest_ (Applause). If the National Government
can do that with irrigation, it can do so just as wisely with power; and
if it doesn't seem wise for the National Government to do it as a matter
of public enterprise, then give us a form of construction company; but
in the end, in the day of our children and our children's children and
our remote descendants, in the name of God and in the name of humanity,
let the people own the water which is essential to their existence.
(Applause)
Just one word further. I stand here to endorse what has just been said
by one of the few real men whom California ever had the good fortune to
put into her Governor's chair (great applause). California is not for
State rights; _that_ doctrine was trampled to death fifty years ago
under the feet of a million armed men. Yesterday it raised its head and
stretched out its weird arms seeking to grasp the remnant of the natural
resources and turn them over to exploitation by private monopoly. But
that will not be permitted. I am here, my friends, to say to you, as
Governor Pardee has said, that in this great controversy--the most
momentous which has arisen in this country since the close of the Civil
War--California and the Pacific slope, and I believe all the splendid
States of the Rocky mountain region, stand with that fine young American
statesman who during the past few months has thrilled this nation in his
fight to save the resources of the people to all the people for the
benefit of all the people; that young man who said at Denver the other
day that it is more important to help the small man make a living than
to help the big man make a profit; that man, who has sounded the highest
notes since Lincoln, who has declared that he is in favor of Government
by men for human welfare and against Government by money for profit--we
stand first, last, and all the time with Gifford Pinchot. (Great
applause)
* * * * *
Colonel T. H. DAVIDSON (Delegate-at-large from Minnesota)--Mr Chairman:
I noticed scattered through the program of this great Congress the
words "General Discussion." We have not limited the time to be occupied
by speakers. I now move you, sir, that under the head of "General
Discussion" a delegate shall be entitled to occupy only five minutes,
and shall not speak a second time on the same question.
Chairman CONDRA--The rule adopted today fully covers the point, though
it has not been put in effect this afternoon. We have two days, perhaps
three, for full discussion, and the time will be limited under the rules
which will govern tomorrow.
The last speaker on the formal program is one who has been greatly
interested in this movement and closely associated with Mr Pinchot. I
have pleasure in introducing Mr Walter L. Fisher, a Vice-President of
this Congress and of the National Conservation Association and President
of the Conservation League of America.
Mr FISHER--Mr Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen: I would not take any
of your time this afternoon were it not that I, too, have felt the
appeal of President Taft for concrete and practical suggestions as to
how to solve some of the more difficult of the problems of constructive
statesmanship presented in the Conservation movement. The particular
point on which I wish to make a suggestion is the relation of the States
and the Federal Government to the question of water-power grants.
This question, it seems to me, has been allowed to assume a phase
entirely unjustified by the facts. There is, in my judgment, not only no
necessary conflict between the interests of the State and the Nation,
but there is every incentive for practical cooperation between State and
Nation on this matter (applause); and in my opinion the question can
never be rightly settled until there is just that cooperation. (Renewed
applause)
The Federal Government is the natural agency to which we must look for
many of the things which are essential to a solution. There are two
phases of the problem, one involving a question of law and the other a
question of public policy. As to the strict legal right, it must be
apparent that on any stream where the Federal Government owns the
riparian property, or on any stream which is navigable in fact or in
law, the consent of the Federal Government is absolutely necessary as a
pre-requisite to the construction of any water-power works. For myself,
I believe that the power conferred by the Constitution upon the Federal
Government with relation to interstate commerce absolutely carries the
power to make such conditions in any permit to erect a structure in a
navigable stream as the Federal Government may believe it wise policy to
insert. The power to make or to withhold the permit, under all the
decisions of the courts which have in any way touched that question,
implies the power to impose conditions to the permit. There are, I know,
those who disagree as to this proposition; but even they will agree on
the broader question of public policy which underlies the whole subject.
When the Federal Government undertakes the improvement of a navigable
stream, it rarely if ever happens that it does not thereby either create
water-power or increase potential water-power already existing. It is
evident, therefore, that those riparian owners who own existing
water-power grants are directly benefitted by the improvement in the
navigable water. Whenever the Federal Government protects the headwaters
and the water-shed on which the stream depends, it is conferring a
direct benefit upon the owners of water-power property along the line;
and so with all the other improvements.
You have heard the eloquent Ex-Governor of Louisiana explain what the
interest of that State is in the intervention of the Federal Government
in the regulation of the Mississippi river. There are few places
throughout this country where the owners of water-power grants and those
who are interested in all the other uses of flowing water have not
appealed to the Federal Government for financial aid or for assistance
not financial which that Government alone can effectively render. It
must be apparent that in rendering that assistance the Federal
Government creates property of value, or enlarges the money value of
property already existing. No hardship, then, is done if the owners of
this property are required to contribute to the original cost. Not only
so, but there can be no justice in the proposition which requires the
taxpayers of the United States as a body to pay the cost of the
improvement or the protection of any stream when as a matter of fact the
people who own the property immediately along the stream will get, in
direct money value, a larger benefit than the cost of the improvement.
There are many reasons besides these why the Federal Government _must_,
in the very nature of things, be the effective agency to do many of the
things which the States can never effectively do, no matter if the whole
subject were turned over to them this afternoon. On the other hand, I
wish to call attention to the fact, which I believe to be established by
experience, that whenever a local community is once aroused to an
intelligent appreciation of its interests and its rights, that local
community will better and more effectively regulate local service and
local rates than any more remote governmental agency whatever. Herein
lies the advantage of local home rule. Now, I am not talking about
railroad rates connected with interstate commerce, or about other things
which affect more than the local community, but about those things which
affect merely particular localities. If a water-power company starts in
alongside of a great industrial community and that community is built up
so that its industries depend on it, that community itself, once
thoroughly aroused and intelligently educated upon the question, will
far more effectively regulate those rates in the interests of the
public, while at the same time dealing fairly with the corporate or
private interests involved, than would the State or the Federal
Government. That seems to me a broad, practical proposition which
experience has justified.
Now, let us apply the principle to the water-power situation. And my
whole purpose in speaking is merely to call the attention of this
Congress to a method of treating this question, which will, in my
opinion, meet both situations. It is not a novel suggestion; in one of
the very last of the water-power grants made by Secretary Garfield, the
essential provisions of it were at least hinted at and a preliminary
provision made. In my humble opinion, the Federal Government should
control the water-power grants on streams that are navigable or where
the Government itself controls the riparian property. It should make
grants for definite periods of time and should provide for compensation.
That compensation as a broad, general rule should be applied to the
improvement and protection of the stream and the watershed from which
the water-power has been derived, or to other streams and watersheds of
like character, for all uses of the water, whether for irrigation on the
one hand or for water-power on the other. There should be periodical
readjustments of the rate of compensation. In the beginning, and
especially in an experimental enterprise, the rate of compensation
should be exceedingly low. There should be, as President Taft himself
said here in his speech, a readjustment of the rate, say every ten
years; and the person or the corporation invited to invest money should
be given proper protection in that readjustment. Capitalist and
industrial pioneer should be treated not only fairly but liberally, that
vigorous development may result. On the other hand, such a grant should
contain this provision, or be subject to this fundamental legal
limitation, that the grantee, by acceptance of the grant, acquiesces and
will acquiesce in any reasonable regulation of the service and of the
rates which may be charged the public that may be provided by the State
or by any delegated agency of the State. In that way, the thing in which
the local community (the State, its municipalities or minor communities)
has the greatest interest will be amply protected and left free to act
in its own interest.
Now, what will be the result practically? At the end of the first
ten-year period the question of readjusting the compensation will arise.
If the local government has not adequately protected private interests,
if it has not regulated the rates so that the people are obtaining power
upon fair terms and the corporation restrained from making extortionate
profits, all the Federal Government will have to do will be simply to
increase the compensation. If, on the other hand, the fundamental
question is being taken care of and the community in which the
water-power is generated and distributed is receiving it at fair terms,
the compensation can be left where it is or only slightly increased,
depending entirely on the situation.
And this has another side? The Federal Government may possibly at times
not be looking after some public interests in particular localities as
well as it should, for these same Federal officials who are elected by
the method suggested by our friend from Louisiana are the men who are
going to control a large part of the regulation of the rates by the
Federal Government; so anyone who believes that the delegation of this
question to either Federal or State authority is a final solution is
equally mistaken in either case. But the method which I suggest will
work automatically, because if either State or Nation is alive to the
people's interests they will be protected either by the imposition of
proper compensation or by the appropriate reduction of the rates.
(Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman CONDRA--Fellow-Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: In taking note
of the remarkable representation from all over the country in this
Congress, we should not forget that our President, Mr Bernard N. Baker,
is from Baltimore, right on the Atlantic coast and in a southern State;
and I desire to say, with a great deal of satisfaction, that a large
part of the success of this Congress is due to his unflagging efforts.
(Applause)
We shall close our formal program for the day with a brief address by
Colonel James H. Davidson, whom I now have the pleasure of introducing.
Colonel DAVIDSON--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I shall only detain
you a few minutes to make some suggestions which seem to me pertinent.
Many delegates in this Congress seem to have it fixed in their minds
that Federal control would settle the questions before us, and other
delegates, from the Far West, seem to claim that the States should
control absolutely; and to my surprise and great pleasure, I find that
the representatives of southern States, like Louisiana and Mississippi,
are favoring Federal control. I say to you, Mr Chairman and Delegates to
this Congress, that this question is large enough and broad enough to
enlist all the statesmanship in the Federal Government and in all the
States composing the Union (applause). Reference has been made to that
great struggle of nearly fifty years ago, in which I took part for
nearly five years from private soldier to brigade commander as a full
colonel (being one of but five who advanced in rank from private soldier
to a full colonelcy); and I cannot stand up and ask as an American for
State rights as against the Federal Government (applause). But it seems
to me, Gentlemen, that there is enough for each and all of us to do; and
if we, as States, neglect the duties that devolve upon us under the
police powers, which all the States have, of regulating internal
affairs, including these manufacturing corporations and monopolies, we
are weak and are not making full use of the great privileges conferred
upon us.
I was interested very much in the discussion by Ex-Governor Pardee; and
he pointed out a fact which indicates to my mind that Federal control
_alone_ is not sufficient. He says that 6,000,000 acres of the most
valuable timber lands that ever grew on this continent were conveyed to
the Southern Pacific Railway, in a certain sense in trust, to be
conveyed to actual settlers at not less than $2.50 per acre, but that no
actual settlers ever went upon that land. It is not charged that the
State of California was in any way responsible. There was a case where
the Federal Government, and the Federal Government alone, was involved;
and yet that valuable property passed into the hands of that railroad
which is the imperial controller of almost everything in California. In
the course of the discussion yesterday in reference to the regulation of
oil and gas lands it was stated that in California alternate sections
had been conveyed to that great organization, and was out of the control
of the Federal Government. That is another case where, if California, a
sovereign State, had dealt with those things at the proper time and at
the inception, it might have been saved some of the great burdens that
now rest upon the people of that State.
They speak of four great water-power companies in California, and two
water-power trusts. I thoroughly investigated that subject, spending
over six months on it three years ago, and I found that water was king
in California, yet the water is owned by these four imperial companies.
One-half of my life and of my most valuable treasure is my son and his
family, now in the San Joaquin valley; and every crevice and canon, in
the mountains, almost, has been pre-empted by these great water-power
combinations, and it costs fifty dollars per horsepower per annum for
the use of it for pumping or for any other purpose. If the State of
California had been alert, and had had proper regulation, it would have
seen to it that these monopolies could not take possession of all these
canons and control the water-power against the interests of the people.
A board of most distinguished army engineers reported two or three years
ago that the cost of generating one electrical horsepower at the falls
of Saint Anthony--within ten miles of where I stand--was less than $6
per annum, and that in the city of Minneapolis to generate one
horsepower by steam costs $42. Is there any reason why these great
monopolies that can generate horsepower by water at an expense of from
five to six dollars--and I think in California at less--should put it to
the people at fifty dollars per horsepower? I hope that one of the
results of this Congress will be earnest cooperation between the States
and the Federal Government. Let each one be alert.
When the Civil War broke out and President Lincoln called for 75,000
men, the Governors of the different States in the North did not
hesitate, nor the Governors in the different States in the South; they
immediately began calling for volunteers, making all arrangements to
take care of the soldiers, and not an hour was lost. Governor Alexander
Ramsey, of Minnesota, tendered a regiment to President Lincoln within an
hour after the firing upon Fort Sumter (applause). It was a day for the
earnest cooperation of all the States with the Federal Government. And
we are confronting a condition of that kind, commercially and legally,
today; and it needs cooperation, without bickering and without lack of
confidence, in the most earnest manner, to pass such State laws as are
proper and right, and to pass such laws of Congress as will (so far as
the General Government has not parted with its rights) control the
streams, the lakes, the waters, and the various natural resources in the
West. (Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman CONDRA--It is now long after six oclock; and the Congress is
adjourned, to reassemble tomorrow morning at 9.30.
_FIFTH SESSION_
The Congress was called to order in the Auditorium, Saint Paul, on
Wednesday, September 7, 1910, at 9.30 a.m.
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: The State Delegations are
requested to hand the Secretary, soon as possible, the names of their
nominees for Vice-Presidents of the Congress.
The Committee on Resolutions are anxious to have all resolutions
submitted to them at the earliest possible moment in order that they may
receive full consideration.
It has been arranged to renew the Call of the States tomorrow afternoon.
The first Call of the States was made on Governors' Day (the Second
Session), when preference was given to the Governors. Delegations are
requested to have a speaker from their State prepared to respond to the
call at the Thursday afternoon session.
* * * * *
Now that Delegations are assembled, the Right Reverend Samuel Cook
Edsall, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church for Minnesota, will
ask the blessing of our Heavenly Father.
INVOCATION
_O, Almighty and everlasting God, Who art the giver of every good and
perfect gift, we render unto Thee our most humble and hearty thanks for
all the blessings which Thou hast vouchsafed unto our country, for our
resources of soil, forest, mine, and stream, which Thou hast given into
our hands; and we humbly beseech Thee that Thou wilt give unto the
President of the United States, the Governors of our States, our
legislators in National Congress and in State Legislatures, and unto all
those who are in authority, as well as unto all the people whether in
public or in private station, the graces of unselfishness and wisdom;
that they may rightly use these bounties to Thy honor and glory and for
the good of all mankind; and that Thou wilt so bless and guide the
deliberations of this Congress that by all that may be here said and
done our minds may be illumined and our hearts stirred to righteousness
and obedience to Thy law--through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen._
* * * * *
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: We have with us today a truly
representative man of our Southland, Mr W. W. Finley, President of the
Southern Railway Company, who will address us on "The Interest of the
Railways of the South in Conservation." (Applause)
* * * * *
Mr FINLEY--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: The interest of the
Railways of the South in Conservation and the interest of the people of
the South in Conservation are identical. I will go farther, and state my
unqualified conviction that any economic or governmental policy that is,
in the last analysis, to the best interest of the people of any
community is to the best interest of the railways by which that
community is served. Conversely, my conviction is equally strong that
any economic or governmental policy that is harmful to the railways is
harmful to the communities served by them.
Therefore, Mr President, in all that I say on the topic assigned to
me--"The Interest of the Railways of the South in Conservation"--I must
be understood as presenting what I believe to be the interest of the
southern people.
I am not sure that the expression "Conservation of natural resources" is
everywhere understood in its broadest sense. I think that to some minds
it conveys only the narrow idea of the withdrawal from present use of
some part of those resources. However important that kind of
Conservation may be in some localities and under some circumstances, I
do not believe there is much occasion for its application in the part of
the United States for which I am expected to speak--the States south of
the Ohio and Potomac rivers and east of the Mississippi. I would define
the type of "Conservation of natural resources" that should be applied
in that section as being the wise use of those resources. In some cases
it may involve a measure of present self-denial, as when, in the case of
an owner of forest lands, it impels him to cut only the matured timber
and leave standing immature trees that have a present market value; but,
in that case, it leaves him with an asset which increases in value with
each year's growth of the standing timber. In some cases Conservation
may mean the use of resources so as to obtain the maximum present
profit, as in the case of soils; for I believe that I am supported by
the best scientific and practical authority in saying that soils not
only preserve, but increase, their productivity when so handled, in the
application of fertilizers, the rotation of crops, and the growing of
live stock, as to yield the maximum present profit.
The South is interested in the application of Conservation to the wise
use to its soils, its minerals, its timber, and its streams.
Notwithstanding the wonderful industrial development of the South since
1880, it is still pre-eminently an agricultural section. It is a
section, therefore, in which the conservation of the soil is of the
highest importance. There is a prevalent belief that the productivity
of the soils in those parts of the United States that have been longest
under cultivation has been seriously impaired. Statistics do not confirm
this belief. Estimates of productions of staple crops per acre have been
compiled in the United States only since 1867, and, as there are often
wide fluctuations between successive seasons--due to differences in
rainfall and temperature--the period covered has not been long enough to
afford a basis for definite conclusions. There is also the fact that all
available figures are estimates, and consequently are not exact. On
their face, however, they do not prove a decline in productivity. This
may be illustrated by comparing the production of wheat per acre for
ten-year periods since 1867. In the decade from 1867 to 1876 the average
for the United States was estimated at 12 bushels; from 1877 to 1886,
12.5 bushels; from 1887 to 1896, 12.7 bushels; from 1897 to 1906, 13.8
bushels, and for the three years since 1906, 14.6 bushels. So far, then,
as these figures can be relied upon, they tend to show an increase in
productivity, especially as an analysis by groups of States shows the
larger and more uniform increases to have been in some of the older
sections of the country.
Similar figures for corn do not show an increase for the United States
as a whole, but they show very little decrease. From 1867 to 1876 the
average production of corn per acre was estimated at 26.2 bushels; from
1877 to 1886, 25.1 bushels; from 1887 to 1896, 24.1 bushels; from 1897
to 1906, 25.4 bushels, and for the three years since 1906, 25.8 bushels.
It is proper to note, in connection with the apparent decline in the
fourth decade as compared with the first, that the poorest yield in the
entire period was in 1901, when abnormal weather conditions brought the
estimated average for the United States down to 16.7 bushels, thus
pulling down the average for the entire decade. It is also proper to
note that Dr Whitney, Chief of the Bureau of Soils in the United States
Department of Agriculture, in discussing these figures, expresses the
opinion that, on account of a readjustment of the basis of the
Department's estimates in 1881 as a result of the reports of the census
of 1880, the figures before that year, both for wheat and corn, were
relatively too high.
Estimates of cotton yield per acre have been made by the United States
Agricultural Department since 1866. Ten-year averages for the full
decades up to 1905 are as follows: 1866 to 1875, 176.4 pounds of lint
cotton per acre; 1876 to 1885, 171.4 pounds; 1886 to 1895, 175.9 pounds;
1896 to 1905, 182.6 pounds, and for the four years since 1905, 183.1
pounds. These figures are subject to the same question as to their
accuracy that apply to the estimates of wheat and corn production, but,
on their face, they do not indicate any impairment of the productivity
of the cotton soils of the South. It is noteworthy that the larger and
more uniform increases in yield per acre shown by the Department's
figures are in the older cotton States.
While statistics of crop yields in the United States do not cover a
sufficient period to be of great value in determining the effect of long
use on soil productivity, some light is thrown on the subject by
comparing yields per acre in the United States with those in other
countries where lands have been under cultivation for centuries. Thus,
for the ten-year period from 1897 to 1906, inclusive, the average yield
of wheat per acre in the United States was 13.8 bushels, in France 19.8
bushels, in Germany 28 bushels, and in the United Kingdom 32.2 bushels.
In Germany, statistics are available from 1883 to 1906, inclusive,
showing increases in the average yields of wheat from 18.2 to 30.3
bushels, of rye from 15.4 to 25.1 bushels, and of oats from 27.6 to 55.7
bushels. Similar figures might be cited for other European countries,
but perhaps the most conclusive statistics are those collected by
Kellerman, a German student of this question, who gives the yield per
acre for a large number of German estates, covering long periods of
time. I shall cite but one of these--a Schmatzfeld estate with records
extending back to 1552. In the period between 1552 and 1557 the annual
yields reduced to bushels per acre, were, wheat 12.5, rye 13.2, barley
14.2, and oats 14.8. In the period from 1897 to 1904 these yields were,
wheat 45.1, rye 34, barley 50.4, and oats 69.1.
Taking all these figures together, I believe the conclusion is
inevitable that, while abuse of soils may impair their productivity,
their wise use increases it, and the longer they are properly used the
more productive they become. Proper use, such as conserves and increases
soil productivity, involves the most approved cultural methods, the
application of such fertilizers as may be required for varying soil
conditions, the raising of live stock, and, above all, the scientific
rotation of crops. There can be little question that the most unwise use
to which a soil can be subjected is the raising of the same crop for a
long series of years. Some very interesting experiments in continuous
cropping and crop rotation, covering a period of sixty-five years, have
been carried on at Rothamsted, England. On one plot potatoes were grown
for fifteen years. At the end of that period the soil was in such
condition that it would not grow potatoes at all. It was then planted in
barley, and produced an excellent yield. Another crop followed the
barley, and the soil was then in condition to grow potatoes again. On
this same experimental farm wheat has been sown for fifty years on the
same land without fertilizers, and the yield has gone down from 30
bushels to 12 bushels. On another tract wheat has been grown
continuously for fifty years with the use of a complete fertilizer, and
an average yield of about 30 bushels has been maintained. On another
tract wheat has been grown for fifty years in rotation with other crops
and an average yield of 30 bushels has been maintained, showing that,
for growing wheat on that particular soil, rotation was equivalent to
fertilization. As might be expected, the Rothamsted experiments show the
best results where fertilizers are used in connection with rotation, and
justify the conclusion that under continuous use, with proper rotation
and an intelligent use of fertilizers, soil productivity can be largely
increased.
This is a matter of particular interest to the South, because with our
advantages of soils and climate we have an ideal region for soil
conservation through crop rotation and intensive farming. There is a
quite general impression throughout the North that, except for a few
localities in which early fruits and vegetables, tobacco, and sugar cane
are grown, the South is a one-crop region devoted exclusively to cotton.
This is entirely erroneous. There are many localities in the
southeastern States where cotton is not grown at all, and every acre of
land in the cotton belt is suited for growing other crops as well.
Cotton will continue to be the great staple crop of the South, and with
the ever-increasing demand for cotton goods of all kinds, its
cultivation will become increasingly profitable, but the southern cotton
planter is learning the value of crop rotation; diversified farming and
live-stock raising are becoming more general, and the increased supply
of cotton demanded by the world will be produced by increasing the
average productiveness of each acre as well as by increasing the
acreage.
Other things being equal, the conservative use of a raw material,
whatever it may be, consists in its manufacture, in the locality of
production, through all the stages of preparation for the final
consumer. Manufacturing in the South has reached its present growth and
is being still further developed on the basis of this kind of
conservation of raw material. Industrial development in the South on a
large scale may be said to date from about 1880, prior to which time
only relatively a small proportion of the raw materials available in
that section were advanced through even the first stages of manufacture
before being shipped to other localities. It is natural that, at first,
only the coarser, and what may be termed the preliminary, processes
should have been undertaken. This was the first step in the conservation
of raw materials by their manufacture near the source of supply. The
South has gone far in that direction, and has already started on the
second step, which is the use of the products of primary manufacturing
as the raw materials for secondary industries. But a large proportion of
southern cotton mill products, lumber, pig-iron, and other commodities,
advanced through the first stages of manufacture, are still shipped out
of the South to serve as the raw materials of industries in other
localities which convert them into articles ready for the final
consumer; and southern coal is shipped to serve as the raw material for
power and heat in other parts of the United States and, to some extent,
in foreign countries. This is a waste of energy which, under ideal
conditions of Conservation would be avoided; and I am glad to be able to
say that the present tendency of industrial development in our section
is in the direction of its elimination. Substantial progress has already
been made in the building up of secondary manufacturing along some
lines, and I believe that the most noteworthy progress of southern
industrial development in the immediate future will be in this
direction, carrying with it an increase in the volume of primary
manufacturing through broadening the market for its products.
One of the most valuable of the natural resources of the South is its
timber. It is also a resource of which the intelligent conservation will
benefit, directly and indirectly, the largest number of people. We have
in the southeastern States large and growing industries which use wood
alone, or wood in combination with iron, steel, and other materials, as
their raw materials. Some of these industries, such as the manufacture
of furniture, have enjoyed a phenomenal growth in the past 30 years.
There is every reason to expect that this growth will continue and that
the variety of wood-working industries will be increased, with the
result that they will require an increasing supply of raw materials. As
the timber consumption of the United States is now in excess of the
annual growth, and as other sections are drawing on our southern
forests, it is obvious that if these southern wood-working industries
are to survive and are to be handed down to future generations,
immediate and effective steps should be taken for the conservation of
southern forests. This is the more important for the reason that the
same steps taken to insure a perpetual supply of raw material for our
wood-workers will tend to stream and soil conservation by increasing
stream-flow in periods of drought and by lessening the destructiveness
of floods which erode the soil of the upper watersheds and deposit
gravel and silt on overflowed lands and in the beds of the navigable
parts of the streams.
If we were thinking only of the present time, there would be no occasion
for us to concern ourselves with the conservation of our timber
supplies. We have ample for the present generation. It is because timber
is a crop of slow growth, requiring more than a lifetime to mature most
of the species, that timber conservation, if it is to be effective and
is to provide for the needs of those who come after us, must be handled
along exceptional lines. It is not the duty of a private owner of forest
lands to conserve them unless it is at least as profitable for him to do
so as to clear all the timber off of them; but it _is_ the duty of the
Government to consider the welfare of future generations as well as of
that now living.
The conservation of southern timber supplies is a matter that concerns
not only the people of our own section, but those of the entire United
States as well. It is a matter of National concern, as, owing to the
depletion of their forest resources, the people of other parts of the
country must look to the South for an increasing proportion of their
timber supplies. It is a recognition of this National interest in the
southern forests that has strengthened the support of the proposition
for the acquisition by the Federal Government of large tracts of lands
in the Appalachian region to be converted into National forests
(applause) from which the timber shall be marketed under a system that
will result in the perpetuation of the forests. It may be that our
Federal Government has no power, under the Constitution, to acquire
lands for the purpose of forest conservation; but it is charged with the
supervision, improvement, and conservation of our navigable streams
(applause), and the evidence as to the effect of forests on stream flow
was so conclusive as to lead the House of Representatives, during the
last session of Congress, to pass a bill providing the establishment of
National forests for the protection of the watersheds of navigable
streams. This bill is to be voted on in the Senate on the fifteenth of
next February. Whether this plan or some other may be adopted, I think
it is of the utmost importance that the campaign of education as to the
necessity for the speedy and general adoption of the most approved
methods of scientific forestry, which is being so ably carried on by the
National Forest Service, should be continued (applause). This is quite
important, if the best results are to be attained, because, whatever may
be done by the Federal Government, much will remain for the States and
for private owners of forests and woodlots to do. If the States and
private owners are to do their share, the owners of forest lands, the
users of forest products, State legislators, and the people generally
should be educated as to the dependence of our future supplies of timber
on wise conservation.
The private investor in forest lands buys them with the expectation of
making a profit on his investment. He naturally wants to make the
largest possible profit, and to do it as soon as possible. Heretofore,
partly as a result of prevailing systems of taxation and the lack of
efficient fire protection, self-interest has impelled the investor in
timber lands to clean up his holdings to the last dollar's worth of
merchantable timber, and to get off the denuded land as quickly as
possible, selling it for whatever it might bring. In the early years of
our history, when, except in the prairie regions, lands for cultivation
could be obtained only by clearing them of timber, this wholesale
cutting was more justifiable, and, in some cases now, in locations where
the value of the land for agricultural purposes is greater than its
value for timber production, it may be the proper method. We have
reached the point, however, when, especially with reference to our
mountain forests, it may seriously be questioned whether, as a matter of
dollars and cents, this method is the most profitable to the forest
owner. In view of the present prices of lumber and the practical
certainty of advancing prices in the future, I am disposed to believe
that we have now reached the point where it will pay the private owner
of any considerable body of timber on land having relatively a low
agricultural value to adopt conservative methods of forestry (applause).
A case in point is that of the University of the South, at Sewanee,
Tennessee, which owns 7,000 acres of forest land. In 1899 it was
proposed to sell all the marketable timber on this tract, and an offer
of $3,000.00 was obtained. This was rejected, and the University
undertook to manage the forest conservatively and market the mature
timber from time to time. The result is that, at the end of nine years,
instead of having realized only $3,000.00 from this tract, the
University has received from it net profits amounting to over $18,000.00
above all expenses (applause), including the cost of fire patrol; and
instead of having 7,000 acres of cut-over land of relatively little
value, it has a continuously productive forest. (Applause)
Whatever may be the decision of our National Legislature as to the
proposition for the conversion of our Appalachian woodlands into
National forests, I believe it would be a wise and patriotic policy for
our State lawmakers to encourage conservative forestry by private owners
in every reasonable and proper way. One of the reasons assigned for the
failure of private owners to adopt conservative forestry is that in some
localities the rate of taxation on timber land is so high as practically
to compel every owner to cut the timber as quickly as possible. Another
reason assigned is the general lack of an efficient fire patrol, and the
danger that, even if an owner goes to the expense of preventing fire on
his own property, his timber may be destroyed by a fire starting on the
property of some neighbor who has taken no such precautions. These are
matters that come within the province of our State legislators, and I
would suggest their consideration of whether it might not be possible to
devise a system of taxation that would differentiate between timber
lands so managed as to insure the perpetuation of a great National
resource and those so managed as to hasten its exhaustion (applause). I
would also suggest consideration of the enactment of proper fire laws
and the establishment of an efficient patrol, possibly with the expense
apportioned among owners of timber lands, as I understand is done in
some western localities at a very low annual cost per acre. I would
further suggest consideration of the practicability of encouraging the
planting of trees on lands of little or no agricultural value. Even
under the most encouraging conditions, however, planting of forests by
private land owners must, almost necessarily, be on relatively a small
scale. As a general rule, therefore, private planting will be limited to
the establishment of woodlots on the waste lands of farms; and if
reforestation is to be undertaken on a larger scale, it must be done by
some Governmental agency. (Applause)
The problem of stream conservation in the southeastern States is very
closely connected with both timber conservation and soil conservation.
The ends to be sought are a diminution of the volume of water carried by
the streams in their flood stages, and an increase in their volume
during their low stages. Everything, therefore, which tends to retard
the flow of the rainfall into the streams is a conservative agency.
Undoubtedly the most effective of these is the natural forest with its
soil, composed of porous humus, covered by a blanket of decaying leaves,
branches, and fallen trees, and often with a dense mat of underbrush
growing among the trees. Such a forest will absorb a large amount of
water during a rain-storm, and allow it to seep down gradually into the
streams instead of running off in torrents, overflowing the banks of the
streams, destroying growing crops and other property, and scouring the
soil from the watersheds to be deposited in the lower levels of the
streams or at their mouths, shoaling channels or forming bars in
harbors. Generally speaking, therefore, every step taken in the
conservation of forests is of value in stream conservation; but, if the
best results in the regulation of stream flow are to be attained, other
things may be done to advantage. The growth of underbrush having no
marketable value is of no benefit to a forest, in fact it may choke out
or retard the growth of young trees of valuable species. Such a growth
is of great value, however, in retarding water flow, and preventing soil
erosion, and, unless cut-over mountain sides are to be reforested, I
believe that the growth on them of such species as laurel and
rhododendron should be encouraged. (Applause)
Each farmer, especially along the headwaters of the streams, can
contribute to a greater or less extent to stream conservation. He can do
this by establishing permanent woodlots on those waste lands that are to
be found on almost every farm in rolling or mountainous country, and
especially on those lands that are liable to erosion. He should, of
course, take every precaution to prevent the washing of gullies in his
cultivated fields, and where such gullies have already been formed he
should so manage as to prevent further erosion. The farmer on the
headwaters of a stream cannot be expected to do these things in order to
aid in the prevention of flood damages below him. He should be educated
to an appreciation of their benefit to himself individually. He will not
only be lessening, in some degree, the amount of silt carried down by
flood waters, but will be conserving his own soil; and his woodlots
will, in a few years, become increasingly valuable as stores of
fire-wood and fence-posts, and, eventually, of larger timber. The effect
of but a single farmer on an extensive watershed adopting these methods
would, of course, be inappreciable, but if thousands of farmers could be
led to do so as a matter of self-interest the good results would soon
become apparent.
Another method of stream conservation that I believe may be practiced
to advantage in some locations in the Appalachian region is the
impounding of flood waters in artificial ponds or lakes, to be let out
gradually during periods of low water. This is not everywhere
practicable, and, I believe, should only be practiced where the benefit
will be greater than the damage that will result from overflowing the
land included in the reservoir. It would manifestly be unwise to locate
such a reservoir at a point where it would submerge a fertile
agricultural valley, or where it would render inaccessible a valuable
deposit of coal or ore.
One of the great economic advantages of the South is the abundance of
its opportunities for the development of hydro-electric power for the
operation of its factories, the propulsion of its trolley cars, and the
lighting of its cities and towns. If this cheap and efficient power is
to be used most advantageously, it is important that the stream-flow by
which it is generated should be, as nearly as possible, uniform at all
seasons of the year. It is in this connection that reservoirs for
impounding flood waters would be of great value. Some of the sites where
these reservoirs might be located are so situated that a great and
powerful fall of water may be attained. The power plants would often
have to be situated at points not suited for the location of industrial
establishments, but the power can be carried by wire to factories many
miles distant. Where such reservoirs are established the primary purpose
will be the generation of power, but they would also serve a highly
useful purpose in diminishing the flood level of the streams which they
feed.
Your invitation to address this Congress was very gratifying to me, Mr
President, not simply because of the high honor which it conferred upon
me, but chiefly because the invitation and the suggestion of my topic
conveyed a recognition of the interest of the railways of the United
States in the Conservation of our natural resources and in all that
concerns our national welfare. (Applause) They are interested in soil
conservation, because it means prosperity to the farmer and an increase
in the volume of farm products to be carried, and also an increase in
their tonnage of agricultural machinery and implements and of all kinds
of merchandise which a prosperous farmer will buy. They are interested
in the conservation of forests and mines, because it means the
perpetuation of sources of supply of raw materials which, either in
their crude or manufactured state, must be carried to market, and which,
in their production and manufacture, bring prosperity to many thousands
whose consumption of commodities produced in other localities calls for
transportation. They are interested in the conservation of water powers
and navigable streams, because cheap power means the development of
industrial communities and, while economically efficient waterways mean
a loss to the railways of some kinds of traffic, they also mean an
increase in general prosperity in which the railways have a share.
(Applause)
Conversely, Mr President, the people are interested in the conservation
and development of their transportation systems. We have seen that one
of the elements of conservation is the manufacture of finished products
at or near the sources of supply of raw materials. It is this that
enables the people of a community to devote their energies chiefly to
those industries for which their locality is best suited and to exchange
their surplus production for commodities that can be produced more
advantageously in other localities. Transportation makes this
specialization of industries possible. Without efficient transportation
facilities each community would have to be, to a larger extent,
self-supporting, and many of its people would have to engage in the
production of commodities which, with our existing facilities for
transportation, they can buy more profitably elsewhere. The scale of
living would be much more restricted, and many things which are now
looked upon as being almost necessaries of life would either be
unattainable or would be luxuries which only the wealthy could enjoy.
I am glad of the opportunity, Mr President, to speak of the South and
for the South before this representative national assembly (applause).
Our section is a region of unsurpassed economic strength. Our climate
and our soils invite to diversified agriculture, in which there can be
produced profitably all the products of the temperate zone and many of
those of the tropics. Beneath our soil are stores of coal, iron and
other ores, marble and stone for the builder, and clay for the potter
and brickmaker. Our forests are sources of great present profit and,
under wise conservation, can be perpetuated as sources of wealth for
future generations. Our streams flowing from the wooded mountains of the
Appalachian region carry the force of millions of horsepower capable of
being utilized along their banks or carried in the shape of electrical
energy to wherever it can be used to best advantage. The intelligence,
energy, and enterprise of our people are attested by the splendid
social, agricultural, and industrial structure they have erected on the
ruins left by the Civil War. The progress that has been made is but the
promise of what will be. The South is a land of present-day opportunity,
and its people invite the man seeking an opportunity to work with hand
or brain, or the man with money to invest to come to this favored land
of busy factories and thriving towns--a land of fertile valleys,
forest-clad mountains, and storehouses of mineral wealth. (Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: You will no doubt gladly permit
interruption of the formal program for a few moments now and then by
reports of committees. Professor Condra, Chairman of the Credentials
Committee, is now ready to report.
Professor CONDRA--Mr President and Delegates: We have examined the
credentials of all Delegates to the Second National Conservation
Congress, and find that the duly accredited Delegates entitled to vote
in accordance with the Constitution of the Congress number thirteen
hundred fifty-one (1351), and that the number of duly accredited
Delegates from each State are as follows:
Alabama 1, Arizona 3, Arkansas 4, California 13, Colorado 7, Columbia
(District of) 10, Connecticut 5, Delaware 1, Florida 4, Georgia 6, Idaho
10, Illinois 67, Indiana 15, Iowa 78, Kansas 13, Kentucky 4, Louisiana
17, Maine 1, Maryland 8, Massachusetts 3, Michigan 19, Minnesota 631,
Mississippi 8, Missouri 25, Montana 20, Nebraska 22, New Hampshire 1,
New Jersey 4, New Mexico 1, New York 27, North Carolina 1, North Dakota
77, Ohio 17, Oklahoma 2, Oregon 15, Pennsylvania 16, Rhode Island 1,
South Carolina 3, South Dakota 53, Texas 12, Utah 2, Vermont 2, Virginia
3, Washington 26, West Virginia 5, Wisconsin 84, Wyoming 5; total, 1351.
Foreign: Canada 2, Mexico 1.
Respectfully submitted to the Congress:
[Signed] G. E. CONDRA, _Chairman_
LYNN R. MEEKINS
GEO. K. SMITH
EDWARD HINES
R. W. DOUGLAS
A DELEGATE--Mr Chairman: I move that the report be adopted and the
committee be dismissed.
The motion was put, and was carried without dissenting voice.
President BAKER--Professor Condra will report an action by the Committee
on Resolutions.
Professor CONDRA (_reading_)--A motion was made and carried by the
Resolutions Committee that resolutions presented to the Congress or to
the Committee cannot be received after 5 oclock p.m. Wednesday. All
resolutions should be headed with the subject of the resolution and
should be signed by the person offering same.
The Resolutions Committee has not yet received the names of the members
from Alabama, Delaware, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota and
Virginia; and the Committee urge that the Delegations from those States
act at once. The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 5 p.m.
today, Room 534, Saint Paul Hotel.
* * * * *
Mr GEORGE B. LOGAN (_Secretary of the Resolutions Committee_)--Mr
Chairman: The Resolutions Committee suggest that resolutions should be
grouped under the heads of Land, Water, Forests, Minerals, and Vital
Resources; and if those who submit resolutions will simply place the
proper heading on each, it will greatly aid the Committee.
President BAKER--Professor Condra will make another announcement.
Professor CONDRA--Ladies and Gentlemen: There is a strong demand for
practical consideration of Conservation problems in various States, and
for the purpose of discussing these subjects a meeting will be held this
evening at 8 oclock in the Saint Paul Hotel. All members of State
Conservation Commissions and State Conservation Associations are invited
to attend this meeting.
President BAKER--Here is another announcement just handed in: Technical
men in attendance are requested to meet in the lobby of the Saint Paul
Hotel on the adjournment of the morning session of this Congress. The
call includes civil, electrical, mining, mechanical and hydraulic
engineers, architects, educators in these sciences, and also geologists
and chemists.
Senator Beveridge, of Indiana, will now address us on a subject which
ought to be very near the heart of every father and mother--"The Young
Man's Idea." I have the pleasure of introducing Senator Beveridge.
[The band here played "The Star-Spangled Banner," while the audience
rose and greeted Senator Beveridge with tremendous applause.]
* * * * *
Senator BEVERIDGE--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: The United States
IS. (Applause) The American people are a Nation (applause)--not
forty-six Nations. (Applause)
In war we fight under one flag (applause) for our common safety; in
peace let us strive, under one flag, for our common welfare. (Applause)
Our history is the story of the struggle of the National sentiment of
all the people, which special interests for their selfish purposes
sought to discourage, against the provincial sentiment of some of the
people, which special interests for their selfish purposes sought to
encourage. (Applause)
The parent of the provincial idea in American Government was the British
crown. The British kings believed that if they could keep the colonists
separated by local pride, local prejudice, and local jealousy, the
British policy would be easier. They knew that if the colonists were
united by common interests, common sentiment, and a common purpose, the
British policy would be harder; and that British policy _was_ to permit
the special interests of the United Kingdom to exploit the people of the
divided colonies (applause). And so from King James to King George the
British crown sought to keep the people of the Colonies
divided--separated by geography for the convenience of the English
government; they sought to keep them separated in spirit for the
interests of the British manufacturers. Every British law which forced
the Revolution was a law to enable the special interests of the United
Kingdom to monopolize the markets of the people of the Colonies. Our
Revolution was nothing more than the war of the people, for the moment
united, against the special interests of the Colonies which had kept
them divided.
Now, such is the origin of the provincial idea in America. Washington
and his Continentals were the infant National idea in uniform, and
manning the shotted guns of liberty (applause). The British and their
Hessian and Tory allies were the full-grown provincial idea behind the
bayonets of oppression. Our first attempt at Government was a failure
because the British provincial idea still was powerful. The local pride,
prejudice, and jealousy of the separate Colonies reasserted itself,
after their common danger was past. The result was the Articles of
Confederation. Washington said that the Government thus formed was
contemptible, and yet it was the provincial idea carried to its logical
conclusion; and so it fell. The cruel necessities of the people forced
the reassertion of the National idea, and the Constitution of the United
States was that idea's immortal child (applause). The Articles of
Confederation said, We, the States, form a Government: the Constitution
says, We, the _People_, form this Government for our general welfare
(applause). And yet into this great "ordinance of our nationality," as
Chief Justice Marshall calls our Constitution, there crept defects which
the statesmen of that day could not prevent, defects which have caused
most of our trouble since, and nearly all of them are due to the
provincial idea. For example, few men remember that when the
Constitution was adopted, "State rights" was not mentioned in that
instrument. Washington had been elected President. The Congress of the
United States was in session. The National Government was under way. The
Tenth Amendment was adopted to quiet those who were preaching the
paradox that the general Government of the people would oppress the
people. Noisiest of these was Patrick Henry, then Governor of Virginia,
who refused to attend the Constitutional Convention, opposed the
ratification of our fundamental law, and was against its adoption. Upon
the embers of provincialism he heaped the inflammable brush-wood of
excited rhetoric. Being in the Constitution, the State rights provision
is as valid as any other amendment. But such is its origin and spirit,
and no misinterpretation of the provincial idea of State rights must be
permitted to impair the American people's general welfare, waste their
resources, plunge the Nation into war, or impede our general progress as
a people (applause). Now, as always, the danger has been, and is, not so
much that the Nation will interfere with the rights of the States as
that the States will interfere with the rights of the Nation. (Applause)
After our present Government was founded, its first conflict with the
British provincial idea was in the Whiskey Rebellion of Pennsylvania;
the special interests that dealt in rum, under the guise of State
sovereignty defied the Nation's laws; but George Washington put down
that first State rights rebellion in the name of the Government of all
the people (applause). Then came the special interests' defiance of the
laws of the General Government in Andrew Jackson's day, and Andrew
Jackson's voice, like the voice of Washington, was the voice of all the
people against the voice of the special interests who tried to exploit
the people. Next came the special interests that thrived on human
slavery, and, in the name of State rights tried to destroy the
Government they could not control. But again the National sentiment
responded to Abraham Lincoln's call to arms (great applause), and a
million bayonets wrote across our Constitution these words of the
American people's immortality: THIS IS A NATION! (Applause)
Then came the special interests that robbed and poisoned the people by
lotteries, that destroyed the morals of the people by obscene
literature. They flourished under State protection. Only the Nation
could stop them. Those special interests denied that the Nation had the
power to stop them. But the Nation _did_ stop them, and the Supreme
Court of the Nation upheld the Nation's power (applause). Then came the
special interests that sold to the people diseased meats, poisoned
foods, and adulterated drugs. Again they flourished under State
protection. Again the Nation only could protect the lives of the
Nation's people. And again those special interests denied that the
Nation had the power, but the Nation _exercised_ the power, and today
National laws protect the lives and rights of the American people from
special interests that were plundering and poisoning and killing them.
(Applause)
And it is the same conflict between the National and the provincial
idea, for and against the great, necessary, and inevitable reform of the
National control of corporate capitalization, on which so largely depend
just prices and rates to the people. (Applause)
These are examples of the evils; but nearly every step of progress we
have taken has been due to the success of the National idea. For
example, President Madison vetoed the first internal improvement bill.
He said, in one of the ablest messages ever written--far abler than the
diluted State rights doctrine we hear today--that the Constitution gave
the Nation no power to build roads, bridge rivers, improve harbors; but
the people needed these things in order to win that righteous prosperity
which only they can have acting as one people, under one flag--and so
Congress passed the internal improvement bill over Madison's veto, and
today no one dares question the Nation's power to make internal
improvements; the only question today is how we can best do that work.
(Applause)
Again, for a hundred years, the provincial idea kept the quarantine of
the Nation's ports exclusively in the hands of the States; but if
pestilence entered at a port of one State it attacked the people of
other States. The germs of yellow fever did not know State lines when
they saw them, any more than a forest fire knows the boundaries between
States when it sees them. And so the open grave, the dead on the street,
the people's past and future peril, asserted the National idea again for
the Nation's safety, and today we have substantially a National control
of National quarantine to keep pests and death from our shores, and the
States are cooperating.
So you see that the history of the American people has been merely the
narrative of the making of the Nation, merely the record of the
compounding of a people, merely the chronicle of the knitting together
of one great brotherhood. It is an inevitable process, and it is a safe
process--except for special interests that seek to exploit all the
people. For the American people can be trusted (applause). The combined
intelligence and composite conscience of the American people is the
mightiest force for wisdom and righteousness in all the world, and no
ancient and provincial interpretation of State rights in the name of
development must impede our general welfare (applause), no plea for
hasty local development must impair our healthy general development
(applause), no temporary State politics compelled by the wealthy few
must prevent permanent National statesmanship for the general good of
all. (Applause)
Affairs that concern exclusively the people living within a State are
the business and the problem of that State. Affairs affecting the
general welfare of the whole people are the business and problem of the
Nation (applause). And even in solving its own problems, every State
must remember that its people are an inseparable and indivisible part of
the whole American people (applause). Of States as of men it may be
written, No State liveth unto itself alone. (Applause)
Just as the idea of provincialism has caused most of our National evils
in the past, so it has wrought the waste of our National resources. The
provincial idea was that the National resources belonging to all the
people should be handed over for nothing to special interests. This was
done under the plea of encouraging individual enterprise and the
hastening of local development. And so forests, which once belonged to
all the people, have been ruthlessly slaughtered, and upon their ruins
have risen the empires of our lumber kings (applause). Priceless
deposits of coal and iron and copper and phosphates have been freely
surrendered to special interests, and those sources of the people's
revenue, which should have flowed into the people's treasury to help pay
the expenses of the people's government, have been diverted by the ditch
dug by the provincial idea into the treasury of special interests until
the multi-millionaire constitutes one of the gravest problems
confronting American statesmanship. (Applause)
All this waste and robbery of the people's property must be stopped!
(Applause) The hand of waste or theft must not be strengthened by any
legal technicality that plays into the hands of special interests and
out of the hands of the American people! (Great applause)
Had we kept all the property that belonged to all the people, and
compelled special interests who exploited it to pay us a reasonable
price for it, that income today would be paying most of our National
expenses. Our resources would have been developed and not exhausted, and
our whole material evolution would have been rational and sound instead
of unbalanced and defective. Had this been our policy from the start, we
would have enjoyed all the benefits from our natural resources, and our
children today would inherit colossal National wealth and small National
burdens instead of the special interests enjoying all the benefits of
the people's property and _their_ children inheriting colossal fortunes
and small private burdens. (Applause)
The Nation must keep and administer for the benefit of all the people
the property yet remaining to the people (applause). Every State should
help and not hinder the Nation, in doing this great duty (applause).
Every State should administer the public property within it, and
belonging to it, for the public good. Every municipality should keep and
administer the property belonging to it for the public good; and both
State and municipality should aid the Nation in keeping and
administering for the people the property that belongs to _all_ of them.
I want to give you an illustration, very concrete: Many of New York's
inconceivably vast fortunes have been expanded by corrupt councils
selling watercourses and other property for a mere song to private
owners. Had New York kept the property which belonged to the city,
instead of squandering it to already multi-millionaires, the city's debt
today would not be so vast--and her great private fortunes would not be
so vast either (applause). The people's taxes would have been less, and
the gigantic unearned incomes of the heirs of great wealth would have
been less (applause). And as between the two, the wiser policy have been
for the city to keep the property that belonged to all the people of the
city instead of selling it sometimes for an infamous price to private
owners whose vast wealth, accumulating by the work of the city itself,
has raised up in the midst of the American people one of the great
questions of the age.
Cooperation of municipality, State, and Nation, in keeping and
administering for the general good the property of all the people--this
is the policy of common sense and common honesty (applause). Strife and
dissension between municipality, State, and Nation, that the reign of
pillage may go on and that mighty accumulations of wealth may be
upbuilded upon the ruins of the people's resources--_that_ is the policy
of private avarice and private plunder (applause). Coal, timber,
asphalt, phosphates, water-powers--all the property of the people--must
be kept and administered for the people by the Government which Lincoln
said was "of the people by the people for the people" (applause).
Already this greatest of our present-day National policies is well under
way. Let any man beware how he retards or hinders it (applause). Already
we have saved much of the people's property still belonging to the
people. We must save _all_ of the people's property still belonging to
the people. (Applause and cries of "Good") "Honor to whom honor is due."
(Applause) Let us not forget, in this great hour, that the man who, by
thought, word, and deed, has wrought for this great reform, until today
he stands its National personification (applause), that splendid,
courageous, pure, unselfish young American, the President of the
National Conservation Association, Gifford Pinchot. (Tumultuous applause
and cheers, calls for "Pinchot"; and the audience rose, gave the
Chautauqua salute, and continued cheering for many minutes)
For years--and I speak from personal knowledge, because twelve years ago
when I entered the Senate I was made the chairman of the then despised
forestry committee--for years Gifford Pinchot has ceaselessly worked and
fearlessly fought to keep for the people the property of the people
which special interests were trying to steal from the people (applause).
And in that Nation-wide battle he has been the field-officer of the man
who _first_ succeeded in making Conservation a permanent and practical
policy of American statesmanship, Theodore Roosevelt. (Great applause. A
Voice: Let us vote to give him back his job!)
The soul of our prosperity--even of our very life--is in the idea of our
unity as a people. Let municipality, State, and Nation, each act and,
within its own province, work to keep what belongs to the people for the
people, instead of the municipality, State, and Nation, each within its
province, conniving at the waste of the people's property for the
upbuilding of the wealth of special interests to the detriment of all
the people. The wise, honest and economic administration of the people's
welfare means the just advantage which individual enterprise and thrift
as of right ought to have. The unwise, uneconomic and dishonest waste of
the people's resources for the enrichment of the special few, this in
the end, believe me, is the denial of that just advantage which
individual thrift, enterprise, and integrity as of right ought to have.
(Applause)
The young men of today in working for themselves individually must think
and act for what the Constitution calls "the general welfare" of the
whole people (applause). After all, only as the Nation is prosperous can
any State be really prosperous. After all, only as the Nation is
powerful can any State be really safe from foes, foreign and domestic.
The young men of the twentieth century in this Republic are not the
heirs of the provincial idea which we inherited from the British kings,
and which has so hindered our real progress as a people, squandered so
much of the people's resources, shed so much of the people's blood. No!
The young men of today are the heirs of all the advancement that our
struggling millions have made toward their common brotherhood. The young
men of today are the heirs of all the victories which heroes and
statesmen have won for the general welfare. The young men of today are
the heirs of all the unifying influences by which the genius of man has
knit this great people into one splendid family. And so the young
American of today, when thinking of himself, must think in the terms of
the Nation; through his veins must pulse the blood of our general
welfare; his every thought and act must be for the common good of all.
And only so can his individual success be well builded; and when it is
builded on such foundation, though "the rains descend and the floods
come and the winds blow" and beat upon a house thus builded "it shall
not fall, for it is founded upon a rock." (Applause)
Why was the American Nation founded? What is the purpose of this
Republic? It is to create a greater human happiness than the world has
ever known (applause). It is to enable millions of men and women to
cooperate in building clean, honorable, prosperous homes. And so let us
Americans move forward as brothers and as sisters until we shall give
the whole world an example of one great brotherhood in heart and in deed
as well as in words. (Great applause)
* * * * *
There were repeated calls for "Pinchot"; and Mr Pinchot, coming forward
amidst great cheers and hearty applause, said--
Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of this great meeting: There can be in a
man's life but few moments like this, in seeing policies in which he
believes and for which he has tried to work so splendidly acclaimed by
such a meeting, when at first they were questioned. I haven't anything
to say at this time except to thank you most profoundly, and to add that
the policies for which this Congress stands are sweeping the country as
they are sweeping this body--and that, so far as the United States is
concerned, Conservation, I believe, has won out. (Applause) I thank you!
* * * * *
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: We all know Conservation has,
with such a leader, won out. (Applause)
We now take up "A Rational System of Taxing National Resources," by
Frank L. McVey, President of the University of North Dakota, whom I have
the pleasure of introducing. (Applause)
* * * * *
President MCVEY--Mr Chairman and Good Friends: The invitation of the
President of the Congress to be present and to deliver an address on the
subject of a rational system of taxing natural resources, asked that
specific suggestions be made of a practical nature for the improvement
of our present laws on this subject. This places upon me a heavy
responsibility if the suggestions made are to be accepted in any
serious way. The title of the address assigned emphasizes a _rational_
system; it implies that the one now in vogue cannot be so designated,
and that any system of taxation has a close relation to the Conservation
of natural resources. This, if I may put it in so many words, is my
thesis.
It is unnecessary for me to go into the need of Conservation, since that
has been done in the previous Congress and at various times in the
public prints. The question then to which I must devote the time of the
program assigned to me is this: How does taxation affect the
Conservation of natural resources, and what suggestions of a practical
nature can be made for the betterment of the taxation of such resources?
It may be said in the beginning that the difficulties involved in the
taxing of natural resources exist to still greater degree in the case of
other property. Generally speaking, we have not attained to a rational
system of taxation in any field, and we are now attempting to revamp the
old system and extend it, by adding to or taking from it. Economic
conditions in America have changed from time to time, and these changes
have forced upon us a reorganization of our methods, not only of
manufacture and of transportation, but also of administration,
government, and social organization. Such a condition of affairs is seen
today in nearly every State, and attempts are being made to meet it in
the specific instance of the fiscal problem by adding to the old system
of taxation through the special taxation of corporations, inheritances,
royalties, and incomes. The consequence is that so far as natural
resources are concerned we have no principle existent in the general
scheme of taxation that can be used to meet the new conditions that have
arisen in our efforts to conserve our resources. Just as the problems of
industrial organization have come upon the States, so now has come the
problem of our natural resources. In hazy thinking, and sometimes in
indefinite laws, we have attempted to regulate through legislation the
great corporations of the present day; and in much the same manner we
shall, by feeling our way, attempt to develop some plan of taxing
natural resources.
Sometimes in discussing this question of the taxation of natural
resources a great deal of emphasis is placed on the statement that it is
the cause of the depletion of timber and mineral lands especially. I
think it may be said at the outset that the taxation of natural
resources is only one of many factors in the destruction of them. The
extent to which this takes place is impossible to say, but the fact
remains that the taxation of natural resources may or may not hasten the
destruction of forest lands, the exploitation of minerals, and the
cultivation of the soil. Where lands bearing timber are owned, interest
charges with each year of ownership are piled up, and the same is true
of the taxes. Where, on the other hand, lands are held through a royalty
contract, the lessee is in a position to carry the lands without
special cost to himself except that of the taxes. The consequence is
that it is impossible to apply the same principle of taxation to
agricultural lands, timber lands, minerals, and water-powers. There must
be a differentiation between them, and a differentiation that will
clearly meet the various uses to which they are put.
Without question, the general property tax, as it now stands upon the
statute books of the different States, does not meet in any true sense
of the term the general economic conditions, and the special needs of
mining and lumbering in particular. The principle of taxing the product
when it is placed upon the market applies particularly to mineral and
timber lands, but the same principle in the case of agricultural lands
would probably deter their use and fail to meet the needs of revenue as
well as working to the discouragement of the agricultural industry. The
single-taxers have insisted that the taxation of lands hastens its use,
that it forces the owner to develop it; and this is just the thing that
is needed in the special instances of agricultural lands and of town
lots, but the same principle could not be applied to the other resources
of the Nation.
It is possible for the owners of timber lands by following the
principles of forestry to modify the product and to keep the land in
producing condition indefinitely. Taxation of such land, therefore,
should have in view the maintenance of this condition. It must be
clearly understood, however, that the fear of fire, interest charges on
investment, and the cost of management will act quite as surely toward
the rapid destruction of forests as will taxation. These conditions must
also be recognized by the State in the establishment of a fire warden
system, and the encouragement of forestation through some plan of
bonuses. Where forestation is not practiced, the taxation of timber
products under present conditions, whether on stumpage or in transit to
the saw-mills, is a serious problem--serious to the local governments
because under existing laws logs in transit are taxable where they are
owned, and serious to the owners of the timber lands because the fixed
charges on their property increase each day without any income from
them. As near as can be ascertained, the annual taxes on timber vary
from one cent per thousand feet to fifty cents per thousand feet, with
an average tax of somewhere in the neighborhood of fifteen cents per
thousand feet. Interest charges are probably about twenty-three cents,
making a total annual cost of something like thirty-eight cents per
thousand feet. In ten years time the tax on each thousand feet of
standing timber will amount to $1.50, which compounded with interest
makes a total of $2.37. When added to the other charges it is probably
true that the owner of timber under modern conditions must have at least
$13.02 per thousand feet on his logs delivered at the mill if he is to
come out even at the end of ten years with a profit of six percent.
The suggestions which have been made from time to time regarding the
taxation of timber have as their fundamental principle the separation of
the value of the land from the value of the timber. This plan meets the
criticism of the local assessing officers by providing a basis of taxing
annually a part of the valuation, and of procuring some income for the
local government. If it is understood then that the land may be taxed
annually and the timber product when it is cut, we have under this plan
a simple scheme of taxation which will unquestionably meet the
difficulty that is now urged against the general property assessment of
timber lands. Under the old plan of valueing annually the property, it
was difficult to secure an appraisement that was satisfactory to
anybody; and, what was more, as the years went by the local governments
found their assessed values decreasing and the burden of government
materially increasing with the decline in amount of standing timber. The
annual taxation of the land on which the timber stands meets this
difficulty, while the taxation of the product at the time of harvesting
provides a plan that is fair both to the local government and to the
owner of timber.
On the other hand, the taxation of mineral properties differs from the
taxation of timber lands in that it is not possible for the owner to
increase by any plan of Conservation the amount of tonnage that he has
in his possession. The Conservation which he might practice is the
simple Conservation of saving for a future time. From the point of view
of the State the problem is largely one of getting a share of the value
of the minerals in the ground. The method that has been generally
followed is that of making an appraisement of the mineral lands, which
might be very far from or very near the truth. The same principle which
is applied in the case of the timber lands, namely, the taxation of the
product, should be applied to the taxation of mineral properties. There
is no question that the easiest way, and the most satisfactory and
acceptable way to all concerned, is a tonnage tax, varying possibly with
the character of the ore and the cost of mining, but always depending
for the rate and the amount on the ore that has been mined. It will
probably be argued, as it has in other instances, that the local
governments are compelled to rely largely for their support upon the
taxes paid by the owners of mineral properties, and consequently a
tonnage tax would deprive them of the regularity of their income. There
is much to be considered in this point; but the taxation of the surface
on some such basis as that seen in the case of the timber tax would
provide a regular income, which would be supplemented by the amount of
the tonnage taxes.
The rate of the tonnage tax would not, as in the case of the
appraisement of a general property tax, tend to hasten the utilization
of the ore. That would be determined entirely by the demand for it in
the fields of manufacture. The real essence of the tonnage tax lies in
the fact that value found in the ground is distinctly a product of
nature, which an _ad valorem_ tax cannot recognize, and in consequence
the State's right to a share of the value of the earth's products,
together with the diminishing value element involved, are overlooked.
The protection of the local government, and often of the mineral owner,
demands a combination of the tonnage tax and of the local land tax.
When we come to the taxation of water-power we are face to face with a
problem that involves even more difficulties than are found in the case
of the timber and mineral lands. The thing here involved is so elusive,
so difficult of measurement, and requires such expensive administration,
that it is quite conceivable that many years must elapse before an
adequate plan for such taxation can be developed. A water-power,
however, is perpetual, and in this particular it differs from timber and
mineral properties, and is more akin to farm lands. It differs from the
latter, however, in this particular, that the work once done in
harnessing it is done once for all, and the annual labor expended upon
it is not exhausted, as in the case of the farm. Nature, having been
harnessed, is able to accomplish the work for which she is called upon.
The first step in any adequate system of taxing water-powers must be
their survey. This means listing, locating, and measuring. It means,
too, that the Legislature should assume at the beginning all
water-powers belonging to the State, and that the acquirement of them
must be through lease, as in the case of mineral lands in the State of
Minnesota, for example. Several plans have been suggested for the
taxation of water-power. One is the measurement of the water flowing
over a dam, and another is the taxation of the actual horsepower
developed. The latter plan is subject to many criticisms. The
development of horsepower depends so largely on the skill of the
engineer, on the capital invested, and on the way the water is handled,
that it would be far better to measure the capacity of the dam under
proper engineering authority and determine a fair rate for the amount of
power produced by the water passing over the dam. Of necessity many
refinements of this plan would be required; such as the determination of
the movement of the stream, the height of the water, the difficulties of
harnessing the power; but it is possible, by taking into consideration
the general expense of operating a water-power plant, to work out a rate
which would be fair to the users as well as to the State. In no instance
of Conservation does a greater need of proper taxation appear than in
the case of water-power. Nature provides a perpetual force with but
little expense after the necessary fundamentals have been arranged, and
for the State to receive no compensation of any kind for the utilization
of such a great wealth-producer is to bring into existence the greatest
possible factor of injustice in the matter of taxation.
It will therefore be seen that a rational taxation of natural resources
does not depend on any very great and intricate principle, but that, on
the other hand, the principles involved are comparatively simple. It
must be clearly understood as well that the taxation of land for
agricultural purposes, for minerals, for timber, or for water-power,
must differ in many respects, and that a principle of taxation applied
in one case may not work out in the other. But if we keep clearly in
mind the purposes for which land can be utilized, and that the
fundamental taxation of land as such can be made annually, and that of
the product at the time of its harvesting, we have in the three
instances of agricultural, mineral, and timber lands a principle that
may prove satisfactory when put in the form of legislation. The same
idea can be applied to the water-power site; taxation of the land at a
nominal assessment and of the water-power on the basis of the amount of
water passing over the dam gives us again a principle upon which can be
based satisfactory legislation.
It must be remembered, however, that all legislation is compromise in
character, and that the recognition of these principles has usually been
set aside when it came to the question of legislation. The States have
reached a point in the raising of revenue where not only more revenue is
needed for the purposes of general social advancement, but where better
administration is as essential and necessary as the other.
Administration bureaus must be provided in all of the States to furnish
the necessary data, if we are to reach some practical basis of
conserving our resources through taxation. And tax commissions must be
given ample authority, and in addition must have plenty of expert advice
and assistance which will give it the necessary endorsement. To my mind,
a rational system of taxing natural resources depends largely on
administration based upon a few fundamental principles of legislation.
It is comparatively not a difficult matter; it is largely a question of
willingness to meet the problem; but if the experience of the past has
any light to throw upon this subject, it is very clear indeed that
legislation will be slow, and that the different interests involved,
through fear of some possible advantage likely to be gained over them,
will cling to the old system until it is almost too late to produce any
results through adequate taxation.
It is my hope that a Congress like this may have some power and some
influence in setting aside this attitude, but I fear that an adequate
system of taxation will move very slowly when it comes to its
formulation in legislation. This is not encouraging, but it is truth;
and that after all is what we are really trying to get at without
confusing the issue by arguments favoring present attitudes either of
the State or of owners of natural resources. Big views will help solve
the problems, little and narrow ones never. (Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--Mr J. B. White, Chairman of our Executive Committee,
will discuss the question of taxation, especially in relation to
woodlands. (Applause)
Chairman WHITE--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: We have listened to
a great paper upon this subject of taxation. It is a subject difficult
to analyze and very difficult to apply, because each section of the
country requires a different form of taxation; each State has different
views, and each should apply the remedy according to the local
conditions.
I speak as a representative lumberman, and as Chairman of the
Conservation Committee of the Lumber Manufacturers of the United States.
Now, the lumbermen have asked for nothing in regard to taxation
excepting what they have incorporated in a resolution, part of the
preamble to which I read:
Whereas, there is a great and growing need for uniform laws
among the States in the interest of forest growth,
conservation, and protection from forest fires, and for an
equitable and helpful system of taxation which will make
possible the conservative handling of standing timber.
That is the declaration of the preamble. It asks simply a uniform system
of taxation.
I want to say a word for our fathers and grandfathers who have been
called the ruthless destroyers of the forests, and I want to say in
their behalf that they committed no sin which shall be visited upon
their children or their children's children (applause). They cut the
forests to make homes for the people; they cut the forests to build our
cities and our towns; they sold all they could, they saved all they
could, they committed no waste; and it should not be imputed to them
that there is a penalty to be paid by their children or their children's
children upon the forests that now stand. (Applause)
Taxation is regarded everywhere as a part of the cost of a commodity.
Every person that buys a foot of lumber, every person that buys a yard
of cloth, every person that buys a suit of clothes, or groceries, or
anything that is manufactured, is the one who pays the taxes (applause).
We are all consumers. We pay each other's taxes, and there is no way of
avoiding taxation. It is said that death and taxation are sure. There is
no way of avoiding either. The consumer must pay the tax because it is
part of the cost.
Now, in regard to the system of taxation; every Nation has its own form.
When it is necessary to encourage the growth or manufacture of a
product, the States of the world have some way of encouraging it by
relief from taxation. Germany has a law putting a duty on American wheat
in order that every nook and corner of the waste land of Germany may be
made to grow wheat. Now, that is a tax. The people of Germany pay that
tax, but it encourages the farmer to grow wheat. And in our own country,
when it is necessary to encourage the farmer in the beet-sugar, or any
related industry, the Government gives a bounty, and people pay it, and
the money is kept at home instead of going abroad for the product. So in
timber taxation, it would seem to me that the reasonable way is to tax
it as it is cut--let the tax follow the saw. Of course every State will
apply the remedy according to local conditions. Louisiana has applied
the remedy. She has passed some very good laws, and we are going to hear
from the representatives of that State, before this Congress adjourns.
We want to consider these things.
There are now so many substitutes for lumber that there will be
inducements to let trees stand if they are not overtaxed. A tree must
have a hundred years' growth before it can be utilized in the shape of
clear lumber in the upper grades. If you tax the tree every year, you
are putting one hundred years' taxes upon the timber. We must be
reasonable about these things if we would encourage the growing of
trees. Any other commodity in the United States pays a tax annually upon
the crop, but here, in growing timber, we are paying for a hundred years
where we should only pay for one. (Applause)
Some States will not grow trees. Illinois will not grow trees. It would
prefer to grow corn. Its land is too rich to grow timber, and the people
will grow corn and exchange it for the product of other States which are
better adapted to tree-growing and not so well adapted to agriculture.
The lands west of the Cascade Range are well adapted to tree-growing on
account of the great rainfall, and not so well adapted for other uses. A
tree will grow there in forty years to as great a size as it will in
eighty years on this side of the Cascade Range. In short, trees will be
grown where it pays to grow them, where they are encouraged to be grown,
where the people want them grown. We cannot grow trees on sentiment;
tree-growing will have to pay; it will have to stand upon a commercial
basis. The Government cannot grow trees without its costing something to
grow them. Conservation has been wrongly understood.
The great leader of American forestry, Gifford Pinchot, is in favor of
development (applause). He said in his speech at Seattle a year ago that
there could be greater waste by non-development and by non-use than
there had been by the wastefulness of the past. That is true. By
non-development and non-use we commit sometimes more waste than we did
in the past, for we could not waste when things were not worth anything;
a thing that isn't worth saving and whose by-product cannot be utilized
is not wasted even if it goes to the burning ground or lies in the
woods. (Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: You will all be glad to hear from
the greatest, grandest, noblest work of God, our good women. I have the
pleasure of introducing Mrs George O. Welch, of Fergus Falls,
representing the General Federation of Women's Clubs. (Applause).
* * * * *
Mrs WELCH--Mr President, Delegates to the Second National Conservation
Congress, Ladies and Gentlemen: In the preparations for this great
Congress, there seems to have been no possible item omitted which could
in any way contribute to the pleasure or edification of visitors, save
in two particulars; and with these the management had nothing to do. The
first is the unavoidable absence of the President of the General
Federation of Women's Clubs, Mrs Philip N. Moore, resulting from the
accident which befell her in Cincinnati last May, from which she has not
fully recovered. The second is due to those two elements which have for
years uncounted interfered with man's proposals--time and tide. It is
because time must be consumed in crossing the Atlantic and tide reckoned
with on the voyage that Mrs Emmons Crocker, of Boston, is not able to be
present to speak on "Woman's Influence in National Questions." Her
absence is indeed to be regretted, since influence is today women's best
asset.
Because of these two regrettable occurrences a great honor and pleasure
has fallen upon me. I am proud to be the bearer of greetings to the
Second National Conservation Congress from the General Federation of
Women's Clubs, an organization 800,000 strong, that may justly claim
kinship with this body, since its watch words for years have been
Conservation and Service, which are the impulse and purpose of this
great Congress.
The inception of the General Federation of Women's Clubs was due to the
recognition of the necessity of conserving the energy and strength
wastefully expended by scattered clubs remote from each other, which
concentrated, might make a tremendous influence for the development of
good fellowship and good citizenship. That the General Federation has
become of great force I think you will admit, since its President was
invited to be one of that first notable Conference called by the
President of the United States in 1908 to consider the problems which
this Congress is hoping to solve. She was the only woman invited to that
Conference of Governors, and it is not vain pride which prompts the
mention of the great honor thus conferred upon the General
Federation--it is rather an humble sort of pride, since recognition of
the work which Women's Clubs are doing carries with it an obligation to
greater effort and greater achievement.
The General Federation of Women's Clubs has long been teaching the
necessity of Conservation, not only of the natural resources on which
the material prosperity of this country depends, but of that vital force
which means public health and all that goes with it; of that
intellectual force which means education; and of that spiritual force
which makes for higher ideals, wider sympathies, and fuller appreciation
of our responsibility for the welfare of our fellow-beings.
In the matter of the Conservation of natural resources, the one which
claimed our earliest attention was that of forestry. As far back as
1900 the forestry committee in the General Federation served to bring
into mutual recognition and helpfulness the efforts of all the clubs
engaged in the work for the protection of forests; and I was proud of
the praise given us yesterday by our most distinguished visitor for
Minnesota's successful efforts to preserve a large acreage of white pine
timber as a National forest reserve. It was a fine and inspiring example
to other States engaged in a warfare against the devastating hand of
commercialism (applause). And it is another matter of pride that for
four years the chairman of the forestry committee of the General
Federation was a Minnesota woman, Mrs Lydia Phillips Williams
(applause), whose life was devoted to the promulgation of forestry
education, and to whose untiring efforts very much of the splendid work
done for forestry by Women's Clubs is attributable.
Perhaps the most signal of the triumphs won by the Women's Clubs in the
line of forestry was the saving of the big trees of California, after a
fight lasting nine years (applause). Those were years of great stress
for the women, but we are willing to fight nine years more if need be
for the right sort of protection to the forests in the White Mountains
and Appalachian ranges (applause). Today we are fighting not alone for
the trees that are standing, but for the reforestation of devastated
lands and for a stay of the wanton waste of forest products. At our
recent biennial convention a whole session was devoted to this phase of
the work, showing that our interest is practical as well as sentimental.
Since the conserving of forests and the conserving of water supplies are
interdependent, the General Federation of Women's Clubs through its
committee on waterways is disseminating information, creating interest,
and urging legislation for the further protection of these resources.
But the Conservation of natural resources, important as it is, is not
the work which represents our heart interest, which appeals to our
highest nature; it is not the thing for which we make our greatest
effort. It is the problems of life, those affecting the home, society,
our children, to which we give our most earnest endeavor. There never
was a convention of Women's Clubs anywhere that did not in some way
stress the Conservation of the home, the family, the school, as our
greatest need; and it is because we are aware of the grave dangers
threatening them, dangers born of our times and fostered by our rapid
material growth, that we are endeavoring through organization and
concentration of forces to turn the tide into safer channels.
The child has always been the central figure in our deliberations, the
one for whom our hardest battles have been fought. The General
Federation, through its committees on health, education, and household
economy, is carrying on a campaign of education which will give to all
children greater opportunity for normal, helpful, happy development. To
the child himself, through its department of civics, the Federation is
teaching his duty to society and his responsibility to the future.
Through its committee on industrial and social conditions it is trying
to secure for him safety and efficiency in the great industrial
struggle; to protect him against the forces that are pushing him,
imperfectly prepared, into the great maelstrom of the workaday world,
wasting his young life, minimizing his chances for happiness and
usefulness. As long ago as the Los Angeles convention in 1902, Jane
Addams, our greatest American woman (applause), pleaded for the
protection of the child against the awful economic waste of child labor
(applause). She told of little lives by scores and hundreds yearly
sacrificed to the god of greed: of conditions in some of the industrial
pursuits where for want of a few dollars expended in safety devices,
many children were yearly killed outright, or maimed for life. She so
touched the hearts of her hearers that a committee on child labor was
there created, whose province it was to discover if possible a remedy
for these crying evils; at any rate to inform the public of their
existence.
Women have worked long and earnestly to ameliorate these conditions, but
they must depend on the mutual action of earnest, interested men, such
as are sitting in this Congress today, for the enactment and enforcement
of the laws necessary to improve a state of things which women have only
the power to point out. In the particular case of child labor there can
be no accusation of exaggeration or hysteria, since from so unemotional
a source as the Federal Government we learn that its recent
investigation of child labor shows need of a strenuous and continued
effort for the conservation of child life. In the cotton textile
industry alone, and along the line of age-limit and illiteracy alone,
its statistics show that in a group of States having no age limit for
child laborers, there are over 10 percent of female workers under
fourteen years of age, and that in those same States over 50 percent of
the children of both sexes so employed are unable to read or write. What
worth have forests or mines or any material wealth, gained at the
sacrifice of so much vital force?
For the welfare of women and girls, as well as for children, the General
Federation is working with all its energy and strength. For moral and
social as well as industrial protection it begs cooperation. Against the
black plague as well as the white plague it is waging its warfare. For
better housing in cities, for improved conditions in rural and remote
communities, it is using all its power. What conservation and
concentration of effort can do it is trying to accomplish, but it must
as yet find its work constantly hampered and hindered by its inability
to press to their ultimate accomplishment things which only legislation
can effect. A club woman has wisely said that as conditions are today it
is the women who suggest and initiate, the men who adopt and complete.
This is true; for, after all, women can only point the way.
The Ex-President of the United States told us yesterday that it was a
great wrong to allow any body of people to monopolize any good thing.
There is, however, an exception to this rule, which I am sure our
honored First Citizen would concede to us: Women have long had a
monopoly on influence; it has been the one thing accounted their own
particular weapon in social warfare (applause). And so I appeal to the
men in this audience to yield themselves to that women's weapon when
next the General Federation of Women's Clubs or any individual members
of the Federation asks them for the enactment of laws which shall tend
to the Conservation of the vital forces represented in the mothers of
the race and the children who are to be the country's future citizens.
The General Federation is, after all, just one more organization trying
to make this land a better place to live in, and its people better
fitted to live in this better land. (Applause).
* * * * *
President BAKER--The next lady I wish to present represents an
association that has done much; Mrs Hoyle Tomkies, of Shreveport,
President of the Women's National Rivers and Harbors Congress.
* * * * *
Mrs HOYLE TOMKIES--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: Greetings to this
Second National Conservation Congress from the Women's National Rivers
and Harbors Congress, organized June, 1908, and having officers in
thirty-eight States and Territorial possessions.
This organization has for its object the development of the meritorious
rivers and harbors, the preservation of the forests, and the
Conservation of all the natural resources of the Nation. It stands for
the establishment by the Federal Government of a definite waterway
policy for the improvement of all approved rivers and harbors of the
entire country, and also for the adoption of such a policy as will
secure not only forest reserves but general forest development. The
Congress believes that the development of the waterways of the Nation
increases and conserves the people's wealth, _first_, directly, by
securing the cheapest mode of transportation; _second_, indirectly, by
lowering the cost of transportation by rail; and _third_, by encouraging
production. The platform as adopted immediately after organization
stated a belief in the need for the Conservation of all the natural
resources of the Nation because of the interdependence which
necessitated the development of each.
The membership of our Congress is composed of individuals and clubs,
representing almost thirty thousand men and women, the latter largely
predominating. The work of the Congress, conducted through the
Departments of Education and Publicity, is directed by a board of
directors representing thirty-nine States and Territories. Voluntarily
these women are giving their time, finding in the joy of service for the
cause ample recompense.
In the educational campaign, the Congress has culled from the best
authorities the strongest arguments and convincing statistics, and has
had these printed and circulated in many thousands of copies throughout
the length and breadth of the land. In 1908 this Congress secured the
cooperation of the General Federation of Women's Clubs for the promotion
of waterway development.
Since organization the Congress has worked incessantly for the passage
of Rivers and Harbors bills, and individually for State projects for
waterway development. It has worked for the Week's Bill, and for general
National and State development. It urged upon Congress the passage of
the bill for the preservation of Niagara Falls in the spring of 1909.
In its educational campaign it has covered the entire question of
Conservation, and also urged the non-pollution and the beautification of
the streams of our country. It has secured and arranged for large
audiences in critical or indifferent centers, for experts to advocate
the cause, and it has had speakers at all important public gatherings
possible. It has organized Conservation clubs, and secured the addition
of Conservation committees in various organizations. It has offered
prizes, securing the writing of many thousands of essays by school
children upon waterway and forest development. The various State
vice-presidents have issued State circular letters, showing how their
States were concerned in the cause we represent.
The plan of the Congress to supplement or substitute Arbor Day with
Conservation Day met with the hearty approval of the United States
Department of Agriculture and the cooperation of many educators, and has
been successfully carried out in many States. The resolution of the
Congress asking that the principles of Conservation of natural resources
be taught in the school and summer normals, has been presented to every
State represented in the Congress, Louisiana being the first to
immediately pass the resolution unanimously at its State Conference of
High School Superintendents, representing forty thousand pupils, and at
its State Teachers' Association; Kentucky being a close second, with
every encouragement from other States. (Applause)
The same resolution was presented to the National Educational
Association in convention at Boston, July 5-9, 1910. Of this resolution,
Honorable Elmer Ellsworth Brown, United States Commissioner of
Education, to whom we later had the pleasure of listening, wrote in
reply to me a pleasant letter in which he enclosed the following copy of
his letter to Dr Irwin Shepard, Secretary of the National Educational
Association:
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
BUREAU OF EDUCATION
WASHINGTON
DOCTOR IRWIN SHEPARD,
Secretary National Educational Association,
Westminster Hotel,
Boston, Mass.
MY DEAR DOCTOR SHEPARD: The preamble and resolution enclosed
herewith have been sent to me by the Woman's National Rivers
and Harbors Congress, Mrs Hoyle Tomkies, of Shreveport,
Louisiana, as President National Educational Association at its
Boston meeting. Following our ordinary course in such matters,
may I ask you to lay this matter before the committee on
resolutions.
You are aware of the conservative position which I take as
regards proposals for the incorporation of new studies in our
school curriculum, and also as regards the turning aside of our
school instructions from the aims of general education to the
propaganda of any special cause. The organization presenting
this resolution, however, disclaim any intention of introducing
a separate new study in the course. The subject which they
propose, however, is one so intimately bound up with the
geographical conditions and the past history of this country,
as well as with our prospect for the future, that it seems to
me very desirable that the attention of teachers should be
called to it, and that they should be led to see its relation
to any proper and adequate treatment of a knowledge of our
country. I should think it very desirable, accordingly, that
something of this kind be introduced into the platform of the
Association of this year, with such adaptation of form and
phraseology as the common practice of the Association would
suggest.
I am, believe me,
Very truly yours,
[Signed] ELMER ELLSWORTH BROWN, _Commissioner_.
As to the action of the National Educational Association regarding the
resolution, Dr Shepard wrote to me in part as follows: "I sincerely
regret that you were not duly informed earlier of the action, or rather
the non-action, of the Committee on Resolutions. I cannot explain their
action in this matter. They had a large number of subjects to consider,
and the omission of a declaration upon any subject is not to be
considered as a judgment against such a declaration, but simply that the
Committee did not find it practicable, for reasons satisfactory to them,
to include it in the declarations which they offered. Incidentally I may
suggest to you the present uncertainty regarding what is meant by
Conservation and the wisest policies to be adopted may have led them to
defer action in this matter. Let me assure you that we are all deeply
interested in Conservation, and believe that it can be profitably
brought into the work of the public schools, but many are still
uncertain as to the form of such work and the methods by which it can be
most profitably introduced into the public school curriculum."
Members of this Congress, there is in this non-action a suggestion
potent to us. This indecision, this lack of harmony, should speedily as
possible be changed into a definite, harmonious union of Conservation
policies (applause). This fall a printed catechism of questions on
Conservation adapted to the various grades will become a part of the
curriculum of the public schools of Kentucky, and will be tried in
various other States.
Delegates have been sent by the Women's National Rivers and Harbors
Congress to all important conventions of kindred interests. Since
organization it has had representative speakers on the platform of many
of the most important conventions. The Congress has furnished lecturers
to schools and to various clubs of men and women, and also to the
churches, in which latter the subject of "Conservation of Natural
Resources from the Moral Standpoint" has proved an appropriate and
impressive theme.
In December, 1909, the Congress endorsed the disinterested and patriotic
policy of Honorable Gifford Pinchot as Chief Forester of the United
States. (Applause)
This report cannot satisfactorily be closed without mention of the loyal
and very enthusiastic support of Conservation being given us by our
Hawaiian members, who number several hundred, and who began immediately
to put belief into practice. Our State vice president there, Mrs A. F.
Knudson, came all the way to Washington to attend our last convention.
These are the general activities of the organization. It would be
impossible for me to go into the State activities at this time.
Sufficient to say that the message is being given at the fireside, from
the platform, in the schools, through the press, all with the idea of
perpetuating this Nation--won by the blood of our forefathers--and
handing it down in all the glory of its wealth and beauty to future
generations. (Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--It is a pleasure to present Mrs G. B. Sneath, of
Tiffin, Ohio.
* * * * *
Mrs SNEATH--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: After hearing the
general purpose for which the women of the General Federation of Women's
Clubs have been working, it may seem needless for me to tell what one
definite part of this great body is endeavoring to accomplish. I
represent Mrs J. D. Wilkinson, Chairman of the Waterways Committee of
the General Federation, which is a part of the great Conservation
Committee of the Federation, comprising almost 800,000 women in its
organization.
Our work is entirely educational. We go into all the schools where we
can possibly gain access, and strive to get the matter of preservation
of inland waterways taught in the schools as among the great
Conservation problems. We have heard from experts all that is being
done, all that they are trying to do, all that they are trying to
remedy; and we feel that we, as women, have one chief and great duty to
perform. You have heard how women strive to conserve the lives of
children, to make them strong mentally, morally and physically. Yet this
is not all; the one great problem before the American people today is
that of pure food and pure water (applause); and we, as women, must
strive in the communities in which we live and the States of which we
are a part--and the Nation must come to our aid--to rescue and prevent
from contamination the life-giving streams of this country, streams that
were given for the benefit of mankind but which man has turned into
drainage canals and cesspools. We must have help; we must have it
through State Legislatures, we must have it through the Federal
Government, else we cannot conserve the lives of those that are dear to
us. If a visitor from another land were to say to us, "Your children are
being poisoned by their own parents," we would hesitate to believe it;
but our children _are_ being poisoned--not by criminal intent but by the
carelessness of the municipalities in which we live (applause). So I
leave with you this one thought: If we accomplish nothing else, if we
leave to the men the questions of transportation and navigation and the
great problems of irrigation and of water-power, let us work for the
purity of our rivers and streams and lakes and inland waterways.[1]
(Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--The Proceedings of this Congress are to be published
through the kindness of a gentleman in Saint Paul who has guaranteed to
have it printed, and all these addresses will go in.
We will now hear from Mrs Jay Cooke Howard, of Duluth.
* * * * *
Mrs HOWARD--Mr President, Ladies and Gentleman: I will keep you only a
minute, because you look hungry, and I'm hungry myself. I will simply
file my report and tell you briefly what the Daughters of the American
Revolution are doing for Conservation.
The D. A. R., being a patriotic society, believe that all their work is
in the spirit of true Conservation; but we have a special National
Committee, with a member or members from each State. I represent the
chairman, Mrs Belle Merrill Draper, because I am the member for
Minnesota. Mrs Draper wrote last fall to all the Governors, asking each
what we could do to help the cause of Conservation in his State. When
the answers came we went to work, chiefly in three ways: First, in our
own meetings, in which we worked up enthusiasm. Second, in the press;
the papers in the larger cities have much Conservation matter, but in
smaller cities and towns this is not always the case, and you from such
places will never know how much about Conservation that you have
read--or skipped--was inspired by the D. A. R. Our third branch of work,
and the most important one, is with the children. I notice that most of
the Governors, whose interesting letters are contained in the report I
am filing, preferred to have us turn our attention to the children
rather than to the men (laughter). Governor Eberhart's courteous letter
mentioned them, and the forests, especially. We have worked through the
schools, and also in our own homes. May I tell my own experience?
[Voices: "Go on, Go on!"] I felt very proud when my little boy, who had
saved eleven cents and did not know what to do with it all, finally
said, "Mother, I will give it to the baby; put it in his bank; it will
teach him to save." But straws in the family show which way the wind
blows in the Nation. Listen to what happened: I provided savings banks,
the children conserved their resources, saved their wealth and then
somebody came and stole the banks! (Laughter and cries of "Good!")
* * * * *
President BAKER--The Congress stands adjourned until 2 oclock.
_SIXTH SESSION_
The Congress reconvened in the Auditorium, Saint Paul, at 2 p.m.
September 7, President Baker in the chair.
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: I have the honor of asking
Senator Moses E. Clapp, of Minnesota, to preside this afternoon, and to
him I now yield the chair. (Applause)
Senator CLAPP--Ladies and Gentlemen: During the course of this Congress
much has been said concerning the fact that Conservation applies not
only to the material resources of a Nation, but to its productiveness
and to its energies; and among those things to which it must under that
classification apply is the Conservation of time. Now, I am going to
give you a practical illustration of how a loyal adherent can carry out
the Conservation of time by omitting a speech, and proceeding at once to
the business of the afternoon. (Laughter)
The first entry in the program for this afternoon is an address, "Making
Our People Count," by Dr Edwin Boone Craighead, President of Tulane
University, whom I take great pleasure in introducing. (Applause)
* * * * *
President CRAIGHEAD--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: In this Republic
there is one thing supremely great and sacred, greater than the great
Republican party, the party of Lincoln and Grant, greater than the great
Democratic party, the party of Jefferson and Jackson, more precious than
the Conservation of our natural resources, more sacred than the Supreme
Court, or even the Constitution itself--I mean the great American people
(applause). To make this people count, not only in the Conservation of
our natural resources but also in the enlargement and enrichment of
their own lives, is the fundamental, the paramount, problem of this
Republic; for ours, it must not be forgotten, is not only a Government
of the people and by the people, but also preeminently a Government
_for_ the people.
The Founders of this Republic were not only scholars and thinkers, but
seers and prophets. With profound knowledge of the despotisms that for
five thousand years had crushed and enslaved the greatest and sublimest
thing on this earth, the individual man, the Fathers of the Republic
laid broad and deep its foundations upon an everlasting rock--the
inalienable, the ineradicable, the eternal right of man to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They builded for all time and
for all generation of men. (Applause)
The individual man, the individual woman, is by far the greatest and
sublimest creation of God that we know of--far greater and grander than
any or all the institutions of society. These institutions are the works
of the hands of man, they exist for him, and their only reason for being
is that they minister to him. Yea, the earth was made for man, and the
only reason for the Conservation of its resources is that they may
minister unto the needs of the individual man:
Seas roll to waft him, suns to light him rise;
His footstool the earth, his canopy the skies.
In the deliberations of this Congress the words of Ruskin should be
uppermost in the minds of all: "There is no real wealth but life;" and
by life he meant the perfection of the entire man, body, soul, and
spirit. That church is best, that institution is noblest, that
civilization is highest, that country is greatest, which furnishes the
most abundant life to the largest number of human beings.
The Chinese Empire, which embraces near four hundred million human
beings, has existed for five thousand years; yet the countless millions
of China, springing up like tropical weeds and sinking back to dreamless
dust, have contributed far less to civilization than the twenty thousand
Athenians who in the brief Periclean age followed the footsteps of Plato
and Socrates. (Applause)
Neither vastness of population or territory, nor richness of natural
resources, nor accumulated wealth can alone make a great country. That
country is great, no matter how barren its soil, whose children may
truthfully repeat the words of the stern old Spartan, who, when one
pointing in derision to the bleak hills of Lacedemonia asked, "What do
you grow there?" replied, "We grow men there" (applause). To breed a
race of strong men and noble women is the one and only thing that can
make a country truly great.
Consider Scotland--a poor and barren country, yet who would dare to call
poor the land of Scott and Burns and Carlyle? Who shall estimate the
wealth of Scotland's contribution to the world and to America? The sons
of her sturdy pioneers who poured down through Virginia and Kentucky and
the Carolinas have been worth to this Republic their weight in gold.
(Applause)
Take Ireland, that synonym of poverty; and yet how could our great
metropolitan cities thrive for a single day without the helping hand of
the sons of Erin? Somebody has advised that we buy Ireland, not for her
natural resources, not to grow corn and wheat and cotton, but to grow
policemen. (Applause)
Coming a little nearer home, take New England with her thousands of
abandoned farms, rich only in the variety and ferocity of her climate
and the blessed dispensations of our American protection; and yet far
from mean have been New England's contributions to the wealth of
American democracy. New England, rocky old New England, barren,
storm-swept New England, "Land of brown bread and beans," home of the
liberty-loving Puritans who, for the sake of the immaterial good, in
quest of freedom, crossed the stormy sea, endured the hardships of an
untamed wilderness battling with hunger and wild beasts and
savages--grand, glorious New England (applause), home of Adams and
Webster and Emerson and Hawthorne and Williams and Lowell and Longfellow
and Edward Everett and Phillips Brooks (applause)--grand, glorious,
immortal New England, by her schools and colleges has almost dominated
the intellectual life of this country; and in every part of this vast
Republic, yea, in every civilized land under the sun, may be found the
sons and daughters of the pilgrims of the Mayflower; scholars,
preachers, teachers, missionaries, pioneers who have blazed out the
pathway of civilization, established schools and colleges and
universities, always and everywhere children of sweetness and light who
even on the remotest frontier have kept trimmed and lighted the sacred
lamps of learning (applause). Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Bowdoin,
Dartmouth, Williams, have contributed more to the dignity of man, given
more to the everlasting glory of the American commonwealth, than all the
stock speculators of New York, or all the battleships ever built for the
American Navy. (Applause)
Take only one other illustration: Who of you from the waving cornfields
of Iowa and Illinois, from the fertile lowlands of the Mississippi, has
not wondered, while passing through the Old Dominion and looking out
upon her red clay hills, how on earth do these people make a living? Why
give me one acre of the best Louisiana soil--and it is nearly all
good--and put it down upon the barren rocks of New England, or upon the
red hills of Old Virginia, and I would make a fortune selling it for
fertilizer (laughter). And yet Virginia has contributed more to the
wealth of the American Republic than any other single State of the Union
(applause). At the call of what other States did there ever arise a
larger band of more gallant men than they who under the leadership of
Jackson and Lee withstood for long weary months the combined forces of
the Union? And when the War was over, and Virginia found herself in
abjectest poverty, she showed to the world that her riches were
inexhaustible; for during the next forty years she sent abroad into
other States five hundred thousand of her most adventurous sons
(applause), and, in so doing, contributed more to the wealth of this
Republic than all the gold that was ever dug from the mines of
California (applause). I do not wonder that the poorest the humblest son
of the Old Dominion, no matter where he finds himself, whether trudging
through the snows of Minnesota or loitering perchance beneath the
fragrant magnolias of Louisiana--even he, the poorest and humblest, must
quicken his steps and lift aloft his head as he remembers, "Mine is the
land of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and
James Monroe and John Marshall and John Randolph and Patrick Henry and
Stonewall Jackson and--towering above them all save Washington
only--that matchless military chieftain, great in battle but still
greater in defeat as a private citizen, the stainless, the immortal
Robert E. Lee." (Applause)
James Russell Lowell said--and said truthfully--that countries are great
only in proportion to what they do for the moral and the intellectual
energy, the spiritual faith, the hope, the comfort, the happiness of
mankind. (Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman CLAPP--Ladies and Gentlemen: It is provided in the program that
between the set speeches we will hear briefly from the accredited
representatives of the various States, taken in alphabetical order. I
now have the pleasure of calling upon the State of Alabama. (Pause) If
no one cares to be heard from Alabama, I now call upon Arizona. (Pause)
If no one from Arizona, then from the State of _Arkansaw_; and that
there may be no mistake on the part of the inhabitants of that State in
the termination of the name, I repeat that call in the name of Arkansas.
(Laughter)
A DELEGATE--Mr Chairman, I suggest that the call of the States be
deferred until 8.30 in the morning, and that it then be taken up as a
definite matter of business.
Chairman CLAPP--Will the gentleman make a motion to that effect?
[The motion was made, seconded, put and carried without dissenting
voice.]
President BAKER--Mr Chairman: I will be very glad to be here at 8.30. We
want everyone to be heard, and I would come here at 6 oclock if desired,
though I think 8.30 is early enough. I will be here promptly to open the
Congress and hear from the States until the regular speakers begin. Then
on Thursday afternoon we have set aside a special time to hear from all
the States and all the different organizations represented here.
Chairman CLAPP--Ladies and Gentlemen: During last summer it became my
province to distribute nuggets of moral philosophy and political truth
to the people of Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa; and while laboring in that
moral vineyard I discovered that there was a newspaper in the Southwest
that had an immense influence throughout all that section. We have a
representative of that paper with us this afternoon, who will now
address us on "The Press and the People"; Mr D. Austin Latchaw, of the
Kansas City Star. (Applause)
* * * * *
Mr LATCHAW--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: As a representative of
the newspaper profession, before I say anything else, I wish, on behalf
of my associates and myself, to thank the city of Saint Paul and its
Committee on Arrangements for the very excellent facilities provided and
the thoughtful courtesies extended to the men assigned to cover this
Congress.
The subject assigned me is incidental rather than germane to the work
of this Congress. It is a big subject, and even if I felt that I could
do justice to it I would doubt the appropriateness of using this
occasion for the discourse. You are here to consider practical
Conservation; to discuss ways and means to develop and, so far as
possible, to foster the natural resources of this country, and above all
to check and prevent the wasting of them. And it is one striking
commentary on the relations of the press to the people that you do not
need to give a moment's concern about the publication of your
deliberations and conclusions. (Applause)
Yet it does seem fitting that at some stage of these proceedings a
little time should be given to the consideration of that far-reaching
agency without which the results of this Congress would not reach the
public at large; for what you do today will be made known to tens of
millions of readers tomorrow. If it were not so, the value of such
public-spirited meetings as this would be immeasurably discounted.
However, as a member of the newspaper profession I cannot but feel that
my subject would be more appropriately discussed by someone outside of
that profession. It might be handled more frankly. It might be made more
instructive to both the press and the people. Most assuredly I have not
come here to throw stones at my professional brethren, and as for
handing them bouquets, that gentle function might be performed with a
somewhat better grace by someone outside the family. Still, I shall not
be quite so reserved as was an old farmer back in Pennsylvania, whose
farm adjoined that of my father when I was a boy, and who always got the
worst of it in a horse trade because he was too modest to brag about his
end of the proposition.
First of all the newspapers of this country could not have the splendid
field they possess, the great opportunities they enjoy and the inspiring
attention they command, if they did not appeal to the best read, the
most intelligent, and the most responsive people on earth. In no other
country is such a large percentage of the public a newspaper-reading
public. Nowhere else does the average man know so much about current
affairs of all kinds as in this country of ours.
On the other hand, I believe this popular intelligence is
reciprocal--that the response the newspapers find for their endeavors is
largely due to their efficiency in disseminating the news, in analyzing
public questions, and in reiterating the truth. The man who is an
habitual reader of a good newspaper owes much to that paper, just as the
paper also owes much to him.
It is true that newspapers differ in policies and methods and doctrines,
and there are times when the public may be confused rather than
enlightened by the different presentations of the same subject,
especially if the subject be one of technical complexities, such, for
example, as that of the protective tariff. But in the daily run of
events and the discussion of them, and in the long run of complex
problems, the lines between right and wrong are not difficult to follow.
And I am glad to say that from the newspaper point of view, these lines
seem to be more clearly discerned than ever before, not alone by the
press, but by the people. There has been a National awakening in this
country, and the newspapers have had their share of it (applause). There
is a broader and franker handling of the subjects of the day. The number
of wholly independent papers is constantly increasing, and the number of
independent party papers is increasing still more rapidly. The
uncompromising party organ will soon be a thing of the past (applause).
This greater independence of the press is largely responsible for the
increasing independence of the electorate. The time has come when no
man's loyalty to his party can be questioned when he honestly
disapproves of some legislative measure or official representative of
that party.
The chief function of the press is, of course, to present the news, and
the news, collectively speaking, is non-partisan. A paper's advertising
is non-partisan. If it is the right sort of paper, its circulation is
largely non-partisan. And with equal freedom in its editorial policy, a
newspaper, especially the big resourceful paper with an efficient and
somewhat specialized staff, may make of itself a sort of popular
university for its readers, furnishing them with authoritative
information, whether obvious in the news or elucidated in the
editorials, on the current life of the world.
I am not one of those who believe that a newspaper should confine itself
to the mere presentation of the news. That is a great and powerful
function, but the paper with a vast audience, with a reputation for
honesty and authority, can make of itself a constructive agency of
tremendous power (applause). Also, it can make itself a destructive
agency, when the public welfare demands that something should be
destroyed (applause).
Of course, we are a busy people, and newspapers must be prepared with
reference to our limited leisure. A few papers are conducted on the
theory that the public has no time to read anything but the headlines. I
am not here to "knock" this class of newspaper. If they do not show a
regrettable preference for the sensational or the scandalous, they serve
a good purpose in the scheme of publicity. They have greatly enlarged
the newspaper audience. Do not forget that. And it is the experience of
those who have published this class of papers that sooner or later their
readers require more conservatism. As a result there has been a tendency
for some time among these papers toward a more dignified style of
publication.
But, as I have said, we are busy people. We have need for intelligent
digests, authoritative discussions of the subjects of the day as well as
news developments of those subjects. An evidence of this need is the
fact that, in some of our municipal, State, and National contests in
which great issues are at stake, it is necessary, in spite of our
boasted and undoubted intelligence, to reiterate salient facts day after
day in order to drive them home and make them enter into the conviction
of the masses (applause). Sometimes this reiteration becomes tiresome to
those of quick perception or ample leisure; but it is a necessary
practice on the part of a newspaper that regards itself as an
instructive and constructive agency as well as news furnisher. And when
a paper thus regards itself it would seem that the ideal and final
policy would be one of untrammeled freedom--freedom to support the man
or the measure best calculated to serve the public welfare, or to oppose
the man or the measure believed to be inimical to popular well-being. A
paper thus established, not as an infallible judge but as an intelligent
investigator, a patriotic champion, and an enterprising and faithful
agency for progress in the community that supports it, can become a
tremendous factor for good--a factor that will be taken into account by
all friends of the people, and must be taken into account by all enemies
of the people. (Applause)
I will not presume to encroach upon the direct business of this Congress
except so far as the newspaper hears a relation to it. Every newspaper
publisher has a personal as well as his public share of the general
interest in Conservation. The problem of procuring wood pulp at prices
that will permit the continuation of the publication of newspapers at
the present low rates will soon be serious unless a check is put upon
the rapid decrease in the forest area. Wood pulp is made almost entirely
from the spruce tree. For years the manufacturers of pulp stripped the
forests with little thought of the morrow. The visible supply of pulp
timber is becoming limited. Unless tree-growing comes to the rescue, it
will not be long before print paper will have to be made from some other
material, if a satisfactory substitute can be found, or the pulp will
have to be bought from other countries.
I do not know whether you understand how much good timber is handled by
newspaper readers. Let me give you some figures: The readers of the
paper I represent handle sixty tons of it a day, taking into account the
weekly edition. This is, in round numbers, 20,000 tons per year. We are
already importing 20 percent of the pulp used in our paper mill. Think
of it! In this great, big, new country, once almost covered with mighty
forests, we find it advantageous today to import a common forest product
from old Germany, where the highest standards of forest preservation and
use are to be found. And this pulp, with a protective duty paid, is laid
down in Kansas City for less than we have to pay for the domestic
product of the same kind and quality. To make the paper for this one
mill, the output of which is used exclusively by one paper, a daily
average of more than one acre of spruce forest is used.
It is a matter for congratulation that the press of the country has
assumed a most friendly attitude toward the Conservation movement
(applause). Newspapers still disagree about many things. They have
their little differences on the tariff, on the currency system, on
corporation regulation, on certain men and particular measures, and they
do not agree as to why "Jim" Jeffries didn't come back (laughter); but I
have yet to find in a single issue of any paper flat opposition to the
Conservation of natural resources (applause). Gentlemen of the
Conservation Congress, you have here a movement of National and
irresistible sweep, a theme that will endure through successive
generations--for if it does not endure the Nation ultimately must
perish. The people have grasped this subject spontaneously, and they are
ready to study it zealously. Few yet comprehend its scope, fewer still
its diversified details; but collectively the people intuitively
understand its vital significance. The country has at last awakened to
its gross neglect and waste and prodigality. It has suddenly been
reminded of its obligation to future generations along material lines.
There is something even more appealing in this than the promptings of
altruism: there is the moving sense of parental obligation, of sacred
trusteeship. You are to be congratulated--you who are the fathers and
prime movers of this great cause--that you have the united press of the
country behind you.
And not only is the press with you, but it is ready to do far more than
it has been able to do thus far. This movement needs publicity--much
publicity. It is new. It must be made familiar. The people must be
informed in detail as to the location, the character, and the extent of
their resources, and as to the means employed or proposed for the
developing and fostering of those resources. The only effective means
for the dissemination of this information is the press.
Every year the Government spends millions of dollars on Government
reports. These reports are necessary as matters of record and reference,
but they are worthless for general reading. Many of the millions
expended on these reports could be saved by limiting the number of
copies to those that will be used and by leaving the mails unencumbered
with the surplus (applause). If a part of the money thus saved were
expended in the intelligent preparation of news matter pertaining to the
various Government departments, giving to the people the interesting
facts as they develop instead of depending on voluminous and unpopular
reports for the education of the people in these matters, the work of
the Government would be facilitated by popular enlightenment where it is
now hampered by popular ignorance. It seems to me there is an
opportunity here for the Conservation of our National revenues and our
natural resources at the same time.
What is needed is an intelligent publicity bureau or agent in each
department and the more important subdivisions, capable of preparing, in
news form, as the facts develop, the interesting and instructive
features of the department's daily work. This does not mean that all the
papers will use all this matter, but some of it would be used by all to
whom it is offered, and all of it would be used by some papers. On the
whole there would be much wider publicity than could be procured in any
other way.
I am not suggesting an untried experiment. Some of the bureaus at
Washington have publicity departments. Those of the Agricultural
Department and the Geological Survey have been measurably effective, and
manufacturers and importers have found large use for the popularized
consular reports. But with a single exception there has been no near
approach to the possibilities of cheap and helpful publicity in any
department at Washington. The exception I have in mind is the Forest
Service (applause). Do you know why the country knows so much more about
forest conditions and the employed and proposed measures for their
improvement than it knows about irrigation, reclamation, the use of the
rivers, the potentialities of water-power, or the conservation of coal
or oil or minerals? It is because the Forest Service, under the
direction of Mr Gifford Pinchot, established a news service of such a
character that the press of the country used its output freely and
without the cost of one cent to the Government other than the cost of
putting the matter in form acceptable to the press. (Applause)
For some reason it was proposed, a couple of years ago, to prohibit, by
Congressional enactment, the continuance of this publicity. But the
effort resulted only in a complete vindication of the service. It was
shown that only legitimate news had been given out, and that this news
had appeared in an average of 9,000,000 copies of newspapers per month.
These figures were based on clippings procured through the clipping
bureaus, and did not include many publications that must have escaped
the clippers.
Now, if it had been undertaken to place this same matter before the same
number of readers through the medium of the formal and technical reports
of the department, the cost would have been more than 100 times as
great--and nobody would have read them.
As an illustration that newspapers want more Conservation news than they
are getting through regular channels: A number of publishers recently
formed a special Conservation service, which they maintained in
Washington, whose business it is to follow exclusively the developments
of this movement. But this service cannot be made what it should be made
if the Government does not cooperate in this policy of needed publicity.
Considering the waste that is incurred in the publishing of Government
documents that have no popular educational value, it seems well nigh
preposterous that there should not be ample provision, out of a saving
that could be made by cutting off this waste, for the publication of
matter that the people want and the newspapers stand ready to print free
of cost. It would be no more absurd for this Congress to go into
executive session, bar these gentlemen of the press from its
deliberations, and assume that the official report of your proceedings,
which will be printed in the due course of time, would furnish
sufficient publicity for the work of this convention. As it is, you have
a circulation of tens of millions daily for your output. (Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman CLAPP--Ladies and Gentlemen: We often find a man who excels
along some one line of work. The well-rounded man is the one who studies
along every line; the truly great man _is_ the well-rounded man, the man
who studies the forces which make for the conditions in which he lives.
We have such a man in this city, of whom we are all justly proud; a man
who long ago, in the forge of hope and courage, welded his own fate with
the possibilities of the then undeveloped Northwest, and who has lived
to see the prophecies born of a study of conditions mature and develop
in a splendid empire. It affords me great pleasure to present to you one
who will speak on the subject of "Soils and Crops, Food and
Clothing"--Mr James J. Hill, of Saint Paul. (Great and prolonged
applause)
* * * * *
Mr HILL--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I do not intend to take much
of your time this afternoon, but I hope to bring before you some
thoughts that may suggest the practical side of the subject we have to
consider at this Congress. In order to make myself clearly understood
and to be exact in my statements I will ask your indulgence in allowing
me to read what I have to say:
Every movement that affects permanently a nation's life passes through
three stages. First it is the abstract idea, understood by few. Next it
is the subject of agitation and earnest general discussion. Third, after
it has won its way to a sure place in the national life, comes the era
of practical adaptation. Mistakes and extravagances due to the
enthusiasm of friends or the malice of enemies are corrected, details
are fitted to actual needs, the divine idea is harnessed to the common
needs of man. In this stage, which the Conservation movement has now
reached, the most difficult and important work must be done.
In our own history and in that of other nations we have seen this
process many times repeated. Public education was an abstract idea in
the time of Plato, a controversy of the Renaissance, and is still only
partly realized. Back of all written records lived the man who first saw
a vision of government universal, equal, free and just. But the world
has not yet achieved the final adaptation of this mighty conception to
man as we find him. Democracy is still in the fighting stage.
Only a few years have passed since it first dawned upon a people who had
reveled in plenty for a century that the richest patrimony is not proof
against constant and careless waste; that a nation of spenders must take
thought for its morrow or come to poverty. The first actual Conservation
work of this Government was done in forestry, following the example of
European countries. It soon became evident that our mineral resources
should receive equal though less urgent care. The supreme importance of
conserving the most important resource of all, the wealth of the soil
itself, was realized. In an address delivered four years ago this month
before the Agricultural Society of this State, I first stated fully the
problem that we have to meet and the method of its solution. With their
great capacity for assimilating a new and valid thought, the people of
this country were soon interested. Belief in a comprehensive system of
Conservation of all resources has now taken possession of the public
mind. What remains to be done is that most difficult of all the tasks of
statesmanship--the application of an accepted principle and making it
conform in all its general outlines to the common good.
To pack the fact into a single statement, the need of the hour and the
end to which this Congress should devote itself is to conserve
Conservation. It has come into that peril which no great truth
escapes--the danger that lurks in the house of its friends. It has been
used to forward that serious error of policy, the extension of the
powers and activities of the National Government at the expense of those
of the States. The time is ripe and this occasion is most fitting for
distinguishing between real and fanciful Conservation, and for
establishing a sound relation of means to ends. (Applause)
We should first exclude certain activities that come only indirectly
under the term, "Conservation." The Reclamation Service is one. Its work
is not preservation, but utilization. The arid lands of this country
have been where they now are, the streams have flowed past them
uselessly ever since Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. Irrigation
was practiced in prehistoric time. What we have to do is to bring modern
methods to the aid of one of the oldest agricultural arts. It is
mentioned here because its progress illustrates the dangers that beset
Conservation projects proper. They are dangers inseparable from National
control and conduct of affairs. The machine is too big and too distant;
its operation is slow, cumbrous, and costly. So slow is it that settlers
are waiting in distress for water promised long ago. So faulty has been
the adjustment of time and money that Congress has had to authorize the
issue of $20,000,000 of National obligations to complete projects still
hanging in the air. So expensive is it that estimates have been exceeded
again and again. The settler has had either to pay more than the cost
figure he relied on or seek cheaper land in Canada. It costs the
Government from 50 percent more to twice as much as it would private
enterprise to put water on the land (applause). Under the Lower
Yellowstone project the charge is $42.50 per acre, and one dollar per
acre annually for maintenance. The Sunnyside project carries a charge of
$52 per acre, and 95 cents maintenance. Under the North Platte project
the charge is $45 per acre, plus a maintenance charge not announced.
These projects, in widely separated localities, entail a land charge
prohibitive to the frontier settlers to provide homes for those for
whom this work was believed to have been undertaken. The pioneer settler
who can pay, even in ten annual installments, from $3,500 to $4,000 for
eighty acres of land, in addition to the yearly fee per acre, must have
some other resources to aid him. The work of irrigation would have been
more cheaply done if turned over to private enterprise or committed to
the several States within which lie the lands to be reclaimed
(applause). This is not a criticism upon any individual. It is merely
one more proof of the excessive cost of Government work. (Applause)
Toward the conservation of our mineral resources little can be done by
Federal action. The output is determined not by the mine owner, but by
the consumer. The withdrawal of vast areas of supposed coal lands tends
to increase price by restricting the area of possible supply. Nor can
such deposits be utilized eventually except under some such system as is
now employed. It is foolish to talk of leasing coal lands in small
quantities in order to prevent monopoly. Mining must be carried on upon
a large enough scale to be commercially possible. The lessee of a small
area could not afford to install the necessary machinery and provide
means of transportation without charging for the product a prohibitory
price. The land should not be leased by the acre, but by the quantity of
coal contained in the land (applause). A vein four feet thick contains
about 4,000 tons to the acre; in many fields there are three, four,
five, and six veins containing from fifteen to thirty feet of coal, or
from fifteen to thirty thousand tons to the acre. What we want is
intelligent understanding of the situation (applause). Under too
restrictive conditions the coal would remain in the ground indefinitely.
The people of the West see little practical difference between a
resource withheld entirely from use and a resource dissipated or
exhausted. They understand by Conservation the most economical
development and best care of resources. It is the only definition
consistent with the natural growth of communities in the history of the
civilized world.
The prairie States are more interested than any other in the question of
cheap fuel. We do not depend on Alaska for our future supply. There is
abundant coal on the Pacific Coast nearer to our seaports and commercial
centers. Vancouver Island is underlain with it; today, while the
railroad companies with which I am connected bought coal lands on Puget
Sound, which they still own, we are prepared to burn oil from California
instead of coal. I speak of that as a practical reason why we should,
before we leap, look to see what the actual conditions are. Then, to say
nothing of Nova Scotia on the Eastern coast, there is coal in
Spitzbergen, within the Arctic Circle, actually nearer our Eastern
markets than the coal of Alaska. While we lament the exhaustion of our
coal supply, we maintain a tariff that compels us to draw upon it
continuously. It would be well to cast out this beam before we worry too
much over the Conservation mote. (Applause)
The iron deposits of Minnesota, the most wonderful in the world, are
today not only furnishing industry in the Nation with its raw material,
but are piling up a school fund at home that is the envy of other States
and adding more and more every year to the contents of the State
treasury. Minnesota is considering the reduction of her general tax levy
by one-half. Would it be better if these lands were today held idle and
unproductive by the Federal Government, or worked only on leases whose
proceeds went into the Federal treasury and enabled Congress to squander
a few more millions in annual appropriations? (Applause)
Against some forestry theories the West enters an even stronger plea.
What the United States needs is neither reckless destruction nor an
embargo upon our splendid Western commonwealths by locking up a
considerable portion of their available area. There were, by the last
report of the Forest Service, over 194,500,000 acres withdrawn from use
in our forest reserves on June 30, 1909. Of this, nearly 58 percent,
over 112,000,000 acres, or 175,000 square miles, lies in six Western
States. That is an area six-sevenths the size of Germany or France. It
is 80 percent of the size of the unappropriated and unreserved land in
those six States. How are the cities, towns, and villages in those
States to grow if so large a portion of the land is closed to the
husbandman? I received today an official statement of the entire amount
of public land withdrawn from settlement, and it is astounding. In area
it is greater than the thirteen original States; it is nearly as great
as New England, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, and
Illinois (applause). And at the same time, we are driving this year not
less than 100,000 American farmers to the Canadian Northwest to seek
homes there (applause). Now, I say to you that the area of this total
withdrawal for various purposes of the public domain is greater than the
cultivatable area of the entire Canadian Northwest.
The forest reserves and the lands conveyed by Congressional grants to
private interests in Oregon amount to some 50,000 square miles. More
than half the area of this great State has been withdrawn by action of
the Government in one way or another from cultivation and the enjoyment
and profit of the people of the State. Over one-third of Idaho and 27
percent of Washington are forest reserves. Colorado is almost as badly
off; and not more than 30 percent of its forest reserves is covered with
merchantable timber, while about 40 percent has no timber at all. On the
Olympic peninsula are lands reported to be withdrawn to conserve our
water supply where the annual rainfall amounts to something like seven
to ten feet (laughter). According to the official report, the cost of
administering the Forest Service in 1909 was a little short of three
million dollars, and the receipts were $1,800,000. The deficit on
current account alone was over $1,100,000. The total disbursements were
over $4,400,000, and the actual deficit $2,600,000. Now, we should be
liberal in our grants for the care of our public forests. We should also
closely scrutinize the manner of their care. The present season has seen
an enormous destruction in the value of the timber in the forest
reserves. Our company, for over two months, has had from 800 to 1,000
men at work doing nothing else but trying to put out the fires in the
forest reserves. (Applause)
The Forest Service has over 2,000 employes. In 1909 they planted 611
acres, and sowed 1,126 acres more. The West believes in forest
preservation. But it believes practically and not theoretically. It
realizes that a good thing may cost too much, and is not ignorant of the
extravagant financial tendency of every Federal department and bureau.
It wants all good agricultural land open to the settler, wherever it may
be situated. It wants timber resources conservatively utilized, and not
wasted or destroyed.
In connection with forestry interests there is just now much question of
the conservation of water-power sites. The demand is that Federal lands
forming such sites should be withdrawn and leased for the profit and at
the pleasure of the Federal Government. Against this the whole West
rightly protests. The water-power differs from the coal deposit in that
it is not destroyed by use. It will do its undiminished work as long as
the rains fall and the snows melt. Not the resource but the use of it is
a proper subject for Conservation and regulation. To withdraw these
sources of potential wealth from present utilization is to take just so
much from the industrial capital of the States in which they are
situated.
The attempted Federal control of water-powers is illegal, because the
use of the waters within a State is the property of the State and cannot
be taken from it (applause), and that the State may and actually does,
in the case of Idaho for example, perfectly safeguard its water-powers
from monopoly and make them useful without extortion has been shown
conclusively by Senator Borah in a speech in the United States Senate in
which this whole subject is admirably covered. Back in our history
beyond the memory of most men now living there was the same controversy
over the public domain. Ought it to be administered by the Government
and disposed of for its profit, or opened to the people and shared with
the States? Let experience determine which was the better guardian. The
worst scandals of State land misappropriation, and there were many, are
insignificant when compared with the record of the Nation. The total
cash receipts of the Federal Government from the disposal of public and
Indian lands from 1785 to 1909 were $423,451,673. The money is gone. It
has been expended, wisely or unwisely, with other treasury receipts. It
would be interesting to know how much the above sum exceeded the cost of
administration. To go back 125 years and dig up the cost of the
administration of public lands would be more of a task than I have time
for, but I took the last report of the General Government, and in the
disbursements of the Interior Department I found that the cost of
administering the public lands was in 1907 $17,421,000, in 1908
$15,190,000, in 1909 $14,441,000. Now if we take the entire proceeds of
all the public lands sold, including the Indian lands, it averages
$3,400,000 a year for the 125 years during which it has been sold; and
we find here that the cost of administering the greatly reduced estate
is from three to five times as much as the total receipts would average
(applause). But certain limited areas of lands were conveyed to the
States for educational purposes. The permanent common school funds,
State and local, conserved by the States, amount to $246,943,349. The
estimated value of productive school lands today is $138,851,634, and of
unproductive $86,347,482. Add to these the land grant funds of colleges
of agriculture and the mechanic arts, and the total is merely half a
billion dollars. To what magnitude these great funds, now jealously
guarded for educational purposes by the States, may grow in time we
cannot even guess. Some may eventually provide amply for all educational
needs of their States forever. This is one telling proof of the superior
fidelity of the commonwealth as custodian of any trust for future
generations.
There remains an opportunity and a need of Conservation transcending in
value all others combined. The soil is the ultimate employer of all
industry and the greatest source of all wealth (applause). It is the
universal banker. Upon the maintenance, unimpaired in quantity and
quality, of the tillable area of the country its whole future is
conditioned. Four years ago, and on many occasions since, I presented
the facts and statistics that make land conservation incomparably the
paramount issue with all who have at heart the prosperity of our people
and the permanence of our institutions. It is unnecessary to repeat in
detail what has now become matter of common knowledge and is accessible
to all. For the last ten years the average wheat yield in the United
States was 14.1 bushels, while in Germany it was 28.7 and in the United
Kingdom 32.6. This is a measure of our general agriculture. The cattle
other than milch cows on farms in the United States are over 4,000,000
fewer than they were three years ago. The number of hogs declined
7,000,000 in the last three years, and is less than it was twenty years
ago. The increase in total value of food products is due to a great
extent to higher prices. This failure to conserve soil fertility and
maintain the agricultural interest is expressed in recent changes in our
foreign trade. These are more than mere balance sheets; since, as you
know, variations in international trade balances may produce
wide-reaching effects upon all industry.
While our total foreign trade last year was only a little less than the
high record made in 1907, the distribution of it was vastly different.
For the last fiscal year our imports were nearly $240,000,000 in excess
of those for the same period in 1909, and $303,000,000 above those of
1908. Our exports were more by $82,000,000 only than in 1909, and were
nearly $116,000,000 less than in 1908. In 1908 the excess of exports
over imports was $666,000,000; by 1910 it had fallen to $187,000,000. We
are buying more lavishly and selling less because there is less that we
can spare--yet, my friends, that $187,000,000 of balance of trade due to
this country is not enough to pay the extravagant traveling expenses of
our "globe trotters" who are annually passing from one end of Europe to
the other. (Applause)
A glance at the following table of our exports for the last five years
in three great schedules dependent directly on the soil tells the whole
story:
Meat and Dairy Cattle, Sheep
Breadstuffs Products and Hogs
1906 $186,468,901 $210,990,065 $43,516,258
1907 184,120,702 202,392,508 35,617,074
1908 215,260,588 192,802,708 30,235,621
1909 159,929,221 166,521,949 18,556,736
1910 133,191,330 130,632,783 12,456,109
With the exception of the increase in breadstuffs in 1907-8, caused by
our desperate need to send something abroad that would bring in money to
stay a panic, the decline is constant and enormous. A continuance of
similar conditions--and no change is in sight--must mean partial food
famine and hardship prices in the home market; an annual indebtedness
abroad which, having no foodstuffs to spare, we must pay in cash; and
financial depression and industrial misfortune because we have drawn too
unwisely upon the soil. This impending misfortune, only the conservation
of a neglected soil and all the interests connected with it can avert.
The saving feature of the situation is the interest already awakened in
agricultural improvements; an interest which it should be the first
object of this Congress to deepen and preserve. Much has been done, but
it is only a beginning. The experiment station; the demonstration farm;
agricultural instruction in public schools; emphasis upon right
cultivation, seed selection, and fertilization through the keeping of
live stock, all these are slowly increasing the agricultural product and
raising the index of soil values. The work being done by the
Agricultural Department under the care of our old Iowa friend, Secretary
Wilson--who is a farmer from choice (applause)--is scientifically
selecting the good from the bad and the wise from unwise methods, and
the information is within the reach of every farmer of this country who
will only put out his hand and ask for it. (Applause)
But the work moves more slowly than our needs. The possibilities are
great. One might make the comparison with current agriculture elsewhere
almost at random, since European Russia is the only first-class country
more backward than our own. Take the smallest and what might be
supposed the least promising illustration: Denmark's area is about twice
that of Massachusetts. It is occupied by more than two and a half
million people. This Jutland was originally land of inferior fertility.
What has been done with it? Denmark is now called "the model farm of
Europe." Her exports of horses, cattle, bacon and lard, butter and eggs,
amounted in 1908 to nearly $89,000,000. Mr Frederic C. Howe in a recent
article says: "The total export trade is approximately $380 for every
farm, of which 133,000 of the 250,000 are of less than 13-1/2 acres in
extent, the average of all the farms being but 43 acres for the entire
country. The export business alone amounts to nine dollars per acre, in
addition to the domestic consumption, as well as the support of the
farmer himself." One-half the population are depositors in the savings
banks, with an average deposit of $154. How have these things been
accomplished?
First negatively, it has not been done by any artificial means or
legislative hocus-pocus (applause). No bounty and no subsidy has any
share in the national prosperity. The ruler of the country is the small
farmer. He cultivates his acres as we cultivate a garden. He raises
everything that belongs to the land. He fertilizes it by using every
ounce of material from his live stock, and by purchasing more
fertilizers when necessary. There are 42 high schools and 29
agricultural colleges in this little country with a population less than
that of Massachusetts in 1900. Whatever else they teach, agriculture is
taught first, last, and all the time, to young and old alike. The Dane
is a farmer, and is proud of it. England and Ireland and Germany are
studying his methods today. No people could imitate them with more
profit than our own. (Applause)
Recent good years have brought the average wheat yield per acre in the
United States up to over fourteen bushels. Twice that would be
considered poor in Great Britain and an average crop in Germany.
Therefore twenty-five bushels per acre is a reasonable possibility for
us. Suppose we raise it. The present wheat acreage of the United States
is about 46,500,000 acres on the average. If it gave 25 bushels per
acre, the crop would amount to 1,162,500,000 bushels. At our present
rate of production and consumption we may cease to be a wheat exporting
Nation within the next ten or fifteen years, perhaps earlier. With the
larger yield we could supply all our own wants and have a surplus of
400,000,000 bushels for export. This is no fancy picture, but a
statement of plain fact. Is there any other field where Conservation
could produce results so immense and so important? Is there any other
where it bears so directly upon our economic future, the stability of
our Government, the well-being of our people?
Any survey of practical Conservation would be imperfect if it omitted
the almost desperate necessity at this time of conserving capital and
credit. This subject deserves full and separate treatment. No more is
possible here than to summarize some of the facts and conclusions
presented by me to the Conservation Conference that assembled in this
city a few months ago. Conservation of cash and credit is important to
the farmer as it saves or wastes results of his work, and his work
furnishes the greater part of the Nation's wealth. Our States, including
cities and minor civil subdivisions, have run in debt about
three-quarters of a billion dollars in the last twelve years. Public
expenditure is increasing everywhere. Public economy is a virtue either
lost or despised. From 1890 to 1902 the aggregate expenditures of all
the States increased 103 percent. Boston's tax levy, says Brooks Adams
in a late article including this among the serious problems of modern
civilization, was $3.20 per capita in 1822, while now it is nearly $30.
The per capita cost of maintaining the Federal Government was $2.14 in
1880, $4.75 in 1890, $6.39 in 1900, and $7.56 in 1908. The total
appropriations voted by Congress for the four years from 1892 to 1896
were $1,871,509,578; for the four years from 1904 to 1908 they were
$3,842,203,577. An increase of $2,000,000,000 in expense for two
four-year periods with only eight years between them should give any
people pause. Spendthrift man and spendthrift Nation must face at last
the same law carrying the same penalty.
If anyone believes that this growth of expenditure is a consequence of
the general material growth of the country, let him study the following
brief table of comparative statistics. It establishes the indictment of
national extravagance:
Increases
Wealth 1870 to 1890 116.0% 1890 to 1904 65.0%
Foreign Trade 1870 to 1890 99.0% 1890 to 1908 85.4%
Value Manufactured Product 1870 to 1890 121.0% 1890 to 1905 58.0%
Net Ordinary Exp. U. S. Govt 1870 to 1890 1.4% 1890 to 1908 121.4%
Expenditures of 30 States 1890 to 1909 201.6%
This debauch of capital and credit has sent a poison circulating through
the veins of the Nation. Everywhere the individual imitates the
profligacy of his Government. Industry and saving are at a discount. Any
luxury, any extravagance is warranted if funds for it can be raised by
wasting capital or creating debt. There is just so much less money for
productive employment: for payrolls and the extension of commerce and
industries, and the creation of those new facilities for want of which
the commerce of the country is and always must be limited (applause).
Hence come also high prices, curtailment of business, distrust, and
eventual distress. Hence come waste and idleness, and the increased cost
of production that makes both business and employment slow and insecure.
Any Conservation movement worthy of the name must place high upon its
program the saving of capital and credit from the rapacious hands of
socialist as well as monopolist (applause). Extravagance is undermining
the industry of this country as surely as the barbarians broke down and
looted that mighty empire with whose civilization and progress Ferrero
repeatedly insists that ours has so much in common.
We must stand for Conservation everywhere; in the tedious as well as in
the interesting application; where it cuts into our pleasure and habits,
and jostles our comfortable, easy-going ways of thought, just as firmly
as where it is hand in glove with self-interest. This is, above all
things, an economic question. It is neither personal nor political. In
such petty and partial interests it has found its worst obstructions and
encountered its most serious reverses.
The tariff in some respects is a great enemy of Conservation (applause).
Whatever we may think of it as a general industrial policy, everyone can
see that, by excluding the raw products of other countries, it throws
the entire burden of their consumption upon our own resources, and thus
exhausts them unnecessarily (applause). This appears clearly when we
consider such commodities as we might obtain from Canada, a country that
gained nearly 400,000 immigrants from the United States in the nine
years up to April, 1909, and has probably taken another hundred thousand
since; a country where it is absurd to talk about any actual advantage
in the wage scale as compared with our own. The tariff on forest
products cuts down our own forests, a tariff on coal depletes our mines,
a tariff on any raw material forbids the conservation of similar natural
resources here. (Applause).
This Congress announced from the first its purpose to deal with the
subject of Conservation in a practical spirit. The present condition of
the movement, now in the third stage of its development, demands it. We
have to apply the Conservation principle, as we have eventually to apply
every other, to our domestic economics; to work it out in the experience
and practice of everyday life. How this may be done can be stated in the
form of a few conclusions that raise the word Conservation from the name
of a more or less vague, diffuse, and disputable theory to that of a
practical guide to legislation and administration. (Applause)
Conservation is wholly an economic, not in any sense a political
principle (applause). The Nation has suffered and still suffers so much
from transferring other economic questions to politics that the mistake
should not be repeated (applause). Whoever attempts to make Conservation
the bone of a personal controversy or the beast of burden to carry any
faction into power or popularity is its worst enemy. (Great applause)
"Conservative" is the adjective corresponding to the noun
"Conservation." Any other attitude toward this movement, either radical
or reactionary, is treason to its name and to its spirit. It should mean
no more and no less than dealing with our resources in a spirit of
intelligence, honesty, care for both the present and the future, and
ordinary business common sense. (Applause)
Conservation does not mean forbidding access to resources that could be
made available for present use. It means the freest and largest
development of them consistent with the public interest and without
waste. A bag of gold buried in the earth is useless for any purpose. So
is an acre untilled, a mine unopened, a forest that bars the way to
homes and human happiness.
The determination in each case as to what extent a given resource should
be utilized and how far reserved for the future is an intensely
practical, individual, and above all a local question. It should be
carefully considered in all its aspects by both Nation and State, and
should finally rest within lines determined by proper legislation, as
far as may be under the control of local authority. (Applause)
Experience proves that resources are not only best administered but best
protected from marauders by the home people who are most deeply
interested and who are just as honest, just as patriotic and infinitely
better informed on local conditions than the National Government can
possibly be. (Applause) It is clear that every one of the many problems
all over the country can be better understood where they are questions
of the lives and happiness of those directly interested.
Behind this, as behind every great economic issue, stand moral issues.
Shall we, on the one side, deny to ourselves and our children access to
the same store of natural wealth by which we have won our own
prosperity, or, on the other, leave it unprotected as in the past
against the spoiler and the thief? Shall we abandon everything to
centralized authority, going the way of every lost and ruined government
in the history of the world, or meet our personal duty by personal labor
through the organs of local self-government, not yet wholly atrophied by
disuse? Shall we permit our single dependence for the future, the land,
to be defertilized below the point of profitable cultivation and
gradually abandoned, or devote our whole energy to the creation of an
agriculture which will furnish wealth renewed even more rapidly than it
can be exhausted? Shall we permit the continued increase of public
expenditure and public debt until capital and credit have suffered in
the same conflict that overthrew prosperous and happy nations in the
past, or insist upon a return to honest and practicable economy? This is
the battle of the ages, the old, familiar issue. Is there in the country
that intelligence, that self-denial, that moral courage, and that
patriotic devotion which alone can bring us safely through? (Applause)
I ask these questions not because there is any doubt of the answer in
the minds of the American people, but that it may be made plain what a
complex fabric the fates are weaving from the apparently commonplace
happenings of our peaceful years, and how each generation and each epoch
must render an account for the work of its own days. The unprecedented
dignity of this assemblage, its nationally representative character, the
presence here of those upon whom great occasions wait, the interest
felt by millions who look to it for information and guidance, prove how
deep beneath the surface lie the sources of its existence and its
influence. Out of the Conservation movement in its practical application
to our common life may come wealth greater than could be won by the
overthrow of kingdoms and the annexation of provinces; National prestige
and individual well-being; the gift of broader mental horizons; and,
best and most necessary of all, the quality of a National citizenship
which has learned to rule its own spirit and to rise by the control of
its own desires. (Great applause)
* * * * *
Chairman CLAPP--Ladies and Gentlemen: One among the recognized agencies
for the spread of information in relation to our agricultural
development is a paper published in Iowa by Mr Henry Wallace, who is
known to us all. A discussion will now be led by Mr Wallace, and I take
great pleasure in presenting him to this assemblage. (Applause)
* * * * *
Mr WALLACE--Mr Chairman, and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Congress: I
have been asked to discuss the subject opened up by my old friend--and
your friend--Mr James J. Hill.
With very much that he has said, I most heartily agree. He speaks on
these and other subjects "as one having authority, and not as the
scribes." While listening to him I have been trying to get in my own
mind a clear conception of certain fundamental questions that have been
discussed at this Congress, and around which the discussion turns. I
have been trying to put them in form, pointing out where he and I can
agree and where we differ.
I have come to the conclusion that a man has what he had, if he hasn't
sold or contracted to sell it, or allowed somebody to steal it; that the
United States has the resources that are now in the name of the United
States and not under contract to be delivered, and not sold--or
stolen--either in compliance with the letter of the law or in violation
of both letter and spirit. In other words, there are certain assets or
resources that we have and hold; and we all agree that the owner is
entitled to the management and use of his assets (applause), and
therefore that the people of the United States, as a people, are
entitled to the use of whatever resources we may have remaining
(applause). They are not for the benefit of any one man or any
combination of men (applause), neither of any State (applause) or
combination of States (applause), but for the whole people; therefore we
can sell our coal lands or keep them. We will be wise if we keep them
(applause). We can sell our forests, or say how they shall lie used, or
we can let somebody steal them. We can hold on to our phosphate (and
there is very little of these United States that won't be buying
phosphates in fifty years) or we can let somebody control and ship it to
Europe, to enable the Belgians and the Germans to grow 32 bushels of
wheat to the acre while we grow 13 (applause)--and by means of _our_
phosphates. Using the language of the President the other day to outline
the management of these resources (and he has done it better than any
other man I ever knew), we can lease the lands, we can control them, we
can prescribe how they shall be used. This much we all agree upon. And
we will further agree that the Congress of the United States, our
Representatives, must decide how it shall be done.
We can do one of three things: We can deed these lands and these
resources to the States, to be used as they think best. We can abdicate
our sovereignty--perhaps modifying that to some extent, we can outline
what the States shall do and what they shall not do, but that will
involve abdicating our sovereignty and will lead to perpetual quarrels
between the States (applause), such as now existing, for example,
between Colorado and Kansas as to the use of water. Or, as Canada does,
as Germany does, as Australia does, as Tasmania does, we can hold to
those resources and lease them for money for the benefit of the whole
people. (Applause)
Now, my good friend Mr Hill seems to have grave doubts as to the
capacity of the United States to handle its business with anything like
the same skill with which he handles his (laughter and applause). He
tells us that this Reclamation Service is costly--thirty, forty, or
fifty dollars an acre, to be paid in ten years without interest--for
what? To be able to make it rain just when we want to, and stop it when
we want to; that is what irrigation is (applause). And Mr Hill would
give five dollars an acre for twenty years if for all time and eternity
he, his descendants and his assigns, could make it rain when he wanted
to and make it stop when he wanted to (applause). Next to the owner of a
quarter-section of land in Iowa I think that the man who owns fifty
acres of irrigated land at fifty dollars an acre is a prince of the
blood royal (applause and cry of "Good!"). It is the cheapest land in
the United States, in the center of the highest civilization, the best
education and the best schools. Mr Hill tells us also that the United
States (I guess it was Solomon he had in his mind: he was the brother of
a great waster) has received $400,000,000 or so for its Indian lands--he
didn't know how much it cost to acquire them (millions, however)--and
that he doesn't know what has become of the money. Well, I found since
yesterday where some of it went--to this dam over here between
Minneapolis and Saint Paul (great laughter and applause). He tells us
that States are more economical than Nations. Now, isn't it a matter of
fact that both State and Nation have been playing the part of the
prodigal son, wasting our substance in riotous living--and that now we
smell the husks?
Gentlemen, the agricultural colleges have wasted a good deal of money.
The State of Iowa had a great grant of land for improvement, and I give
you my word you could run the whole thing through a barrel if you had
enough headway. We have been absolutely throwing away our
resources--just like some of our wealthy gentlemen down in New York
throw their daughters in the face of titled Nobodies asking them to take
them "with the compliments of the author" (laughter). If this country
continues to be governed, as it has been governed for the last twenty
years, by great combinations of capital that get together in Congress or
out of Congress to determine how much tariff they will levy and what
else they may do in the way of getting hold of the public domain, it
doesn't make a speck of difference whether our resources are governed by
the Government or by the States; they will all be stolen anyhow
(laughter and cheers, and cries of "Hit him again!")--just as they have
been in the past. (Renewed applause)
A VOICE: Conservation ought to have been started a hundred years ago.
Mr WALLACE: You're right. But if the people of the United States have
made up their minds that they are going to be in the future a Government
"of the people by the people and for the people"; if we mean this in
blood earnest (applause) and are willing to sacrifice our party
affiliations (cries of "Good, good, good!"); if we are willing to pay
money to attend conventions, without going on passes (cries of "You
bet!" and cheers); if we are willing to make the sacrifices which always
belong to a free government (applause)--then predatory wealth will no
longer sit in the seats of Congress, and we shall have a democracy, a
Government of the People instead of a Government of Plutocracy.
(Applause and cheers)
Gentlemen, it is just a question whether we have the stuff in us to
really be a great self-governing people, a Nation that stands
four-square to every wind that blows, that regards a law of the Almighty
as supreme law and right and the only manhood worth having as that which
comes in obedience to those great laws that govern men in all nations of
the world (applause and cheers); it is a question whether we will pay
the price for the liberties that our fathers gave us. (Applause)
Now, with about everything that my good friend Mr Hill has said on the
conservation of soil fertility I most heartily agree. I get an idea
about once a year (laughter), and am able to put it in a way that seems
fairly good to me: and for some time past I have been brooding over the
thought that the great problem before the American people--a problem
involving all other problems that vex us, tariffs, Conservation, trusts,
everything--that the great problem we have before us is _how to keep
enough skilled labor on the land to enable the farmer to sell his
products to the city at a price the people can afford to pay_. Now, just
let that soak into you (applause). The problem is to keep enough skilled
labor on the farm to enable the farmer to grow the food for this and
other nations at a price that the people in the cities can afford to
pay. It is the biggest problem before us. It involves all other
problems, when you come to trace it down to its roots. The farmer is
handicapped by the fact that he no longer tills virgin soil, as his
father and his grandfather did, and by the fact that he no longer has
timber at his door. We have wasted our magnificent forests of oak and
walnut, and given away an empire (for example, in Wisconsin) of the best
pine lands that some fellows would put a road through, to get the lumber
out under pretense of resisting a Canadian invasion (laughter and
applause). Today we are buying fertilizers for all New England, New
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, southern Indiana, all the South, and even for
Missouri; it is only a question of time when we shall have to buy them
for all our land. Notwithstanding all of the millions of acres that have
been put into cultivation every year, our crop production lags behind
our population. In the last ten or fifteen years, our production of
wheat per acre gradually but slowly decreased until within the last
three or four years, when with my friend Secretary Wilson's help we
began to do a little better.
The farmer is handicapped by the fact that he is tilling a partially
infertile soil; he is handicapped worse in this way: he cannot possibly
get, for love or money, the really skilled labor required to maintain
the fertility of the soil while he is growing crops (applause). Why, you
know how difficult it is in the country to get a hired hand, and you
know that a hired girl in the home is a thing out of the question. There
isn't a man here ugly enough, if he is a widower, but what could get two
second wives where he could get one hired girl (laughter and applause).
Now, we cannot use the labor of the city. Let a man go to town and
become a lawyer or a doctor for ten or fifteen years, and then return to
the country, and what is he good for? He has to serve an apprenticeship
for four or five years before he is worth his board. We cannot use the
labor of southern Europe except in the wheat fields or in the orchards;
farm labor now is _skilled_ labor; and we haven't got it. One reason we
haven't got it is because my friend Mr Hill has been giving excursion
rates up to Canada (laughter and applause)--for the benefit of his
railroad, he says--and for the benefit of speculators who can paint a
desert to look like the Garden of Eden, and make farmers believe that it
is like the land of Egypt "as thou goest unto Zoar." If we could keep on
the farm the boys and girls that grow up there we could give the people
of the cities food at a price they could afford to pay; but there is the
great problem. I will not solve it now, because I would have to discuss
the tariff (laughter) and every other blooming thing that allures men to
town--including high wages and easy times.
Today the townsman is in trouble. The fact is that he cannot get the
farmer's products at anything like the price the farmer ought to have
(Voice: "Now you're talking"). The farmer never gets more than
two-thirds (Voice: "If he gets that"); frequently he gets one-third. Out
in Fresno, California, we found they made a first-class rate at four
cents on what I was paying sixteen cents for; the railroad got four
cents, the wholesaler four, the retailer four, and the farmer four--and
I pay sixteen. And there is another trouble (I am one of the
unfortunates so I look at both sides of the question): the farmer in
town pays 16 percent, so the merchants tell me, for the privilege of
ordering goods by telephone instead of going to the market and getting
them; and that is another reason he has to pay so much. But there is
still another matter with the city man; it is not so much the high cost
of living as the cost of high living and prosperous times (I borrowed
that from Mr Hill); for the man in town now isn't satisfied to live as
his father did, or his grandfather, or as he himself did ten or twenty
years ago (applause). Why, he wants strawberries from Texas in February,
and he wants green peas from Florida, and he wants fresh eggs at the
time when hens don't lay, and he wants spring chicken in the coldest
weather--and he gets it, but it comes out of cold storage (laughter).
That is one reason why the townsman cannot get farmer's products at the
price he can afford to pay.
Let us look a little further--but I must not detain you (Cries of "Go
on, go on, go on"). This problem has been growing on us for years; ever
since the iron rail and steam and electricity enabled us to build cities
far remote from the lake or the river or the ocean, ever since we
learned to get gold out of quarries instead of out of river sand, ever
since human power was multiplied by machinery, ever since railroads
netted the country with their systems: there has been a tendency to the
development of great cities and a constant decrease in the number of men
that work on the farm. We don't _think_ now as we used to, because
improved machinery (in most cases invented by farmers) has enabled the
farm boy of fifteen years of age to do the work of eight or ten men--and
at the same time has enabled him to rob the land more effectively than
ever before. And this problem would have been met long ago if it had not
been right here in this Mississippi valley there is the finest slice of
land that the Lord ever made, to be given away by our benevolent Uncle
Sam partly to the farmers and partly to the railroads--a country that
needed neither spade nor axe to fit it for the plow; for the last twenty
years we have been breaking it, mining it, robbing it, and selling its
fertility to enable men in the great cities to live cheaply in the Old
World and in this country (applause). The people of Kansas invited my
good friend Secretary Wilson and me down there to talk about
agriculture, and in going from our hotel to the place of meeting we
actually fell over bags of bran that were put out there to send to
Denmark to make butter and cheese to come back and be eaten in Kansas
(laughter). This is the way we have actually been selling, piecemeal,
our fertility. Why, you men remember when corn was sold at 15 and even
10 cents a bushel, and oats at 10-1/2--I myself have sold wheat at
38--lower than the cost of production. The people in cities all over the
world have an idea that it was foreordained from all eternity that they
should have cheap foods, but they are now waking up to the fact that we
have been postponing the day of judgment by selling foodstuffs for about
what the fertilizers would cost, if we had to buy them, to provide bread
and meat for the hungry nations. We have sold the buffalo grass on the
prairies to the people of Europe, in the shape of beef, dirt cheap; we
have built up great cities and States; and the people have all the while
thought that cheapness was normal, whereas we are now just getting to
the normal basis. For twenty years I could buy bread made from American
wheat, in the country on the farm, for three cents a pound, and now I
pay five cents in town--and don't get as good bread at that.
The real problem is, _how we are going to furnish bread to the people at
a price that they can afford to pay_? I have no hand-me-down solution
for that; it is the biggest problem that I know of, and I can venture
only some suggestions. First, we can add a little to our production
through irrigation. That is a slow process, and limited at best. We can
add some more by drainage. We can add a good deal to the yield per acre
by better methods of farming. But we are limited, as I have said,
largely by the lack of skilled labor. The merchant, the city man, if he
is to live on his income, must improve his system of distribution; he
must in some way or other, get rid of the go-betweens. Some things will
have to be done by railroads and some by Congress, and a number of
things will have to be done that they will all say _can't_ be done--I'm
tired of that story, that you _can't_ do anything. Our railroad friends
have told us that we can't pass interstate commerce laws, it's
unconstitutional; that we _can't_ stop the giving of passes and rebates,
that it's unconstitutional. Now, we have done all those things. _The
people of the United States can do anything that is right!_ (applause),
though they can't permanently succeed in doing wrong (applause); and
these things we have been told we _can't_ do we _have done_, and
everybody says it is right. Sometimes I take great comfort in watching
some of our great "captains of industry," railroad magnates like Mr
Hill. To see them you would imagine they had been reading the Psalms of
David and saying, "It was good for me that I was afflicted; before I was
afflicted I went astray, but now I love"--the Interstate Commerce Law
(laughter). The trouble with them is that they turn round and oppose our
railroad laws, and the measures brought up by the voice of the people,
and insist that they _can't_ be enforced.
If the farmers are to sell their products in sufficient quantities to
cities at a price that they can afford to pay, the calm and considerate
judgment and the earnest cooperation of every class of our people are
needed. We have problems before us that cannot be settled today or
tomorrow; they involve questions of deep statesmanship; and they never
can be settled until they are settled right, on a basis that is just.
And I have this faith in the American people, that notwithstanding all
their mistakes and all their follies and all their extravagances and all
their partisan differences, down at the bottom they are an honest
people, they are an intelligent people, and they are a people that seem
to have an instinct of danger and an instinctive perception of what is
fundamentally and inherently right. (Prolonged applause)
* * * * *
Mr HILL--I want to apologize to Brother Wallace because I did not make
myself entirely understood when I indicated that $50 or $42 or $45 an
acre for Government-irrigated land is too high. He says that I would
give $100--and I would, if I had to; but if that land were left with
private enterprises, or if the _people of the State_ alongside of this
$42 and $45 and $50 land were putting water on their land for $15, I
wouldn't charge the settler $50 or $42. (Laughter and applause)
* * * * *
Chairman CLAPP--Ladies and Gentlemen: There is a tradition in Washington
that the present very efficient Secretary of Agriculture established the
Department of Agriculture, because of his long service in that position.
I have to dispel that illusion. Nevertheless his service has made that
Department what it is today; and I take great pleasure in presenting to
you Secretary Wilson. (Great applause)
* * * * *
Secretary WILSON--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I have enjoyed the
two last speeches more than anything else I have heard since I have been
here, although I have never attended a meeting anywhere that I can
remember where there were so many big men who do things in the world.
The greatest regret I have is that there must be more than a hundred men
here well worth hearing who will not have opportunity to speak on
account of lack of time.
Mr Hill and Mr Wallace have talked about things that I have not done.
Fourteen years ago I went down to Washington with President McKinley to
do something with the Department of Agriculture. I could see right well
from tendencies that had originated some time previous a growing and a
development that now at this present time have come to a head. I saw the
necessity for Conservation of the natural utilities of this country, the
necessity for Conservation of soils and forests and water-powers and all
those things; and I went to work. I have never gone to Congress to get
help or money without getting it at once. If I have failed to do
something for agriculture, the fault is mine and not that of Congress,
because they have never criticized me, except that I have not asked for
enough money.
I have found it necessary to educate men, or to have them educated,
along new lines. Search history as far back as you see fit to go, and
you will find that there has been no education whatever for the farmer.
The classical education, so beautifully spoken about by our friend from
Tulane University (President Craighead), is a beautiful education; but
there is no agriculture in it. It is a difficult thing to change the
education of a people; even our religion is interwoven, like our
literature, with the old-fashioned classical education. The country was
regarded as valuable and the professions went to the country to get new
men because the old wore out in the town, and so the farm has always
reinforced the professions; and the practice has gone on until today the
American Navy is being reinforced even from the farms of Minnesota and
Iowa. The average boy who lives in town knows too much about things he
shouldn't know, and the boy on the farm or in the country knows little
about the things that wouldn't do him any good if he did know them
(laughter). My first problem was to organize a Department of Agriculture
by training men to go safely where there were but few blazings through
the woods.
Mr Hill and Mr Wallace have both spoken wisely of the soil. That is the
source of our wealth. When our good people travel abroad, the farmer
pays the bill; when you beautiful ladies purchase diamonds--and
sometimes bring them back in your hats--the farmer pays the bill
(laughter). Of course, since the Civil War the farmer has been keeping
the balance of trade in our favor--has paid all our foreign debts, has
paid the cost of our wars, has paid all the expenses of shipments to
foreign ports; but a new day has come. While the farm has been producing
considerably more and its area has been increasing, certain things have
occurred that have a momentous influence on the present and on the
future. We have not been producing so fast as we have been increasing in
population; it costs too much to get breakfast and dinner and supper,
and we eat three times a day. The serious problem which presents itself
to us now is that _it costs too much to live_. I never want to see the
day come when the American workingman shall be reduced to the condition
of the European who makes his dinner on bread alone and still lives.
(Applause)
What are the prospects of getting cheaper food to eat? Do we want to
bring men from Central America? They are diseased. Do we want to bring
them from Mexico? They are not adapted to our climate. We do not care to
bring them in much from Canada, because they have no corn up there, and
don't eat that kind of food. I see some rays of hope in our leaden sky.
The South has in the past suffered from a pest known as the cattle-tick
which prevents the development of domestic animals, and they have not
given us as much meat as we have shipped to them; but Congress gave my
Department money to try to get rid of this tick, and we have been at
work for three years and have cleared the pest from the equivalent of an
area of three great States, 140,000 square miles (applause), and it will
not be many years until all the South is cleared of the cattle-tick.
Then the southern States will begin to contribute materially to our food
production, because they have a mild winter, they have intelligent
people, they have transportation systems; all they need is a little
better system of agriculture. We have also been dealing with an invasion
from Guatemala for some time, the boll weevil. The question was whether
the poor people in that section could sustain life under the burden of
this pest, and they came to my Department to go down and do something;
and in checking the pest we are meeting the need for improved
agriculture and increased production of foodstuffs.
There are two prominent ways of increasing the producing capacity of a
people: First, there is Conservation demonstration (we shall be using
this word "Conservation" in our prayers if we don't look out).
(Laughter) Last year we had 12,500 boys in four southern States, all
under sixteen years of age, each of whom grew an acre of corn--the South
never grew as much corn in its history as it did last year--and some of
those boys grew over 150 bushels to the acre (applause). They sold it at
different prices. They were promised, as an encouragement, free tickets
to Washington to see the President and the Capitol, and that the
Secretary would give them diplomas. Well, I thought little about this
until in marched the boys--looking very serious--each exactly like a man
who is getting an LL.D. from a university. The first view of those boys
was amusing, but the next one to me was very pathetic. A diploma, you
know, is given to a man or a woman who does good work in a college
course. Didn't the boy who grew 150 bushels of corn to the acre _do_
something? He did; he did the best there was in him; he put his will
into the work. I signed the diplomas, and those boys went out as proud
as any boys ever went away from a university. This year we have 50,000
boys in the southern States, each under sixteen years of age, each
growing an acre of something, each getting lessons and hints in all
directions from everybody that can give them, with regard to how to grow
crops; we have 400 agents in the South.
Now let me tell you something. You will find in every northern and
eastern and western State a minority of good farmers and, I am compelled
to confess, a majority of poor farmers. They don't know how to farm;
they have yet to learn. Where did bad farming begin, do you think? Why,
back in the eastern States where they do everything well--except
farming. Now where is there worse farming than there? I believe that the
President of Tulane University used to live there; perhaps he can tell
us. When I was a boy I went to church on Sunday and to prayer meeting in
the middle of the week--I had to (laughter)--but they didn't educate the
boys toward the farms; they educated them toward the professions, toward
the mechanic arts, toward the factories. And when they were big enough
and had an education they left the farm, they left the father and mother
there, and by and by when the father and mother couldn't farm any more
they rented out the farm--and today the same thing is beginning in
Iowa. I can't tell you what is happening in Minnesota; you people who
live here must be the judges whether the same robbery of the soil is
beginning in Minnesota. A soil robber is a man who grows grain and hay
to sell from the farm and puts nothing back; that is what he is, and
that is where he originated--back East.
And we began manufacturing in our country at the time we began robbing
our soil. The last half-century we have built up our manufactories at an
astonishing rate. Why have we built them up so fast; why have they risen
to such tremendous figures? Because our people were fed cheaper and
better than the people who worked in factories in any other country. But
what is the condition now? Are our people still better fed and more
cheaply that work in the factories, that work for the railroads, that
work in the mines? No! There is where the trouble comes; that is what
has arrested the attention of our people. Every year, maybe oftener (Mr
Hill could tell better than I can), the men that work for railroads
notify the president that they want more wages because they can't live;
and of course he has to raise their wages. While we were feeding Europe,
there was no difficulty in getting cheap food here in the United States
for our workingmen; but, as Mr Hill told you, and gave you statistics
for it--it is pretty hard to follow a man like him, who has all the
statistics, and Dr Wallace, who has all the philosophy and wit, but I
will do the best I can (laughter)--we are sending less and less food to
foreign countries and paying more and more for what our workingmen eat
at home. We are not paying off debts any more, though our people are
still buying diamonds and pearls--you see the rows we are having in New
York when our traveling Americans come back, and want to get their
jewels through the custom-house for nothing and hide them and all that;
I have no sympathy with it--but we are not discussing the tariff here at
all; I never talk politics and won't allow it; I have 12,000 men in my
Department and every man knows I'll discharge him in a minute if he
talks politics (laughter and applause); we are considering the natural
resources of the country and trying to conserve them. (Applause and
cries of "Good!")
As the Department grew we organized a bureau for animals, another for
plants, one for forests, one for chemistry, and one for soils; and all
along the line we have those great bureaus at work. We are the practical
fellows who conserve; we are doing it every day. I have just been out
among the forests myself four or five weeks, helping to save the
Government's property out there. But the great question comes down to
the soil. There is no classical college or university that teaches
anything about the soil, not one single thing. From the time that Samuel
had the school of the prophets at Bethel down to the present day, there
never has been anything taught to the people with regard to the soil on
which they walk and from which they get their living. I have organized a
bureau for it. We are studying the soil all over the country. You might
think, to go out on these beautiful prairies, that the soil is all
alike. Well, it isn't; any prairie has probably a hundred different
soils, some of them best adapted to grow one plant and some another,
some needing one kind of treatment and some another; and the great
fundamental question that we must study now is the American soil and its
power to produce. (Applause)
With regard to the literature of the farm: There was none when I was a
young fellow; there was no college for farmers. I had to get what I did
get from observation and from a store of recollection of older men. But
now we have an agricultural college in each State. We have an experiment
station in each State. We have 3,000 men making research in the
Department of Agriculture at Washington, all specialists, the foremost
in their lines in the world. When one of those men makes inquiry into
something and reports, we put his name to it and print it and send it
out to the people without expense. We sent out 20,000,000 pieces last
year (applause). And any of you who want anything we have, no matter
whether you are farmers or not, you are welcome to it. Some of the best
encouragement that we have comes from those who are not farmers at all.
I have told you of the genesis of the soil-robber; is he here in the
Mississippi valley? The old-time farmer educated his children, but he
educated them to do anything under the sun but farm. When the boy
graduated, when he got through with his education, he went anywhere but
to the farm. That was until within a few years the custom. The other day
I wrote to the dean of the Iowa Agricultural College that several people
had applied to me for men to superintend farms, and that a newspaper man
wanted a farm expert to go into his office at a good salary, and
asked--"How many young men do you graduate this year in a four-year
agricultural course?" He replied, and I think he said "We graduated some
seventy in a four-year course, but none of them left the State; they are
all going back to the farm" (great applause and cry of "Good!"). Those
men know something. Now, are you doing that in Minnesota? You have
always had a fine agricultural school here connected with your State
University, and you have an open door into the four-year academic course
in the University; you are doing much for agriculture and education. Yet
we are where we are today with regard to scarce food and dear meat
because we didn't begin educating the young farmer sooner. But he is
going to catch on. There would be a universal introduction of
agricultural education into the common and secondary schools of the
country if teachers could be found. That is the great difficulty. Fifty
years ago, when Congress endowed agricultural colleges, that was the
trouble. They could start the college, they could erect a building, but
there was no library, there was no professor who knew anything about
agriculture, and the great trouble is a man can only teach what he
knows himself. But now, after half a century of effort on the part of
the farmers, on the part of friends of the farms, on the part of
far-seeing men like James J. Hill (applause), we are getting a
creditable agricultural education in this country.
Do not be uneasy about the forests; at the last session, Congress gave
me $400,000 more than they had ever given me before to take care of the
forests. Do not be uneasy about the coal, the gas, the oil, and the
phosphates; President Taft has withdrawn all those until Congress
indicates what shall be done with them. But the soil, Gentlemen, the
soil; the big price for meat, the big price for bread; these are things
to study. We _can_ improve our soil. One of our speakers this afternoon
told us that you cannot grow soil. I believe that, once you wash it
away. But you can reduce it, beyond the point of profitable production
of crops; that you can do, and that is being done. The soil-robber works
in Iowa, and I fear he is at work in Minnesota. The old folks have gone
to town; and the Lord knows nobody wants them there, because when you
want to improve the town with gas and sewer and water and things of that
kind, the farmer won't vote for them; he is regarded as a nuisance;
everybody wishes he would stay on the farm, and I wish he would. And
when the old farmer and his wife go to town, they sell off everything;
they rent the farm to a man who has no means to stock it with cattle and
sheep, hogs and poultry; he grows grain to sell, he grows hay to sell,
and those farms grow worse and worse every year. That is the situation
we are in. (Applause)
We are making some progress, some headway. The Government gave to the
emigrant from abroad, to everybody who wanted it as long as they lasted,
a claim in the rainy belt; but there are no lands left for giving away
in the rainy belt. Something can be done in regard to our dry-land
farming; something can be done in regard to irrigation. As Mr Hill
intimated (in fact, he delivered a great deal of my speech), there is
not much being done in the line of irrigation. Take a trip out West and
watch the rivers as you cross them, and you will see that we are wasting
far more water than we are using--though in certain neighborhoods in
Colorado highly intelligent people are every year building more dams
away up in the mountains and saving their winter and spring-flood
waters. That is going on and on, and it should go on until all the
waters in the mountains are saved for application to the land. Do you
remember the history of irrigation in the valley of the Po, in Italy?
There are more people to the square mile there than are found in almost
any other part of the world. They began at the headwaters of the
tributaries and built great dams to hold up the water to an amount
suitable for the growing of crops, something like twenty inches or more;
and they built on down to the mouth of the Po. Now when there comes a
drought like we had this year, they let water out on the fields, and
thus get a maximum crop. Without that extra water, at a time of drought
their crop would wither and fail. I understand Minnesota has more
lakes, more natural reservoirs for holding water than any other State in
the Union. Look to it, you Minnesota people; you can, by using that
water in a dry year, grow maximum crops.
How do the people of the Old World raise big crops? If you followed Mr
Hill's statistics you learned they didn't know as much there once as
they do now, for they have raised their crop production from 20 to 30
bushels an acre. He also alluded to the Danes, who by good farming are
enabled to sell enormous amounts of farm products. How do they keep that
land up? I will tell you what a great many of them are doing. They buy
mill-feeds from the United States; they buy bran and shorts, they buy
the cottonseed of the South and the flaxseed of Minnesota, and feed
their dairy cows. That is a highly intellectual job, isn't it, for an
American citizen, to grow food for a Danish cow? But the Dane has his
eyes open; he _knows_. He sells $40,000,000 worth of butter and cheese
to England every year, but puts back all the fertility on the farm; and
that is what has brought up his little fifteen-acre farm, or his
forty-acre farm. He has brought it up by keeping and feeding his cows on
our mill-feeds, mind you; and he is prosperous--and we are not so
prosperous only because we rob ourselves.
A VOICE--Bran doesn't cost any more in Denmark than in America.
Secretary WILSON--It is American bran, though. And let me tell you
something else. The meats you grow up here cost hardly any more in
Europe than they cost here, because the retailer over there hasn't got
all the frills that the retail dealer has here, and is satisfied with a
smaller profit. (Applause)
Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am merely outlining some of the remarks
that I prepared and gave to the newspaper people; and I have no doubt
you have listened to me as long as you care to (cries of "Go on, go
on"). I have enjoyed my visit here. I am on record as saying that these
northwestern States, beginning here and extending on west, are the
healthiest we have; their waters are good; their climate is fine; they
are going to grow vigorous men and handsome women. If we are going to
have all their benefits you should conserve your soil, so that your
great-grandchildren will have better soil than you have today. Down in
Iowa, where I have lived for 46 years, the soil grows bigger crops today
than it did fifty years ago; and it is still improving.
You have extended to me the greatest compliment a hospitable people can
bestow on a stranger, and that is to give me your attention. I thank
you. (Great applause.)
* * * * *
Chairman CLAPP--Ladies and Gentlemen: We will now listen to a discussion
by Honorable F. C. Stevens, Member of Congress from this district.
(Applause)
* * * * *
Representative STEVENS--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: You are
fortunate this afternoon, so far as my discussion is concerned. I was
assigned to discuss an address by Senator Dolliver, Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, on the subject of "Cattle,
Food, and Leather." We greatly regret the enforced absence of Senator
Dolliver, because he is informed on that subject and could have given us
a discussion of great benefit. I congratulate myself that I am not
obliged to follow him, because I know too little about his subject. So I
shall briefly discuss something I do know about.
In the very able address of Mr Hill, and in the very bright discussion
of Mr Wallace which followed, there was a general criticism of Congress
for undue expenditures of public money. I want to tell this audience
that Congress, instead of being extravagant, is often unduly economical
of the people's money. The money we spend is what the people want us to
spend, and we do not spend nearly as much as they want us to. The
estimates that were sent in by the heads of the departments (of which
Secretary Wilson is one) aggregated nearly two hundred millions of
dollars more than the expenditures which Congress authorized, and the
estimates which came from the field officers to the heads of these great
departments, for example, like that of Secretary Wilson; from the
post-offices scattered throughout the country; from the officers of the
War and Navy Departments, scattered all over the world; and from the
officers of the State and other departments, were, I will venture to
say, nearly two hundred million dollars more still: so that Congress
actually did not spend more than two-thirds as much as the people of the
United States in their respective localities wanted spent. There is not
a single large convention in the United States similar to this--which is
one of the most magnificent in the history of this section of the
country--that does not call upon Congress for the expenditure of large
sums of money, and I will venture to predict that the resolutions, which
will be adopted by this Congress will call for a large appropriation
from the National treasury. We have in Washington every year a Rivers
and Harbors Congress, composed of 4,000 of the brightest, broadest, most
patriotic business men of the United States, who go there as delegates,
spend their own money to go, and then ask large expenditures from the
people's treasury. Scattered all over this country, meeting probably in
every State in the Union, are various voluntary assemblages of our
People demanding various improvements by the Federal Government, and
every one asking for expenditures of the people's money. You never yet
have heard of a convention which has met anywhere at anybody's expense
asking for a cutting down of expenditures. If there is any one man who
is popular in the United States it is the man who calls for the
expenditure of the people's money; the men who are the most unpopular,
and are condemned and criticised in public life, are those who try to
cut down the expenses and be economical with the people's money
(applause). I think there ought to be some reform (and I have had some
experience); we _are_ extravagant; we do spend more money than we ought
to, but it is spent honestly, it is spent with the best of intention, it
is spent because the people want us to spend it, and we do not go nearly
as far as they ask us to.
Just one suggestion more: It is easy to criticise and ridicule something
that a man knows but little about, and I have noticed that in this
discussion of Conservation each man is almighty anxious to conserve that
which interests _him_; and one of the latest examples of that was
afforded by the statement of Mr Wallace in condemnation of the dam
between Saint Paul and Minneapolis. Now, in advance I want to state that
I am not responsible for that dam; it was there before I entered public
life. But there is one thing we are trying to do; we are trying to
enforce the principle of practical Conservation, and I wish to call
attention to that as a sample of ridicule sometimes seen in the
discussion of a subject that really interests the people. The United
States thirty years ago started, at the headwaters of the Mississippi,
six of the largest storage reservoirs for water in the world, with a
capacity of many thousands of millions of gallons of water, designed to
improve the navigation of the river and raise it in times of drought
eighteen inches here at the levee of Saint Paul. That enormous storage
of water in the river should be utilized for the practical benefit of
the people of the United States. That is the practical basis for all
theories of Conservation. A board of engineers was ordered by Congress
to make an investigation of the use of the dam at the Twin Cities, and
they have reported that a dam can be built and it has been ordered by
Congress and is under construction (it is the one ridiculed). It will be
thirty feet high and will yield 15,000 horsepower of electrical energy,
worth here $25 per horsepower-year, making a total value of $375,000 per
annum, at an expenditure in all not to exceed $2,000,000. It will pay
the United States the money that it invests in that dam. It is expected
that the United States will sell, for a reasonable price, that
electrical energy to the cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis and the
University of Minnesota; these cities can be the best lighted in the
world and save a hundred thousand dollars each annually (applause); and,
more than that, we will have there the most beautiful lake in the world,
extending from the historical falls of Minnehaha below to the great and
beautiful University of Minnesota above. That is a practical example of
Conservation (applause). Before any of these gentlemen come forward
flippantly to ridicule the public works going on in any part of the
country, they should realize that there _may be_ some things they don't
know about. (Applause)
Only one suggestion more (because we all want to hear from Professor
Bailey): It is easy to criticise Congress as a whole; it is fashionable
to do it; Congress hasn't any friends anywhere; but just remember this:
it is a necessary evil; it is the concrete voice of ninety millions of
free American citizens; it is the only agency whereby these ninety
millions of American people can accomplish their will and desire. We can
only run a free Government by the rule of the majority; a majority of
one is potent to control this whole great country; 51 percent are in
favor of what that majority does, and, 49 percent claim the right to
criticise and kick at what that majority does. As this is a free
Government they have that right. Now, my friends, we must remember that
what displeases us probably pleases 51 percent, and if we had the right
to pass the very laws we wanted to on any subject, the chances are that
our next-door neighbors, on both sides, would criticise and complain of
us, just as we are now doing of other people. The only thing I wish to
emphasize is that Congress tries to represent the whole American people,
tries to make concrete the voice of the whole American people. It is
human, the same as the people are; it makes the same kind of mistakes
that the people make; and, after all, the people are responsible for
Congress. I thank you. (Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman CLAPP--Ladies and Gentlemen, we will now have an address on
"Conservation in Country Life," by Dr Liberty Hyde Bailey, Dean of State
Agricultural College, Cornell University, and Chairman of the Country
Life Commission. It affords me great pleasure to introduce Professor
Bailey. (Applause)
* * * * *
Professor BAILEY--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: Because of the
lateness of the hour, and because of the very great treat which you have
had this afternoon in the presentation of the fundamental questions of
country life, I shall only call your attention to three or four topics
which, perhaps, have not been touched by others who have spoken from
this platform.
Two great economic and social movements are now before the
country--Conservation, and Country Life. The Conservation movement is
the expression of the idea that the materials and agencies that are part
of the furniture of the planet are to be utilized by each generation
carefully, and with real regard to the welfare of those who are to
follow us. The Country Life movement is the expression of the idea that
the policies, efforts, and material well-being of the open country must
be highly sustained, as a fundamental essential of a good civilization;
and it recognizes the fact that rural society has made relatively less
progress in the past century than has urban society. Both movements are
immediately economic, but in ultimate results they are social and moral.
They rest on the assumption that the welfare of the individual man and
woman is to be conserved and developed, and is the ultimate concern of
governments; both, therefore, are phases of a process in social
evolution.
Not only the welfare but the existence of the race depends on utilizing
the products and forces of the planet wisely, and also on securing
greater quantity and variety of new products. These are finally the most
fundamental movements that government has yet attempted to attack; for
when the resources of the earth shall largely disappear or the arm of
the husbandman lose its skill, there is an end of the office of
government.
At the bottom, therefore, the Conservation and Country Life movements
rest on the same premise; but in their operation, and in the problems
that are before them, they are so distinct that they should not be
confounded or united. These complementary phases may best work
themselves out by separate organization and machinery, although
articulating at every point; and this would be true if for no other
reason than that a different class of persons, and a different method of
procedure, attached to each movement. The Conservation movement finds it
necessary, as a starting-point, to attack intrenched property interests,
and it therefore finds itself in politics, inasmuch as these interests
have become intrenched through legislation. The Country Life movement
lacks these personal and political aspects.
_These Subjects Have a History_
Neither "Conservation" nor "Country Life" is new except in name and as
the subject of an organized movement. The end of our original resources
has been foreseen from time out of mind, and prophetic books have been
written on the subject. The need of a quickened country life has been
recognized from the time that cities began to dominate civilization; and
the outlook of the high-minded countryman has been depicted from the
days of the classical writings until now. On this side of mineral and
similar resources, the geologists and others among us have made definite
efforts for conservation; and on the side of soil fertility, the
agricultural chemists and the teachers of agriculture have for a hundred
years maintained a perpetual campaign of conservation. So long and
persistently have those of us in the agricultural and some other
institutions heard these questions emphasized, that the startling
assertions of the present day as to the failure of our resources and the
coordinate importance of rural affairs have not struck me with any force
of novelty. But there comes a time when the warnings begin to collect
themselves, and to crystallize about definite points; and my purpose in
suggesting this history is to emphasize the importance of the two
movements now before us by showing that the roots run deep, back into
human experience. It is no ephemeral or transitory subject that we are
now met to discuss.
All really fundamental movements are the results of long-continued
discussion and investigation, but it requires a great generalizer and
organizer, and one possessed of prevision, to concrete scattered facts
into powerful national movements. The one who recognized the existence
of these questions, who saw the significance of the problems, who aided
to assemble them, and who projected them into definite lines of public
action was Theodore Roosevelt; and he himself has expressed our
obligation in this Conservation movement to Gifford Pinchot. (Great
applause)
The Conservation movement is now approaching its full; the Country Life
movement is a slower and quieter tide, but it will rise with great
power. These are the twin economic and social questions that the
Roosevelt administration raised for our consideration. (Applause)
_They are not party-politics subjects_
I have said that these are economic and social problems and policies. I
wish to enlarge this view. They are concerned with saving, utilizing,
and augmenting, and only secondarily with administration. We must first
ascertain the facts as to our resources, and from this groundwork
impress the subject on the people. The subject must be approached by
scientific methods. It would be unfortunate if such movement became the
exclusive program of a political party, for then the question would
become partisan and probably be removed from calm or judicial
consideration, and the opposition would equally become the program of a
party. Every last citizen should be naturally interested in the careful
utilization of our native materials and wealth, and it is due him that
the details of the question be left open for unbiased discussion rather
than be made the arbitrary program, either one way or another, of a
political organization. The Conservation principle is a plain economic
and social problem rather than a political issue. (Applause)
The Country Life movement is equally a scientific problem, in the sense
that it must be approached in the scientific spirit. It will be
inexcusable in this day if we do not go at the subject with only the
desire to discover the facts and to arrive at a rational solution by
non-political methods. The first recommendation of the Commission on
Country Life is that the Government begin taking stock of rural life in
order that we may have definite facts on which to begin a reconstructive
program.
_The soil is the greatest of all resources_
The resources that sustain the race are of two kinds--those that lie
beyond the power of man to reproduce or increase, and those that may be
augmented by propagation and by care. The former are the water, the air,
the sunshine, and the mines of minerals, metals, and coal; the latter
are the living resources, in crop and live-stock. Intermediate between
the two classes stands the soil, on which all living resources depend.
Even after all minerals and metals and coal are depleted, the race may
sustain itself in comfort and progress so long as the soil is
productive, provided, of course, that water and air and sunshine are
still left to us. Beyond all the mines of coal and all the precious
ores, the soil resource is the heritage that must be most carefully
saved; and this, in particular, is the country-life phase of the
Conservation movement.
To my mind, the Conservation movement has not sufficiently emphasized
this problem. It has laid stress, I know, on the enormous loss by soil
erosion, and has said something of inadequate agricultural practice; but
the main question is yet practically untouched by the movement--the
plain problem of handling the soil by all the millions who, by skill or
blundering or theft, produce crops and animals out of the earth. Peoples
have gone down before the lessening power of the land, and in all
probability other peoples will yet go down. The course of empire has
been toward the unplundered lands.
Thinner than the skin of an apple is the covering of the earth that man
tills. Beyond all calculation and all comprehension are the powers and
the mysteries of the soft soil layer of the earth. We do not know that
any vital forces pulsate from the great interior bulk of the earth. Only
on the surface does any nerve of life quicken it into a living sphere.
And yet, from this attenuated layer have come numberless generations of
giants of forests and of beasts, perhaps greater in their combined bulk
than all the soil from which they have come; and back into this soil
they go, until the great life-principle catches up their disorganized
units and builds them again into beings as complex as themselves.
The general evolution of this soil is toward greater powers; and yet, so
nicely balanced are these powers that within his lifetime a man may ruin
any part of it that society allows him to hold; and in despair he
abandons it and throws it back to nature to reinvigorate and to heal. We
are accustomed to marvel at the power of man in gaining dominion over
the forces of nature--he bends to his use the expansive powers of steam
and the energy of the electric currents, and he ranges through space in
the light that he concentrates in his telescope; but while he is doing
all this he sets at naught the powers in the soil beneath his feet,
wastes them, and deprives himself of vast sources of energy. Man will
never gain dominion until he learns from nature how to maintain the
augmenting powers of the disintegrating crust of the earth.
We can do little to control or modify the atmosphere or the sunlight;
but the epidermis of the earth is ours to do with it much as we will. It
is the one great earth resource over which we have dominion. The soil
may be made better as well as worse, more as well as less; and to save
the producing powers of it is far and away the most important
consideration in the Conservation of natural resources.
_No man has a right to plunder the soil_
The man who owns and tills the soil owes an obligation to his fellowmen
for the use that he makes of his land; and his fellowmen owe an equal
obligation to him to see that his lot in society is such that he will
not be obliged to rob the earth in order to maintain his life. The
natural resources of the earth are the heritage and the property of
every one and all of us. A man has no moral right to skin the earth,
unless he is forced to do it in sheer self-defense and to enable him to
live in some epoch of an unequally developed society; and if there are
or have been such epochs, then is society itself directly responsible
for the waste of the common heritage.
The man who plunders the soil is in very truth a robber, for he takes
that which is not his own and he withholds food from the mouths of
generations yet to be born. No man really owns his acres; society allows
him the use of them for his life-time, but the fee comes back to society
in the end. What, then, will society do with those persons who rob
society? The pillaging or reckless land-worker must be brought to
account and be controlled, even as we control other offenders.
(I know that the soil-depletion idea is now challenged; but I am sure
that the Conservation ideal must be applied to soil maintenance even as
it is applied to other maintenance. If it transpires that plants hold a
different relation to the soil-content than we have supposed, we still
know that poor farming makes the land unproductive and that the saving
of wastes is a desirable human quality; and we shall probably need to
change only our phraseology to make the old statement broadly correct.)
I have no socialistic program to propose. The man who is to till the
land must be educated: there is more need, on the side of the public
welfare, to educate this man than any other man whatsoever (applause).
When he knows, and when his obligations to society are quickened, he
will be ready to become a real conservator; and he will act
energetically as soon as the economic pressure for land-supplies begins
to be acute. When society has done all it can to make every farmer a
voluntary conservator of the fatness of the earth, it will probably be
obliged to resort to other means to control the wholly incompetent and
the recalcitrant; at least, it will compel the soil-robber to remove to
other occupation, if economic stress does not itself compel it. We shall
reach the time when we shall not allow a man to till the earth unless he
is able to leave it at least as fertile as he found it. (Applause)
It is a pernicious notion that a man may do what he will with his own.
The whole tendency of social development is away from this idea. A
person may not even have the full control of his own children: society
compels him to place them in school, and it protects them from over-work
and hardship. A man may not breed diseased cattle. No more should he be
allowed wantonly to waste forests or to make lands impotent, even though
he "owns" them. (Applause)
_Ownership vs. Conservation_
This discussion leads me to make an application to the Conservation
movement in general. We are so accustomed to think of privileged
interests and of corporation control of resources that we are likely to
confuse Conservation with company ownership. The essence of Conservation
is to utilize our resources with the least waste consistent with good
progress, and with an honest care for the children of all generations.
While we not infrequently state the problem to be the reservation of our
resources for all the people, and then assume that if all the resources
were in private ownership the problem would thereby be solved, yet, in
fact, the Conservation question is one thing and the ownership of
property quite another. A corporation may be the best as well as the
worst conservator of resources; and likewise, private or individual
ownership may be the very worst as well as the best conservator. The
individual owner, represented by the "independent farmer," may be the
prince of monopolists (applause), even though his operations compass a
very small scale. The very fact that he is independent, with the further
fact that he is intrenched behind the most formidable of all
barriers--private property rights--insures his monopoly.
In the interest of pure Conservation, it is necessary to control the
single man as well as the organized men. In the end Conservation must
deal with the individual man--that is, with a person. It matters not
whether this person is a part of a trust, or lives alone a hundred miles
beyond the frontier, or is the owner of a prosperous farm--if he wastes
the heritage of the race, he is an offender. We are properly devising
ways whereby the corporation holds its property or privileges in trust,
returning to government (or to society) a fair rental; that is, we are
regulating the corporation and making it responsible to the people. What
shall we do with the unattached man, to make him also responsible? Shall
we hold the corporate plunderer to strict account, and let the single
separate plunderer go scot free? (Applause)
In the last analysis, as measured by the results to society, there is no
essential difference between corporate ownership and individual
ownership.
_The philosophy of saving_
The Conservation of natural resources, therefore, resolves itself into
the philosophy of saving, while at the same time making the most and
best advancement in our own day. We have not developed much
consciousness of saving when dealing with things that come free to our
hands, as the sunshine, the rain, the forests, the mines, the streams,
the earth; and the American has found himself so much in the midst of
plenty that saving has seemed to him to be parsimony, or at least
beneath his attention. As a question of public action, however,
conscientious saving represents a very high development. A high sense
of saving ought to come out of the Conservation movement. This will
make directly for character-efficiency, since it will develop both
responsibility and regard for others.
Civilization, thus far, is built on the process of waste. Materials are
brought from forest and sea and mine, certain small parts are used, and
the remainder is discarded or destroyed; more labor is wasted than is
usefully productive; but what is far worse, the substance of the land is
taken in unimaginable quantities and dumped wholesale, through endless
sewerage and drainage systems, into the sea. It would seem as if the
human race were bent on finding a process by which it can most quickly
ravish the earth and make it incapable of maintaining its teeming
millions. We are rapidly threading the country with vast conduits by
which the fertility of the land can flow away unhindered into the
unreachable reservoirs of the ocean. (Applause)
The factories that fabricate agricultural products are likely to be
midway stations in the progress of the fertility on its way to the sea.
The refuse is dumped into streams; or if it is made into fertilizing
materials, it seldom returns to the particular areas whence it came. A
manufactory will expend any effort in improving its machinery and
practice to enable it to get more material out of its products, but may
do little or nothing to increase the production back on the farms. A
sugar-beet or other factory may drain its country until the country can
no longer raise the product; whereas, by developing a rational system of
husbandry and returning the wastes, as in some European countries, it
might maintain the land-balance. Any good milk-products factory should
develop sound milk-making on the farms of the region, as any good
canning factory should raise the standard of production in the fruits
and vegetables that it uses; and this should always be done with the
object of preserving and even increasing the land-power. A factory owes
an obligation to the open country that supports it.
For these and for other reasons, the city always tends to destroy its
province. The city takes everything to itself--materials, money,
men--and gives back only what it cannot use or what it discards as
useless: it does not constructively build up its contributory country.
City dwelling and country dwelling are the two opposite developments of
human affairs. The future state of society depends directly on the
finding of some real economic and social balance between the two, some
species of cooperation that will build and serve them both. This is the
fundamental problem of the social structure. Although city people and
country people are rapidly affiliating in acquaintanceship, these poles
of society are not yet effectively coming together cooperatively on
economic lines. (Applause)
_The Conservation of food_
The fundamental problem for the human race is to feed itself. It has
been a relatively easy matter to provide food and clothing thus far,
because the earth yet has a small population, and because there have
always been new lands to be brought into requisition. We shall eliminate
the plague and the devastations of war, and the population of the earth
will tremendously increase. When the new lands have all been opened to
cultivation, and when thousands of millions of human beings occupy the
earth, the demand for food will constitute a problem that we scarcely
apprehend today.
One would think, from current discussions, that the single way to
provide the food for the population is to raise more products by moving
more people on the land; but this is not at all nub of the question.
More products will be raised as rapidly as it pays persons to raise
them, and there are now sufficient people on the land to double its
productiveness; and the necessary increase of population will come
automatically with increasing profits in the business. Much is said
about the necessity of intenser methods of farming, and we all recognize
the need; but the chief reason why our people do not raise 300 bushels
of potatoes to the acre is that it does not yet pay in most cases to
produce the extra yield. The comparative statistics of yields in
different countries are useful as appealing to the imagination, but they
may be wholly fallacious as guides. What we need is a thorough inquiry
into the course of trade from potato-patch to consumer, to see where the
profit goes.
We need a greater number of competent farmers, to be sure, whether they
hail from the country or the city; the city will still attract those
laborers who cannot work alone and who watch the clock, and the city
provides the organization or machinery to make them of use; but the real
food question and cost-of-living question is the problem of maintaining
the producing-power of the earth by means of better farming.
We think we have developed intensive and perfected systems of
agriculture; but as a matter of fact, and speaking broadly, a
scientifically permanent agriculture on national lines is yet unknown in
the world. In certain regions, as in Great Britain, the productivity of
the land has been increased over a long series of years, but this has
been accomplished to a great extent by the transportation of fertilizing
materials from the ends of the earth. The fertility of England,
according to authorities, has been drawn largely from the prairies and
plains of America, from which it has secured its food supplies, from the
guano deposits in islands of the seas, from the bones of animals and
men, from the mummies of Egypt (applause). The rotation of crops is not
itself a complete means of maintaining fertility.
We begin to understand how it is possible to maintain the
producing-power of the surface of the earth, and there are certain
regions in which our knowledge has been put effectively into operation;
but we have developed no conscious plan or system in a large way for
securing this result. It is the ultimate problem of the race to devise a
permanent self-sustaining organized agriculture on a scientific basis.
The problem is yet unsolved.
We deplore the relative decrease in the exportation of agricultural
produce, and seem to think that the more we export the richer we become;
but, if our knowledge is correct, under present systems of farming, the
more we send abroad the sooner do we deplete our soils. We properly
remove phosphate lands from exploitation and monopoly, but we may remove
our phosphates more rapidly by sending our produce in unhindered
quantities to Europe. Of course, I am not arguing against exportation
and trade, but I wish to point out a fallacy in our common economic
speech.
_The best husbandry is not in the new regions_
The best agriculture, considered in reference to the permanency of its
results, develops in old regions, where the skinning process has passed,
where the hide has been sold, and where people come back to utilize what
is left. The skinning process is proceeding at this minute in the
bountiful new lands of the United States; and in parts of the older
States, and even also in parts of the newer ones, not only the skin but
the tallow has been sold. There are "abandoned" farms from California
even unto Maine.
It is persistently said that the old eastern States are worn out, and
that the farming in them is wretched. There is reason enough to be
ashamed of eastern agriculture, and I hope that our newer regions will
not repeat the mistakes of the older States; but the eastern States have
most excellent agriculture, more than we are aware. Much of it is very
profitable, fully as profitable as any I have seen in the great
agricultural West. The acre-efficiency, as indicated by the Twelfth
Census, is greatest in the old eastern States. Considered with reference
to maintaining high fertility and utilizing wastes, I have not seen
better fanning in this country than in many examples east of Buffalo. In
the development of our agricultural wealth, the East as well as the West
must be reckoned with. We cannot expect to develop widespread
self-sustaining systems of farming in the East so long as it must
compete with the soil-mining of the West.
We are always seeking growing-room, and we have found it. But now, the
western civilization has met the eastern, and the world is
circumferenced. We shall develop the tropics and push far toward the
poles; but we have now fairly discovered the island that we call the
earth (within a year and a half we have reached one end of it and all
but reached the other), and we must begin to make the most of it.
_Another philosophy of agriculture_
Practically all our agriculture has been developed on a rainfall basis.
There is ancient irrigation experience, to be sure, but the great
agriculture has been growing away from these regions. Agriculture is
still moving on, seeking new regions; and it is rapidly invading regions
of small rainfall. The greater part of the land surface of the globe
must be farmed, if farmed at all, under some system of careful
water-saving. Some of it is redeemable by irrigation, and the remainder,
representing about one-half the earth's surface, by some system of
utilization of deficient rainfall, or by what is inappropriately known
as "dry farming." The complementary practices of irrigation and
dry-farming will develop a wholly new system of agriculture and a new
philosophy of country life.
Even in heavy rainfall countries, there is often such vast waste of
water from run-off that the lands suffer severely during droughts. The
hilly lands of our best farming regions are greatly reduced in their
crop-producing power because people do not prepare against drought as
consciously as they provide against winter. It is often said that we
shall water eastern lands by irrigation, and I think that we shall; but
our first obligation is to save the rainfall water by some system of
farm-management or dry-farming.
The irrigation and dry-farming developments have a significance beyond
their value in the raising of crops; they are making the people to be
conservators of water, and to have a real care for posterity.
Agriculture rests on the saving of water. (Applause)
_The obligation of the farmer_
The farmer is rapidly beginning to realize his obligation to society. It
is usual to say that the farmer feeds the world, but the larger fact is
that he saves the world. The economic system depends on him. Wall Street
watches the crops.
As cities increase proportionately in population, the farmer assumes
larger relative importance and becomes more and more a marked man.
Careful and scientific husbandry is rising in this new country. We have
come to a realization of the fact that our resources are not unlimited.
The mining of fertilizing materials for transportation to a few spots on
the earth will some day cease. We must make the farm sustain itself, at
the same time that it provides the supplies for mankind. We all
recognize the necessity of the other great occupations to a well
developed civilization; but in the nature of the case, the farmer is the
final support. On him depends the existence of the race. No method of
chemical synthesis can provide us with the materials of food and
clothing and shelter, and with all the good luxuries that spring from
the bosom of the earth.
I know of no better present conservators than our best farmers. They
feel their responsibility. Quite the ideal of Conservation is
illustrated by a farmer of my acquaintance who saves every product of
his land and has developed a system of self-maintaining live-stock
husbandry, who has harnessed his small stream to light his premises and
do much of his work, who turns his drainage waters into household use,
and who is now troubled that he cannot make some use of the winds that
are going to waste on his farm.
_The obligation of the Conservation movement_
What I have meant to emphasize is the fact that the farmer is the
ultimate conservator of the resources of the earth. He is near the
cradle of supplies, near the sources of the streams, next the margin of
the forests, and on the hills and in the valleys and on the plains just
where the resources lie. He is in contact with the original and raw
materials, and with the fundamental necessities. Any plan of
Conservation that overlooks this fact cannot meet the situation. The
Conservation movement must help the farmer to keep and save the race.
The Conservation and Country Life movements will pass through
propagandic, economic, and political phases; but they will eventuate
into a new alignment of human forces and a redirection of the processes
of social development. These results are to be brought about by efforts
proceeding along definite lines of action. The Conservation movement is
rapidly becoming crystallized into definite proposals. The Country Life
movement should be solidified through a definite National organization
or commission, that is continuously active. This body should work
through all existing rural organizations, placing before them for
consideration the specific questions of the day and serving as a
clearing-house of discussions that arise in the societies and with the
people; and it should make real investigation into the actual economic
and social conditions of the open country, with a view to pointing out
the specific practical steps to be taken by National, State, local, and
individual enterprise.
The Commission on Country Life made sufficient specific recommendations
and suggestions to start a fundamental redirection of effort as applied
to rural development. The Report of the Commission will naturally be the
diverging-point of future discussions of country-life problems.
(Applause)
* * * * *
Chairman CLAPP--Ladies and Gentlemen: The hour grows late, and the
Congress will stand adjourned for the day.
_SEVENTH SESSION_
The Congress was called to order by President Baker in the Auditorium,
Saint Paul, at 8.30 a.m. on Thursday, September 8, few Delegates being
present, and none responding to an invitation to speak for their States.
After waiting some time--
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: We will now go on with the
regular program, leaving the Call of the States for a later time when
the Delegations may be more fully represented. In the absence of the
Reverend Dr J. A. Krantz, President of the Minnesota Conference of the
Swedish Lutheran Church, we will dispense with the public invocation.
Professor Henry S. Graves, Chief Forester of the United States, will now
address you on "The Forest and the Nation."
* * * * *
Professor GRAVES--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: The movement for
the conservation of our natural resources has reached the second and
most critical stage in its progress. The country has expressed in
unmistakable terms its approval of the principles of Conservation; there
is now before it the problem of the practical application of those
principles.
In forestry there is a very general agreement that our woodlands must be
protected from fire, that waste must be reduced, and that a future
timber supply must in some way be provided. In carrying out these
purposes, differences of opinion arise, and it soon develops that with
many persons the interest in forestry is confined to the abstract idea
and does not extend to its practice. When the requirements of forestry
are considered, forest owners usually find that they must make some
modification in their methods of cutting, that they must use more care
in protection from fire and in saving young growth, and that if they are
to secure a new growth of trees after cutting, some investment is
necessary. The general public learns that in order to secure for the
Nation the permanent benefits of the forest, National and State
expenditures are required.
It is at this point that indifference and even opposition to
Conservation arise. Indifference is shown by the public when it fails to
make adequate appropriations for public forestry. Direct opposition
appears from those who fear that their interests in one way or another
may be adversely affected. There is a great deal of misunderstanding in
regard to the methods of Conservation, and many have charged that those
methods heretofore advocated are impractical. In order to be
successfully applied, Conservation must be practical; but at the same
time the methods must be such as will actually accomplish its real
purposes. To my mind the real significance and value of this Congress is
that an opportunity is afforded to make clear the methods of
Conservation, and the country will then decide whether it will really be
put into practice or become a mere name.
It is not my intention now to dwell at length on the fundamental
importance to the country of forest Conservation. To those who know the
needs of the people for forest products, the available resources, and
the manner in which they are now being used up or destroyed, it must be
clear that we are facing a problem which must be met by prompt and
vigorous action.
A survey of the forest resources of the world shows clearly that in the
long run this Nation must be dependent chiefly on its own supplies.
Those who believe that we may destroy our own forests and then draw upon
foreign resources of timber are misinformed as to the facts, for those
supplies will not be long available. Foreign countries will need for
their own use what they can produce, and many of the exporting countries
are exhausting their forests just as rapidly as America. The timber
supply in this country is being rapidly depleted. We are extravagant in
our use of forest products; there is waste in logging and manufacturing,
and the loss by fire is a shame to the country. To offset this reduction
of merchantable resources the annual production of timber by growth
amounts to much less than one-third the average quantity used and
destroyed. In other words, we are actually exhausting our forest
supplies by use and waste.
There is a sufficient amount of land in the country better suited to
forest growth than other purposes to produce all the wood and timber
needed by the Nation, provided the forest is properly handled. This land
includes mountain areas where the protection of the vegetation is
necessary to conserve water and protect the slopes. The protective
benefits of the forest can thus in most cases be secured at the same
time as the production of wood and timber. There are, however, certain
mountain regions of the West where large trees will not grow, and where
the cover of brush and grass must be conserved to protect the slopes and
to regulate the run-off of water. In these mountains special
reservations must be maintained primarily for protective purposes.
There is but little disagreement in regard to these simple propositions.
The difficulty lies in the fact that the people do not appreciate the
need of immediate action to put the principles of forestry into
practice. The reason why prompt action is not appreciated is that,
except locally, the effects of forest destruction have not yet been
keenly felt. It is true that the prices of certain grades of lumber have
tended to increase. This increase is in part due to the reduction of
supplies, but it is due also to the same causes of increased cost of
production as have raised the price of other manufactured commodities
(applause). The development of railroad transportation and of methods of
logging have constantly opened new forest resources and furnished a
supply to the public. There are today over 30,000 saw-mills throughout
the country cutting timber and competing for the market. Although the
prices of lumber may seem high to the consumer it is still true that in
some sections the competition among the manufacturers is keeping the
prices down to a point where it is hard to market low grades and to
utilize in full any but the best trees in the forest. As long as the
value of timber is below what it would cost to produce it by growth, the
general public will not realize that our supplies are being depleted. It
is after the virgin supplies are exhausted--and that will come in a
comparatively short time--that the great increase in values will come
and the public will suffer. We are urging action now in order that there
may be new supplies produced to meet the needs of the Nation at that
time. (Applause)
The general public fails also to appreciate the effect of forest
destruction on stream-flow and on soil erosion. Some even go so far as
to deny the connection between forests and stream-flow. There are many
factors which determine the stability of water flow. Climate, character
of soil, topography, and vegetative cover, all have an influence on the
run-off of water. There may be a change of conditions of one or more of
these influencing factors sufficient to upset the equilibrium
established by nature, and alter the manner of run-off of the water in a
given watershed (applause). In humid regions, where the old timber is
cut off or burned, a cover of young trees or brush often springs up
quickly and protects the slopes before the character of the stream
channels is changed. A single clearing of the forest may thus have only
a small or temporary effect on water flow. The repeated destruction of
the cover may, however, result in a permanent change, and finally
produce torrent conditions. Thus in the Southern Appalachian province it
is not so much the present and past conditions--although those are
serious--which demand forest conservation, as what will inevitably be
the result of continued destruction of the cover. (Applause)
Where the conditions for forest growth are critical, and the soil and
topography are such that the balance of nature is easily disturbed, the
effects of forest destruction are much more quickly felt. In certain
parts of the West we find already examples of flood and torrent
conditions equal to those in France and Asia. For example, in Utah there
are watersheds where, on account of the burning of the forests and the
over-grazing of slopes, torrent conditions are already definitely
established. One of the most extreme and striking instances in the West
is found on the watershed of Kanab creek flowing through southern Utah
and northern Arizona. As the result of over-grazing, the tributary
streams have already become deep washes, and many new and deep gulches
have been formed running into the main channel and into the side
channels. The water which falls on the surface is quickly carried to
some stream or wash which becomes a miniature torrent. The gathering of
these together in the main channel makes a flood which is irresistible.
The loss from the destruction of dams and bridges, the washing away of
arable lands, and the deposit of rocks and gravel on cultivated fields,
has been enormous. The restoration of vegetation alone will not cure the
evil. It is now an engineering problem to check the torrential flow of
water in the various streams and washes.
In spite of the increasing evidences of the effects of forest
destruction, the public still fails to appreciate the need of prompt
action to prevent the scarcity of timber and to protect the flow of our
streams. The time for action is _before_ a disaster and not afterward
(applause). The small public investments necessary for forest protection
are insignificant when contrasted with the losses and hardships to
communities resulting from forest destruction.
The forest problem is peculiarly difficult on account of the length of
time required to produce timber of useful dimensions. We are using today
trees which for the most part are from 150 to 200 years of age. The time
required to produce trees suitable for lumber varies from about 40 years
with our most rapid-growing species to over 100 years in many mountain
regions. The production of timber requires a long investment. It
requires the permanent use of land for forest growth, and a stable
policy in handling the forest. At the present time in this country there
is great risk from fire, which discourages investment by private capital
in the growing of timber. By its very nature, therefore, the problem of
forestry presents great difficulties to the average private owner of
forest land who has bought the property to market the merchantable
timber and not to grow trees.
Forestry nearly always involves an actual investment. Private owners
will not as a rule make this investment unless there is clearly in sight
an adequate return. On account of the long investment, risk from fire, a
burdensome system of taxation of growing timber, and the present
uncertainties of market, most private owners today are not practicing a
system of forestry which takes into consideration the production of new
timber supplies. Many say that if fires are kept out the question of
forest production will take care of itself, no matter how the forest is
handled, and that all there is to forestry is protection from fire. Let
me say, and with all the emphasis I am capable of using, that forest
production will not take care of itself. There are cases, and remarkable
ones, of natural reproduction of forests even under the worst of abuse.
But where there is no systematic provision for reproduction, ordinary
lumbering results in the long run in a steady reduction of growth of
valuable material; and there are only too many cases of destructive
lumbering which leave the land in an unproductive state even when fires
do not occur. (Applause)
Forestry is necessary to guarantee to the people the continuous benefits
of the forest. The responsibility of working out the problem of National
forestry cannot be left with private owners. It is primarily a public
question, and the burden of its solution must be largely borne by the
public. In the first place those forests owned by the public must be
protected and administered under the methods of practical forestry.
These public forests comprise about one-third of the forest area of the
country. The remaining two-thirds of our forests are in private
ownership, and this includes about four-fifths of the remaining standing
merchantable timber. Without doubt the area of the public forests will
be considerably increased through the acquirement of areas needed for
the protection of public interests, especially in the mountain regions
of the East. But the Federal and State forests alone will not be
sufficient to produce the supplies of forest products needed by the
country. The practice of forestry on private lands, or at least on those
areas better suited for forest growth than for other purposes, is a
public necessity. I regard the proper handling of these private forests
as a public necessity (applause). The private owner cannot escape the
responsibility of ownership of an important natural resource; at the
same time he cannot be expected to make financial investments in order
to provide for a general public benefit. The conditions which prevent
him from practicing forestry should be changed. He should be given
public aid in protection from fire. There should be a reasonable system
of taxing growing timber, and there should be cooperation in meeting the
peculiar difficulties of his business which tend to stand in the way of
Conservation.
The practice of forestry by private owners may be brought about through
assistance and cooperation by the Federal Government and the States. The
Government can do a great deal to promote private forestry. It is the
policy of the Forest Service to aid in the introduction and practice of
forestry on private lands, just as far as its authority permits. This
assistance must, however, be largely confined to education, advice, and
general cooperation. Through research and experiment, the Government is
laying the foundation for the practice of forestry in all parts of the
country. The results of the work in forest products will greatly help in
the problem of saving waste. The experiments in silviculture are
demonstrating the methods of handling woodlands. Direct aid to private
owners in the practice of forestry must come chiefly from the States.
The proper adjustment of taxes is a State matter. Assistance in fire
patrol and fire fighting must come from the States. If on the other hand
this aid is given by the States and the Government, and the obstacles
now standing in the way of private forestry are removed, private owners
should assume their obligations in actually setting to work to practice
forestry.
The first necessity is prompt and effective action by the States. As yet
most of our States have not assumed their full responsibilities in
forestry. In a number of them good forests laws have been enacted;
several States are buying lands as public reservations; and in about
fifteen States a forest commission or a State forester has been
appointed. But the problem of State forestry requires a great deal more
than laws on the statute books, or the appointment of a State forester.
There must be the machinery to carry out the laws, a thoroughly equipped
organization to patrol the State and fight fires, and adequate
appropriation of money to make this work really effective (applause).
The real test of State forestry will be the development of a forest
policy which will be stable, and the providing of the money necessary to
carry on the work.
The first duty of the Federal Government in forestry is the proper
administration of the forest lands owned by the Nation. A National
forest policy has already been initiated. The greater portion of the
Federal forest lands have been set aside as National Forests and they
have been managed on the principles of practical Conservation. The
purpose of establishing these forests has been to guarantee the best
possible use of their resources for the people. There is still an
impression among some persons that the National Forests are closed
reservations, withdrawn from use and development. The keynote of the
Federal policy in handling these forests is the use of their resources;
but it is the continued use in contrast with that use which exhausts the
resources (applause). There are many who assert that the National
Forests are retarding development. It is the policy of the Forest
Service to encourage the opening up and development of the resources of
the forests, but we take the stand that this must be a development which
will permanently build up the country. (Applause)
The Federal policy stands squarely for permanent development and
maintenance of stable industries, as opposed to mere exploitation which
exhausts the resources, and which shortly results in the impoverishment
of the region. (Applause)
In administering the National Forests, the first task is to protect them
from destruction by fire. In order adequately to protect forests from
fire, the first necessity is a system of roads and trails to enable
proper patrol and movement of fire fighters, and telephone lines for
quick communication. The second necessity is a well organized force of
rangers and guards to patrol the forest and fight fires. Ever since the
National Forests were placed under the administration of the Forest
Service, the construction of trails and telephone lines has been pushed
as rapidly as funds could be secured for that purpose. Although there
have already been built 9,218 miles of trails, 1,218 miles of roads, and
4,851 miles of telephone lines, this represents but a beginning of the
work when the vast area of inaccessible and undeveloped forests is
considered. The Forest Service has a well organized protective service
for patrol and fire fighting, though the number of men is still
inadequate. Nevertheless it has been possible in ordinary seasons to
keep down the fires to a small loss. During the present season there has
been in the Northwest an unparalleled drouth and constant high winds
that have made fire protection unusually difficult. Innumerable fires
were started in the forests from various causes. The woods were dry, and
a small spark was sufficient to start a blaze. Where there were roads
and trails, the patrol-men were able to reach the fires quickly and
either put them out in their incipiency or soon mobilize a force of men
who brought them under control before they had done much damage. This
was well demonstrated by the fact that in the Montana and Idaho
districts the majority of railroad fires were put out by the patrol-men
employed by the Forest Service and by the railroads in cooperation
before they reached dangerous proportions. Many fires were started,
also, in the inaccessible portions of the forest where there are no
roads and trails. It was often impossible to reach those fires until
they had been burning several days, and in many cases had become
dangerous conflagrations. The disastrous fires were those occurring
under these conditions.
I wish to take this occasion to express my appreciation of the work of
those men who lost their lives in these fires, and also of those other
men who ever since the opening of this dry season have been fighting
these fires, working often day and night, without regard to hours of
service--working with a courage, with a singleness of purpose and desire
to protect the property of the public, which makes me proud of them.
(Applause)
The great lesson of these fires is the absolute necessity for a complete
system of roads and trails and of telephone lines in the National
Forests. I meet some men who say that forests cannot be protected from
fire, and that sooner or later every extensive forest will be burned.
The experience in the Northwest this year only strengthens my conviction
that forests can be protected from fire even under the most adverse
climatic conditions. But this protection absolutely requires a proper
development of the forest in the way of transportation and
communication, and an adequate force of men for patrol. The National
Forests can be rendered safe from fire but they must be organized for
it. This requires extensive construction work at the outset. It requires
a large investment in permanent improvement work by the Government. But
that necessary expense is insignificant in comparison with the value of
the property which will be protected, and the benefits to the
communities and industries depending on these forests.
* * * * *
The National Forests are for use, and are administered primarily for the
benefit of those States and communities in which they are located. The
various resources are opened to use under reasonable restrictions which
will guarantee their best continuous service to the greatest possible
number of people. The mature timber is cut when there is a demand for
its use, but the cutting is conducted under the principles of forestry,
so that new growth is established in openings made by lumbering and the
continued supply of timber is provided for. (Applause)
The other resources of the National Forests are also being put to use.
The grass is utilized under a system of regulated grazing, land more
valuable for agriculture than for forest purposes is opened to entry
under the forest homestead act, prospecting is allowed without
restriction, and legitimate mining is encouraged. It is the aim of the
Forest Service to encourage the development of water-powers, and we are
endeavoring to work out a practical plan which will facilitate this
development by private capital, and at the same time protect the
interests of the public (applause). I believe that the use of
water-power sites on Federal lands should be under Government control,
and I believe that this can be accomplished so as not to prevent the
attraction of capital to their development. (Applause)
So far as the National Forests are concerned, Conservation has already
carried into the practical stage, for it is being put into actual
operation. The National Forests will always stand as a monument to the
work of the real founder and spirit of the Conservation movement,
Gifford Pinchot. (Great applause)
There are many opponents of the National Forest policy and of the Forest
Service, but I find in most sections of the country that those who are
using the National Forests, and who are therefore most vitally
interested in them, are cooperating very heartily with the Government in
working out the details of their administration. It is through the kind
of constructive cooperation which the Forest Service is receiving from
lumbermen of the country that the practical management of the National
Forests can be made really effective. (Applause)
The burden of my plea today is the need of prompt and vigorous action.
Action is required of the general public in giving support for the
protection of the National Forests. Action is required by the States in
administering the State lands in the interests of the public. Action is
required by the States in initiating a system of taxation of growing
timber which will not prevent Conservation. Action is required by the
States in introducing a system of forest patrol and fighting fires which
will permit prompt work in the prevention of the burning of our forests.
And action, finally, is needed by private individuals to introduce the
practical forestry on their lands just as far as economic conditions
will permit.
My suggestion is that the first step is required by the public through
action of States and action of the Government. I appreciate that this
cannot be accomplished without explaining fully to the people exactly
what is required. I appreciate that there is necessary an organized
campaign of education which should be carried into every locality of the
country. This campaign may and must be practical, and not only the
general problem of forestry but also the specific means of solving it
must be presented to the people. This educational work may be done in
part by the Government; a large amount of it must, however, be carried
on through the State officials, through the State forest and
conservation commissions, and through National and local associations.
(Prolonged applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--The next subject is "The Stake of the Business Man in
Conservation," by Mr Alfred L. Baker, of Chicago.
Mr BAKER--Mr President, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: Here in
this Second Conservation Congress, where are assembled specialists who
have given profound study to the different phases of the Conservation of
our resources, where are met together scientists in agriculture,
forestry, mineralogy and waterways, it is not intended that the remarks
of a business man should stumble into the fields of the experts. It is,
however, appropriate that he should voice his approving earnestness and
vigorous enthusiasm in behalf of the Conservation movement (applause),
and voice them to those National benefactors who are holding their
shoulders to the wheel of progress. As a delegate to this Congress,
representing the business man and with the knowledge of his views, I
wish to state with all the emphasis of which I am capable that the
business men in this country are heart and soul in favor of Conservation
(applause). Owing to the infirmities of human nature a few may faint by
the wayside; but the great body and mass can always be depended on to
faithfully and loyally support the movement. By so doing they are
promoting the proper development of those resources which are not only
the foundation of our National prosperity but also the foundation of
their own individual success.
The most conspicuous quality in the character of the successful business
man is foresight--and he, more than any other member of the community,
must realize the necessity of foresight in the management of our
National affairs. He himself would never permit the waste or plunder of
his own personal resources, and whilst enjoying their daily possession
would always take thought for the morrow. The Nation in its control of
our resources should reflect the same character and intelligence which
the individual shows in the management of his own private affairs.
(Applause)
The great body of business men favor the well-known policies of
Conservation. They recognize that those resources which are of a public
character should be held in trust by the Nation for the benefit of the
people (applause) and that those resources of a private nature should be
so disposed of that they will be enjoyed by the greatest number for the
longest time. (Applause)
They believe in the Government control of water-power (applause) with
the cooperation of the States, and in the application of a scientific
forestry which will eliminate waste, also in a fire patrol which, _at
whatever cost_ (applause), will prevent the destruction of our forests
and of human life. They believe in better methods of farming and in the
improvement of country life so that the bright boy on the farm shall no
longer respond to the call of the great city, but find immediately about
him equal opportunities for fame and fortune. (Applause) They believe in
the continued distribution of information on a large scale that will
educate the people and advance their knowledge of Conservation
(applause); and finally they believe in the Conservation of public
integrity, which is the basal foundation of our National life on which
all else depends. (Great applause)
I am not one of those who believe that the Conservation movement should
be confined solely to the technical treatment of the forest and soil and
the prevention of material waste. The second article in the platform of
the first Conservation Congress provides that "the objects of this
Congress shall be broad, to act as a clearing house for all allied
social forces of our time, to seek to overcome waste in natural, human,
or moral forces." I concur in that declaration. (Applause)
We are told that the Constitution of the United States was the
unexpected outcome of a conference convened for the sole purpose of
investigating our waterways. The charge of irrelevancy might well have
been brought to bear upon the discussions which ensued relating to a
standing army and the powers of the Federal Government, but in all
National movements the importance rests not with their origin but with
the extent of their usefulness. (Applause)
However restricted at the outset, Conservation has grown into a larger
and more comprehensive movement, and its principles include the
conservation of ideals that make for good citizenship (applause). It is
in relation to this larger view that I wish to emphasize the importance
of the American business man and his influence on our National progress.
In the lifetime of many now living, the land in this great State of
Minnesota was divided between two Indian tribes--the Sioux and the
Chippewa. These tribes were uncivilized. Intelligence had not arrived at
the stage which produces diversified industry, commerce, and the
merchant. The influence of these forces marks the difference between the
land of the Sioux and the State of Minnesota today.
The early pioneers who first settled on the Atlantic Coast and then
continued their journey across the Continent were all business men, but
they were not capitalists. From the eastern States they sought in Europe
capital to build up the industries of their locations, and, by the use
of this capital and labor rendered the East prosperous; and when these
sturdy pioneers opened up the wealth of resources in the West they, in
turn, drew upon the East for capital, and by paying for its use and
uniting labor with it developed this great country. The descendants of
these pioneer business men are the representative business men of today.
They are not in an economic sense capitalists. Whilst the capitalist may
be a business man, the vast majority of business men are not
capitalists. The business man is the one who obtains capital from one
source and labor from another source and unites them in an anticipated
prosperous undertaking. (Applause)
The material prosperity of the United States is due to our natural
resources and the genius of the business man united with the capital of
the few and the toil of the millions; but the _creative genius_, the
organizing ability, the spirit which animates the partnership, is the
contribution of the business man--by his brains, energy, force of
character, and toil he has created here in the United States a
commercial system of enterprise and a degree of business prosperity
unparalleled in history.
If we give the credit of this achievement to the business man, he should
also bear the responsibility of the evils which have been engendered
(applause). The gravest evils which have developed out of our commercial
prosperity are the uncontrolled power of great wealth, the growth of
monopolies, and their sinister influence on our political institutions.
(Applause)
Industrial efficiency may justify the union of many smaller corporations
into one big one, but if it leads to industrial despotism this
efficiency is obtained at the sacrifice of industrial freedom
(applause). No one nowadays, on the ground of efficiency, believes in a
_political_ despotism; surely it is equally difficult to believe that
any degree of efficiency could justify _industrial_ despotism.
(Applause)
As early as 1888 so conservative a man as Grover Cleveland expressed
himself as follows: "Communism of combined wealth and capital, the
outgrowth of overweening cupidity and selfishness, which assiduously
undermines the justice and integrity of free institutions is not less
dangerous than the communism of oppressed poverty and toil which,
exasperated by injustice and discontent, attacks with wild disorder the
citadel of misrule." So far as communism of capital is concerned, did
not Cleveland's graphic statement adumbrate the conditions as they exist
today? Since that time how tremendous has been the growth in the
combinations of capital and industry.
But of more importance than the size of the corporations and the
combinations of capital is the activity in our political arena of the
agents and members of these corporations (applause); they are not there
to advocate measures for the welfare of the community, but to obtain for
themselves special privileges, to gain some advantage in disregard of
the public welfare and merely for private gain. These conditions are
precipitating an economic and political crisis, in which the issues are
not to be between the two great political parties, but between ranks
which are being formed to give battle on these new issues regardless of
party lines. (Applause)
To my mind great encouragement lies in the fact that there is rapidly
developing a segregation in the ranks of business men. Already many of
them, freed from a false sense of class loyalty, or a fear of injury to
business, are unwilling to assist by their public support or private
esteem that man, however successful or powerful he may be, who by
himself or by his agents practices methods which are unfair and opposed
to the common good (applause). They no longer respect the citizen who in
any way indicates a reluctance to take part in the crusade against
bribery and graft, or the one who, by silence, hopes to conceal his
public attitude when public sentiment seeks to fasten responsibility
where responsibility belongs (applause). This sort of man must come out
into the open and declare himself--he must be either with us or against
us. (Applause and cries of "Good!")
Even though the advocacy of the control of industrial combinations and
the enactment of measures for their regulation temporarily affect
business interests, they should not for this reason excite the
opposition of the mercantile world. Those business men who have become
convinced of the wisdom of regulation should be willing to follow the
example of the intelligent patient who goes through with a necessary
operation that in the end he may obtain permanent health and strength.
(Applause)
During the last five years there is apparent among business men a larger
recognition of their obligations to the community, and there is
noticeable among the directors of many of our corporations a stricter
sense of trusteeship. An anti-toxin to corruption has entered the very
veins of the business world (applause). The phagocytes of health are
overcoming the macrophags of decay. This is not a sudden revival, a
temporary wave of reform, but a gradual evolution of the moral sense, a
permanent advance in the idea of social justice (applause). This moral
awakening may show itself politically in an effort toward municipal
reform, in legislative and municipal voters' leagues, in a determined
resistance to monopoly, or for a larger control and a larger share in
the profits of public franchise corporations. But in whatever form it
seeks its expression, it is the manifestation of an actively
constructive principle which will soon become so effective that the
merchant and the man of affairs will overlook the near and personal view
which appears on the stock ticker and take the larger view, the view
that ultimately provides for the greatest good of the greatest number
(applause). This awakened sense of social justice is the new and deeper
significance of the Conservation movement. (Applause)
Two years ago the Conference of Governors adopted a declaration of
principles which the President said should hang on the wall of every
school-house for the education of every citizen who is to become a voter
in the next generation.
Since then Conservation has become the watchword of the hour. The
widespread use of the word has given to it a meaning undreamed of in the
beginning. In the form of an intelligent energy it has applied itself to
all the concerns of life from the conservation of the soil and the
forest to the conservation of birds, of child life and of health. It
enters into our daily life, awakens into an active moral force a
renaissance of the old-fashioned virtues--prudence, thrift, and
foresight--and gives to them a larger and a National meaning.
Conservation is the intimate and individual message to our day and
generation. It marks the advent of a new patriotism wherein love of
humanity becomes an integral part of love of country, and where the
conservation of our "rocks and rills," our "woods and templed hills," is
not a more sacred trust than the conservation of those ideals and
principles through which we hope to attain our ultimate National
purpose--a Government of enlightened people, enjoying equal
opportunities, sharing equal burdens, and rejoicing in the freedom of an
Industrial and Political Democracy. (Great applause)
* * * * *
[In the course of the foregoing, President Baker invited Professor
Condra to the Chair.]
Professor CONDRA--Ladies and Gentlemen: President Baker desires me to
say that his voice has failed. He also authorizes me to announce that
the Call of States will be made this afternoon.
I am pleased now to introduce a speaker opposed to the leading objects
of this Congress. I ask you to hear kindly any criticism that he may
offer. His subject is "The Relation of Capital to the Development of
Resources." Mr Frank H. Short, of California.
* * * * *
Mr SHORT--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am permitted to speak
today for the first time for real money, and apparently in behalf of
those who are sometimes denominated "malefactors of great wealth." I
observe that one of the Saint Paul papers in announcing this address has
referred to me as a lawyer and capitalist. The latter I modestly deny.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to become rich. Good lawyers are
scarce and valuable, and judging by the speeches I have heard in this
Congress rich men are very common and a great public nuisance. Therefore
I hold that it would be a great misfortune for a good lawyer, such as I
admit that I am (laughter), to be spoiled by making out of him an
ordinary capitalist.
This audience, in listening to my address, will no doubt have in mind
the numerous warnings which have been given to them in advance to
forestall the evil influences of my humble remarks. I hope none of you
will ever have to sustain the painful ordeal of appearing before an
audience decorated with hoofs and horns by angels of light wearing
crowns and playing harps, who have so kindly bestowed upon me the
habiliments of the Evil One. Perhaps, since I have been so excessively
featured, I had as well admit the whole horrible truth. First, and
perhaps worst of all, I am a Missourian, having committed the
indiscretion of being born in the "Show me" State--but not in Kansas.
All of my youth was spent in the Middle West in the occupation of a
rough rider; and I still enjoy a fight or a footrace as much as though I
were a real colonel. Further confessing, I have lived for many years in
California and am a lawyer by profession, and have committed the offense
of allowing myself to be retained and am now employed by a considerable
number of large water companies and electric power companies and other
corporations, diligently endeavoring to commit the crime of investing
capital under the laws of the western States in the development of the
industries and resources of those States.
The difference between a real colonel and a second lieutenant is
illustrated by the fact that this admission permits of my being heard
under his authority, although industrious efforts by the lieutenant
referred to have been devoted to the contrary purpose. I am, however,
speaking under the general permission of this Congress, and under no
other frank than my unrevoked license as a real though obscure American
citizen.
The rights and interests of all American citizens and business
institutions under the laws of our country are the same (applause). As a
man accumulates property, and his interests and substantial connection
with the country and its resources increase, he thereupon becomes just
that much more interested in the honesty and integrity of the Government
under which he lives, in the perfectly equal and just operation of the
law, and above all in the supremacy of the law and similarly in the
inauguration, continuation, and perpetuation of good policies.
No doubt we self-governing Americans have all erred, both the poor man
and the capitalist; and perhaps it would not be unfair to say that we
all ought in humility to bear our equal share of the odium connected
with whatever failures and offenses have been committed during our
history, and I am not here to shift any of the burden from one class
upon another. Neither am I here to answer denunciations with
denunciations. I am handicapped in such debate, for the reason that I
acquired my education in the old-fashioned school that was taught to
believe that an honest man was one who said little of his own honesty
and less of the supposed dishonesty of others.
A convention of this character can be carried on with but little
capital, and may travel a good ways on sheer wind; but with all respect
to free speech, it takes money to carry on Government and conduct
business, and if capital is as timid as it is supposed to be, and if
some of our political friends were as dangerous as they sound, all of
the money would have been scared out of America before I commenced these
remarks on capital. Allow me, however, respectfully to suggest that we
of this country are engaged in many vast enterprises; we are responsible
to many men and their families for the opportunity to work and to earn a
living. We are committed to the completion of many National enterprises
of great magnitude. Our crops are none too large, our reserve capital is
small and is growing smaller. The general industrial and financial
conditions of the country from the point of view of thoughtful men who
understand the situation, are not as satisfactory as I wish they were,
and those who are gaining fame and ascending to office by wild
denunciations of wealth are willing to assume hazards that I do not
envy. (Applause)
Honest capital is more secure when governments are made honest and
special privileges are denied, when graft is prevented and crimes are
punished: and there is never any danger in real reform, but infinite
harm can be done by attractive orators of maximum lung power and
minimum brains (applause). Honesty is the best policy in large business
and in small business, and the most that capital ought to expect or
demand, and the most that will be profitable to it in the long run, is
to seek and if it can obtain the passage and the enforcement of equal
and just laws, the continuation of justice, and the right honestly to
accumulate, hold and enjoy property (applause). The relations of capital
to Conservation are identical with its relations to all other business.
As Conservation tends to increase and continue the natural resources of
the country, the fertility of the soil, the perpetuation of the forests,
the flow of streams, and all of those conditions that insure the
substantial welfare of the country, the capitalist has an equal interest
with all other citizens in Conservation, and the added interest that he
can share in a greater degree in the resulting and continuing prosperity
than his less fortunate neighbor.
Some excellent things have been done and said in this convention. If
"conversational conservation" would cure the evils under which we live
we would have no need of doctors for a long time. As against
"conversational conservation" I wish now to say a few words about
constitutional conservation. From now on I may wander a little from the
rich subject that has been assigned to me, but I have been much
interested in the suggestion that that branch of the Government that can
accomplish the most good for the people should take charge of their
business and affairs connected with Government. Unless, however, we have
some authoritative source other than the nebulous question of the
general welfare to determine where this authority lies, I am
apprehensive that most of the resources of Government would be
dissipated in fighting over the question of authority.
What I now hold to be true for all time--and you will all agree with me
some day--is that that branch of the Government that under our
constitutional system is designated as the one having the authority is
the only branch of the Government that can benefit capital, conserve or
advance the rights of the people, or do justice in any way whatever.
Conservation as it was understood in its inception in this country, the
preservation of our soils, our forests, and our resources presented a
subject of little difficulty, and in connection with which we were all
practically in accord and where apparently there would have been no
occasion for any serious disagreement. No more new or difficult
questions of Government are legitimately involved in Conservation and
forestry than are involved in cultivation and farming.
If the device of using the public lands to graft Government onto
Conservation had not been invented by some civic genius, we would have
had 90 percent of conservation to 10 percent of controversy. But when
the landlord seeks to be the governor, especially in America, we get 90
percent plus of controversy and 10 percent minus of conservation.
Landlord law and governmental conservation was devised, we are told, to
control wealth for the benefit of the plain, small man. Inquire in the
vicinity of any forest reserve, and you will find that there are more
plain, small people than there used to be, and they are getting plainer
and smaller every day; so apparently the good work will never end.
As briefly as I may, and seriously as I can, I will state the situation
that confronts the people of the West, the poor man and the capitalist
alike, in connection with the forest reserve. Forest reserves were
authorized by Congress for the purpose of protecting forests and
conserving the source of supply of streams. Probably one-third of the
200,000,000 acres that have been set apart in forest reserves in the
western one-third of the United States are reasonably necessary and
suited to these purposes. As to the other two-thirds, they were largely
included--and in some instances this is frankly admitted--for the
purpose of authority for Government control, to include pasture lands,
power-sites, irrigation projects, and the like. If forest reserves had
been created to meet the actual necessity which brought them into
existence, and if they had been administered with due deference to the
rights of the State within which they are situated, to improve and
develop its resources without restraint, to construct or authorize to be
constructed roads and highways, railroads, telephone and telegraph
lines, canals and ditches for the beneficial use of water, and the
functions of local self-government had not been assumed to the Federal
authorities and denied to the local authorities, I could conceive of no
reason why the forestry policy could not have been carried out with
great credit and some profit to the Federal Government and greatly to
the advantage of the district in which the forests are situated. The
pity of it all is that this has not been done. We are told that the
sentiment in opposition to transferring from the States to the Federal
Government important functions of regulation and control is not
unanimous. This is true as to districts not directly affected by the
forest reserves; but as to the people within and in the vicinity of the
forest reserves, in other words, as to those who have come directly or
indirectly in contact with bureaucratic government, the sentiment is
about as unanimous as ever existed in America.
That the Forester and those under him honestly desire to benefit the
people, especially "the poor, small man," we need not deny; that the
actual results have been beneficial, however, we wholly deny. The
imperial dominion withdrawn includes territory as large as 20 or 30
average-size eastern States, amounting frequently to one-fifth or
one-fourth, and sometimes even exceeding the latter fraction of the
territory within a State, and practically taking over and paralyzing
local self-government in certain entire districts of a State. These
lands are, and if the policy continues will remain forever, withdrawn
from State taxation and revenue, and instead will become a source of
expense and burden. First, considering the prime purpose to preserve and
protect the forest, what has been the result? The Forester and those
under him have my profound sympathy in connection with the recent awful
destructive forest fires and the heroic way in which the disaster was
met, even though it was not overcome.
For many years experienced and practical men in the West have protested
against the policies pursued. Previous to the establishment of the
forest reserves the land was pastured by sheep and cattle, admittedly in
some instances over-pastured. Frequent fires ran through the country,
but in most instances as the country had been closely pastured off and
fires had usually recently occurred, these fires did only incidental
harm, and in a general way the great forests of the West in many
districts--although the result of mere natural processes--as valuable
and magnificent as there are in the world, were retained in their
primitive and perfect condition. For a good many years now exactly the
reverse of this primitive condition has prevailed. Sheep have been
excluded and cattle have been limited; falling and decaying timber, the
growth of vegetation from year to year, and the accumulation of
underbrush and debris have continued; and we have gone on conserving our
forests in such a way that we have been accumulating fuel and the
elements of destruction, piling up wrath against the day of wrath, until
the fires, in spite of precautions, have started, and the destruction
that has resulted is inevitable. What is needed now in this particular
is a surgeon who has the nerve to amputate the conditions that create
fire, and until this is done the danger will go on increasing from year
to year and more destruction than benefits will inevitably result. To
those who suggest that a sufficient patrol will prevent fires, I respond
that they ought to try the experiment of filling a building with powder,
putting an ample guard around it, and touching a match to it.
These great reserves have been practically closed to settlement and
homesteading. The price of pasturage has been increased, the number of
cattle and sheep pastured has been diminished, and the price of meat
correspondingly advanced. The price of stumpage has been doubled and
trebled, no small mills have been or can be successfully started, and
the price of lumber to consumers has been increased. The policy has
limited the construction of canals and other appliances for irrigation,
and still more effectually limited the construction of like appliances
for the diversion of water for the development of electric power. If
this water could be diverted for irrigation and electric power under
State laws without other restraint, the quantity available in the
majority of the western States is so great that the supply would exceed
the demand, the price would be lower, the consumption greater, and in
every way the people would be benefited. The country would be settled,
the people would be more prosperous, the supply of water and electricity
would be more abundant and cheaper, and all of the people and all of the
industries would be correspondingly more prosperous.
It is gratifying that the line of cleavage and difference between the
advocates of bureaucratic control over local industries and the
advocates of local self-government have been better defined. Upon the
all-important question of the law applicable to this subject, I submit
that there is little ground for honest difference. The Supreme Court of
the United States has decided practically every phase of the matter over
and over again, and the law is settled to the following effect: That the
United States Government owns the public lands in each of the States as
private proprietor and not as sovereign; that it, the Federal
Government, if it seeks to assert any authority in any State, must find
its warrant in the Constitution and not in the ownership of the public
lands; that the authority of the United States Government to adopt
needful rules and regulations in connection with public lands is an
authority to protect its proprietary interest and not exercise
governmental functions within any State; that every State is upon an
equal footing with all of the other States, and for the protection of
its own people, its own industries, and the regulation of its own
monopolies, each State has all of the powers of any other Government;
that the United States Government exercises the same power, and each of
the States exercises the same power, "no more and no less," regardless
of the existence or non-existence of public land in any State.
The whole pretense made by some that the United States Government can
exercise exceptional governmental authority in a State having public
lands is a pretense and a pretense only. Under the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States, such a claim has no shadow of
foundation, and its assertion is merely injurious, detrimental to
capital, destructive to industry, and can never serve any useful purpose
of regulation or otherwise. These principles being fully decided and
clearly in mind, it is hard to understand why the issue is raised, and
how it is hoped that the policy can be imposed upon the western States
or any other States under the Constitution. It has been said with
derision that the corporations are appealing to the Constitution. I
would to God that neither the corporations nor the American people might
ever appeal to anything worse. However much evil may have been taught,
no honest man need be apprehensive of injustice if his rights and the
rights of his fellow citizens are always measured by a just construction
of the Constitution of the United States. (Applause)
We are told, and I think some of our adversaries honestly believe the
tale, that all of the remaining resources of the country belong to all
of the people. That "all of the resources belong to all of the people"
is a slogan that sounds good. Its chief defect is that it is not true,
and the next objection is that to assert it now, after pursuing an
exactly contrary policy as to four-fifths of the Nation's resources,
would be an intolerable injustice. The United States Supreme Court
decided a long time ago that the United States Government received and
held the public lands as trustee for the benefit of the people and the
States within which they were situated, to the end that they might be
disposed of to actual settlers at nominal prices in order that the
country might be settled, cultivated, populated, and developed; the
lands come under the taxing power, and all of the unrestrained functions
of State government. These decisions have been reaffirmed, and it has
been held that the United States' title and trusteeship as to the public
lands is identical in all the States. Therefore it is not true as a
matter of understanding or of law that the United States is the
unrestrained proprietor of the public lands, but it holds in them a
trust; and I submit that no justice can be done or good come from the
violation or attempted violation of a trust. Considering the equity of
the situation, if the United States is now the owner of the remaining
lands and resources for all of the people, it has been such from the
beginning of the Government; and having disposed of these resources to
the beneficiaries entitled thereto, it is now seriously proposed to
seize upon the remaining fraction and hold that fraction for the benefit
of all the people, as much as for the benefit of the people and the
sections of the country that have received their proportion as for those
who have not received theirs.
The situation might be illustrated by this simple statement: Uncle Sam
may be assumed to be the father of four sons; we will name them East,
North, South, and West. Uncle Samuel being liberal to a fault and
mindful of a trust, has transferred to his three elder sons, East,
North, and South, all of their share in his estate. But these elder
sons, especially after their industrious younger brother has begun to
show the real value of his portion of their father's estate, begin to
look with covetous eyes upon the younger brother's inheritance. Finally
a deep sense of justice begins to pervade the minds of East, North, and
South, and they appear before Uncle Samuel and say, "Father, you have
been very profligate in the management of your great estate. You have
turned over to us and to our children without needful restriction the
whole of the proportion that we can rightfully claim. In the doing of
this you have shown great incompetency and have practiced many faults,
and behold, you have sinned against Heaven and in the sight of men. We
can see no way of atoning for this awful offense except that you shall
take and hold that portion of the estate that should descend to our
younger brother for the benefit of all of your children. And as a
further atonement, having shown in the distribution of your estate to us
that you are dishonest and incompetent in the last degree, in
consideration thereof we will nominate and appoint you the landlord and
guardian, without bonds and forever, of that portion of the estate that,
except for this atonement, would have belonged to our younger brother;
requiring you, however, to see to it with scrupulous care that we, your
elder sons, shall receive from the rents, leases, and profits of this
estate our equal shares with our beloved younger brother." Painful as it
may seem, these elder brothers seem well nigh unanimous as to this
scheme of atonement, and Uncle Samuel seems weak and subject to the
influence of the majority. History, however, will record that the
Constitution broke the will and the elder brothers were charged with
the costs and counsel fees. (Laughter)
If anyone present feels justified in challenging the accuracy or
historical correctness of the foregoing statement or its logical
application to the situation, he will now please rise and state his case
or hereafter forever hold his peace.
The overshadowing political reason why the United States Government must
invade the public land States and assert powers of government that it
cannot assert in any other States we are told is to control monopolies.
As a controller of monopolies not constitutionally subject to be
controlled by the Federal Government, and under claims of title to the
public lands, the United States Government and its respective bureau
chiefs would have St. George, the dragon destroyer, outclassed at the
ratio of sixteen to one. It may do as a political issue for a long time,
but if the people of the western States had no powers of government or
sources of control within themselves, or except through the Federal
Government, the public lands, and the heads of bureaus, these people
would have little to expect or hope for.
It is gratifying, however, to observe that instead of being helpless and
impotent, the western States not only have all of the powers that are
vested in any other Government for the protection of their people from
monopoly and wrong, but an understanding of their constitutions and laws
clearly demonstrates that they are showing themselves far more alert,
advanced, and capable in these functions of government than either the
Federal Government or the older States in the East. It ought not to be
necessary to say to an American audience that it is elementary that the
people of a locality can give themselves more honest, efficient, and
better government than can be given to them by any remote authority. The
reason for this is so simple that the only excuse for attempting to deny
it is the ignorance and incapacity of the people concerned to carry on
or carry out self-government. The people of the western States alone
will suffer if they do not efficiently and intelligently exercise their
undoubted authority to supply themselves with good self-government, and
efficiently control and direct their own industries and their own
monopolies.
About the only argument that is made in favor of Federal control and
against local self-government in the West is that the corporations
appear to prefer the former. The question is not what the corporations
prefer but what the Constitution requires; and, in the next place, the
corporations do not deny the authority of the States because they are
advised that they cannot and therefore should not attempt to do so, and
because they are advised that they must in any event submit to local
self-government and that Federal control would be an additional and not
a lawful but a wholly unauthorized usurpation of authority. The American
people, of all people in the world, have earned the reputation of being
the most obedient to law and the least submissive to usurpation of any
people in the world. If some of our wealthy men and some of
corporations have offended against honesty and attempted to circumvent,
misapply, and misuse the law, these are instances to be regretted,
condemned, and punished. The practice should be abandoned, and if not
abandoned rigorously prevented; having it, however, religiously in mind
that ultimate justice can be done and the law vindicated only by
adhering to due process of law.
We are told that Switzerland as a Nation regulates and manages its own
power business. Since, however, Switzerland has no more authority or
powers of government than California, Colorado, or New York, and since
it is probably one-tenth the size of these States and its cantons are
about the size of an ordinary western school district, this would not
appear to indicate any reason why the western States of the Union could
not successfully carry out the same function of government.
Our former President has said to us that he would be as swift to prevent
injustice and unwarranted uprising against property as anyone. This I do
not doubt, and I am prepared to agree that probably no one living could
perform the task more cheerfully or effectively; but in this connection
it might not be improper to reflect that the people have been taught,
and rightly so, that this is "a government of law and not of men," and
we rely upon the equal and continued protection of the law for the
protection of our persons and our property, not upon the life or
disposition of any man.
We have already referred to the assertion that the remaining resources
of the Federal Government belong to all of the people and are to be
administered and revenues obtained for their full benefit. We are not,
however, deluded with the thought that we are to begin to draw
individual dividends. The revenues thus obtained are to go into the
Federal treasury (and allow me parenthetically to suggest that the
pay-roll will not be far behind the earnings), but if through some
oversight a balance should be found in favor of all of the people it
will go into the Federal treasury to reduce taxation to the common
benefit. Allow me to suggest, and ask all thoughtful people to well
consider, that if sufficient revenues were collected and paid into the
Federal treasury to prove of great benefit to a hundred millions of
people, the collection and payment of these same revenues will of
necessity amount to some slight imposition and burden upon the ten
millions of people when they are paid out of their resources and
revenues.
While we are considering monopolies it might not be inappropriate to
consider that they are of two classes: private monopolies and government
monopolies. One of the highest functions of government is to control and
regulate private monopolies. It is not always easy, but the undoubted
power exists and if properly applied is effective. History records that
four-fifths of the exactions and oppressions and human sufferings that
have existed in the world have come about when the conduct of business
and the sources of supply were confined and vested in the government
and constituted a government monopoly. Government monopolies are
invariably created for the alleged benefit of the people, and throughout
all history have almost invariably operated to the oppression and
detriment of the people and ultimately to deprive them of their
liberties. In the face of these undeniable records of history, the
people of the western States are invited to surrender their control over
their industries and their own private monopolies and have substituted
therefor a Federal Government monopoly over which they could have no
possible control. The western States are asked not only to surrender
this control, but along with it to surrender the powers of taxation and
revenue over all these great resources. My friends, some of you may
congratulate yourselves that these so-called policies are popular, and
no doubt to a certain extent they are; we think, however, because they
are misunderstood. There need be no misunderstanding between us. You are
welcome to your assumption of victory, and to the assumption of defeat
for those who adhere to the right of local self-government.
We are correctly told that the ancient doctrine of State rights ended at
Appomattox. The doctrine was there ended that the Federal Government did
not have all of the power necessary to protect and continue the Nation
for the common defense and the general welfare. The undeniable doctrine
and right of the American people within the several States to continue
an unrestrained local self-government was at that time neither destroyed
nor impaired. The right and doctrine of local self-government will
endure and continue until, if ever, some common disaster shall terminate
and end the National existence as well as the existence of the several
States. No question is ever settled until it is settled right. Frankly,
today may be yours but tomorrow is ours. The Constitution of this
country is greater and more enduring than any man. Let there be no
misunderstanding between us. You should not, but if you would you
cannot, deprive the people of this country in any number of States or in
any one State of the equal guaranteed constitutional right of local
self-government.
In recent months, so numerous have been the complaints and utterances
against the courts that it would almost appear that there was a common
design to discredit the courts with the American people. For even a
longer period there have been recurring attacks upon and denials of the
capability and capacity of the representative branch of our government.
Even within its obvious jurisdiction the Legislative department has not
only been excessively criticized but its very powers denied. The
Executive of the country and each of the States, Congress, and each
Legislature of each of the States, the Supreme Court and all of the
subordinate courts, derive all of their authority from the American
people through the Constitution of the United States. He who acts
without and in spite of the Constitution acts without authority from the
people. Constitutions are adopted to safeguard the rights of all men and
to protect minorities from majorities. The question is not, where the
Constitution declares the measure of right, what the majority wants, but
the question is, what does the Constitution declare; and that is the
beginning and the end of the law. The Government under which we have
lived is the best vindicated Government in the history of the world. If
a democratic people, as we have been told, have destroyed more since the
adoption of the Constitution than has been wasted and destroyed in
Europe in all of its history, we may admit this and agree that it is
wise always to prevent waste; but we can with equal truth assert that if
our free people under our free institutions have destroyed more than the
people of Europe in their entire history, our people by scientific
research and invention have added more to the potential and productive
power of the earth and the elements for the benefit and subsistence of
mankind than has been added by the people of Europe, Asia, and Africa
during the entire recorded history of the world--all since the adoption
of the Constitution of the United States.
Whether it be popular or unpopular, it is true that the tendency to
belittle the legislative power, to disparage judicial power, and to
correspondingly exalt the executive power, is the same evil tendency
that has destroyed every free government that has ever existed. It is
the same spirit that overthrew the mild judicial government of Samuel
and made Saul of Tarsus king over Israel. It is the same spirit that
subverted the free cities and provinces of Greece, and made Alexander,
the Macedonian, the sole arbiter of the destinies not only of the people
of Greece but of the whole eastern world. It is the same spirit that
subverted the Senate and the tribunals of Rome, and made Julius Caesar
and his successors the emperors and rulers of the entire known world for
succeeding centuries. We may agree that no such events will recur in
modern history. But it is the same spirit that brings about such a
condition in Mexico that nobody knows or cares when Congress meets or
adjourns, because they never pass or suggest the passage of any laws
that have not already been approved by the President. They must have a
Supreme Court in Mexico, because their Constitution is very similar to
our own. For the same reason we assume that they have States, although
nobody ever hears of them. Neither do we hear of any one criticizing the
decisions of the Supreme Court of that country; nobody has ever
suggested that within the last quarter of a century that court has ever
decided anything displeasing to the President.
The United States of America today is the world's sole and single
exception where the people under a constitution through a long period of
years have been guaranteed and have received the equal protection of the
law. No guards have been required to stand at our city gates, no
bayonets have defended our towns; we have all lived and prospered under
the equal protection of equal laws. (Applause)
These institutions are human, they are imperfect and under them errors
have been committed, but undeniably under this Government the people
have received a larger measure of liberty together with a better
distribution of the benefits of industry than was ever received or
enjoyed hitherto by any people in the world. We favor that new
efficiency that is neither National nor State, that under an equal
respect for the Nation and for the State and for each branch of the
Government strives for a higher condition of civic virtue, better
enforcement and greater respect for the law in all of its branches. I
hope and pray that none of us may ever be required to look beyond the
years when the Constitution and the law in letter and in spirit are no
longer supreme in this country and when we shall have reverted to "that
good old simple plan, that each may take whate'er he may and keep
whate'er he can." (Applause)
* * * * *
Professor CONDRA--Ladies and Gentlemen: A question has been sent to the
Chair: "Will the Congress close this evening?" We do not know; probably
the Congress itself will decide. There are several other features in the
program, and there will be a report by the Committee on Resolutions. It
may be that the Congress can finish all of its work today if you choose
to re-convene.
You all know the next speaker, Honorable John Barrett, Director-General
of the Pan-American Union. (Applause)
* * * * *
Mr BARRETT--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentleman: When the captivating
senior Senator from Indiana fascinated us yesterday, and after holding
us enthralled by his eloquence ending with that magnificent climax in
eulogy of Gifford Pinchot, he left this room remarking to the reporters
that he couldn't stay longer because he must go down and look after his
State and 3,000,000 people. Now, if some of the rest of us relied on the
measure of States and population as a reason for not being here, we
would not come at all. For example, I might have said, when invited to
take part in the work of this Congress, that I couldn't possibly come
because I might neglect that which was best for 21 independent Republics
and 160,000,000 people. What I want to say is this--that I would like to
multiply twenty times over all the enthusiasm with which Senator
Beveridge fired us yesterday, and extend it to many millions of people,
in order that the wave started here by him and other speakers might
sweep over the whole western hemisphere and remove the slightest
question that all these Republics are awake to the practical value of
Conservation.
Possibly some of you do not know very much more about the practical work
of the Pan-American Union than I knew about the country to which I was
first appointed minister some sixteen or seventeen years ago--when I
knew as little about foreign affairs as some of us did a few years ago
about Conservation. One day the President of the United States, with two
United States Senators from North Carolina standing near by--if one of
them had been from North Carolina and the other from South Carolina
there wouldn't have been any doubt as to what the conversation was to
be (laughter), but as both came from the same State I was in the
dark--looked at me and said, "Mr Barrett, I am trying to find some young
man who is not afraid of hard work and wants to make a reputation for
himself to go off to a distant country, in another part of the world, to
settle a case involving several millions of dollars and our treaty
rights in the Orient; I am looking for a minister to Siam." Well, I
thought that he wanted me to recommend somebody, and was trying to think
of somebody in my State that I would like to get rid of and never see
again, when he added, "I am thinking of appointing you; what do you know
about Siam?" To save my life I couldn't even remember where it was, and
I was conscious of the terrible impression I must be making upon the
Executive, when with a twinkle in his eye he intimated "I have him this
time." Then, a child-memory coming back, I braced myself and said, "Why,
Mr President, _I know all about Siam_." "You do? What do you know about
that country?" "Why, Mr President, Siam is the country that produced the
Siamese Twins." Whereupon he shook my hand and said he was delighted to
get hold of a man of such abundant information. (Laughter)
Now, before proceeding further, let me, as one of the officers of this
Congress--although one who has had very little to do with its hard
work--join with you in expressing profound appreciation of the splendid
hospitality that has been shown the Delegates and all others who have
come here to the city of Saint Paul in the State of Minnesota
(applause). Moreover, I believe it is only fair and fitting that we
should also express our gratitude for the hard work and the devotion to
this Congress shown by President Baker and Secretary Shipp and Professor
Condra and Chairman White and other men belonging to the Executive
Committee. (Applause)
I have been asked, as a resident of the District of Columbia, whether,
if this Congress shall go to the East next year, it might not go to the
city of Washington, and there arouse the interest and the sympathy of
the East. The West is awake; and if it be necessary to secure the
cooperation of the eastern sections, and if the Executive Committee
hesitates as to where it may go, I can assure them that by the city of
Washington, the Capital of the Nation, will be given a welcome akin to
that which has been given by the city of Saint Paul.
Ladies and Gentlemen, one feature of this Congress has made a profound
impression upon me, of which perhaps too little mention has been made:
the cooperation and interest of the women. That was a splendid speech
made the other day by Mabel Boardman; other women have spoken well, and
others will. I assure you that there is no better omen of the success of
this movement than this cooperation by women (applause). And I want to
say right here, that whenever I am able to pay a tribute to the courage
and the quality of women, I like to do it. It so happened that I was
your first minister to Panama, in the days which tried men's
souls--where I, as minister, frequently had to preside where three or
four splendid boys, graduates from our colleges and high schools, were
laid under the wet clay in one grave, all victims of yellow fever. When
I went down there with General Davis, then Governor of the Canal Zone,
there were some sixteen girls, nurses, picked from all over this
country--I think one or two came from Saint Paul or Minneapolis--who had
never seen yellow fever before, had never experienced the pestilential
conditions faced in Panama when we were "blazing the way" for the
present sanitary condition. Well, they came and took up their work; and
in a short time the yellow fever spread until men were dying every day
in increasing numbers, and both the boys and men came to us and begged
that they might return to the United States--in the parlance of the
canal work, they had "cold feet," and it was with the greatest
difficulty that we were able to hold them there to perform the great
task of making the zone sanitary as well as digging the canal that the
oceans might be united; but when the yellow fever was conquered, General
Davis and I discovered that during all that time of peril and death and
threatened desertion, not _one_ of those sixteen girls faltered or asked
permission to leave her station of duty. (Great applause)
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a pleasure today to be followed by a
representative of the British government who is a credit to his
government and to the great man whom he represents here, the Right
Honorable James Bryce, British Ambassador (applause). There is nothing
more splendid than the thought of the cooperation of this mighty country
north of us, Canada, with her 4,000,000 square miles and her ambitious
men and women with problems akin to ours; and it is both appropriate and
flattering that the British Empire should have responded to the
invitation and sent here a special representative of their Embassy
(applause). We are to be congratulated on his attendance.
It seems to me that during the past three or four days I have heard the
word "insurgent" used. Am I correct, Mr President?
President BAKER--"Progressive."
Mr BARRETT--I think there have been some references to progressiveness
and insurgency. Now, as the head of an international bureau whose
constituency is composed of twenty Latin-American Republics, I want to
tell you that you don't know anything here about real insurgency
(applause). Why, we have men in Central America and South America who
could make Murdock and Madison look like picayune persons if they came
in competition with them in the matter of insurgency. We have Republics
that can give Kansas and Wisconsin and Nebraska and Minnesota cards and
spades and all the trumps in the pack, and then beat them out in
insurgency. But I want to say this, that in all my experience in those
countries as minister and my studies of their history, there has never
been an insurgency or revolution, from Mexico south to Argentina which
has succeeded without at the same time moving the country forward for
its benefit (applause). I do not say this in any political spirit,
because I am not in politics; being an international officer, I am
neither republican nor democrat, but a citizen of America; yet I do say
this, that the spirit of onward movement among men shown thus from time
to time is a splendid sign of the progressive type which characterizes
the American people, whether they be American of North America or
American of South America. (Applause)
Ladies and Gentlemen, it would be a splendid thing today if the voice
that has been sounded here on Conservation could be heard by every
Pan-American--through that All America comprehending not only our own
wonderful land but twenty other Nations, covering an area of 15,000,000
square miles, having a population of 175,000,000 people, and conducting
a foreign commerce valued at the magnificent total of $2,000,000,000
annually. Only a few years ago Latin-America seemed almost like an
unknown land; but today these countries from Mexico and Cuba south to
Argentina and Chile are making more progress commercially and materially
than almost any other section of the world. We hear much of the Orient,
of Japan and of China, whose inhabitants are alien people, alien in
philosophy, alien in religion, raising the greatest racial question
before the world; but here at the south of us are twenty sister Nations
whose peoples have the same ambitions as yours, the same religion, the
same philosophy, the same hopes--and yet you and I have been sitting in
cozy corners flirting with Japan and China, and neglecting our own
sisters in our own family (applause). Last year Argentina--a country
half as large as our own splendid land, in a temperate zone, with nearly
7,000,000 splendid white people, having sons whom you would allow your
daughters to marry and daughters you would allow your sons to
marry--conducted a greater foreign trade than the 50,000,000 Japanese or
the 300,000,000 Chinese (applause); and yet we are neglecting them. Now
these countries gained independence at the hands of leaders who studied
the life of George Washington (applause), and they have continued their
existence under the example of such men as Abraham Lincoln. Whether you
go upon the high Andes or in the valley of the great Amazon, the names
of Washington and Lincoln are known almost as well as those of their own
great heroes who helped them to win independence.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time that through the cooperation of all
these countries we should accomplish protection for them and for
ourselves; and we should have in the near future a great Pan-American
Conference of Conservation, when all the countries from Canada south
will send their representatives to join us in working together to
safeguard their prosperity, to safeguard our own, to promote our mutual
and several interests until this whole hemisphere from Alaska and the
Arctic on the north to Chile and the Straits of Magellan on the south
shall present a united force for the benefit not only of ourselves but
of those who are to come after us. Is there anything more magnificent
than this thought that the twenty-one independent Republics and an
independent Nation like Canada should join hands in such a purpose? The
details I shall not discuss, but I want it to be a thought that shall
sink into your minds.
Now, I wish that I could take all the "hot air" that has arisen in this
great auditorium and make a mighty balloon to take you for a trip over
our sister countries (applause). I would like to show you Brazil, into
which you could place all of the United States and still have room left
over for the German empire; I would like to take you up the Amazon, out
of which flows five times the volume of the Mississippi; I would like to
take you to Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, which has a
population of 1,200,000 and is growing faster than any city in the
United States with the exception of New York and Chicago--I would like
to show you its magnificent boulevards, its splendid public buildings,
its schools, its cathedrals and churches; I would like to take you
across the Andes over that wonderful tunnel just completed and show you
Chile, which if placed at the southern end of California would reach up
into the heart of Alaska, in the very infancy of a splendid development;
I would like to take you into Bolivia, into which you could put Texas
three times and still have room left over; into Peru, which would cover
the whole Atlantic Coast from Maine to Georgia; into Colombia, where you
could place all of Germany and France; into Mexico, that would cover the
whole southwestern section of this country; I would like to take you
over all these countries and show you how they are moving forward, prove
to you the remarkable fact that during the last fifteen years that part
of the world has gone ahead with progress almost equal to ours. Now, if
we in this country are going to meet the great problems of manufacturing
and the employment of labor and capital in the future, we must aid these
countries to conserve their resources to supply our manufacturing plants
with raw material. Hundreds of millions of dollars today are keeping
occupied by laboring men in this country factories that would have to be
closed tomorrow if these countries were unable to supply us with their
raw materials--think of that as we remember where we were only
twenty-five years ago; and if some God-given influence can empower them
to see our mistakes we will find, twenty-five years from now, Brazil and
Argentina and Mexico and Canada providing us with those elements which
shall make this country forever the greatest power in the world for
civilization and for commerce. (Applause)
As I stand here before an audience of the West an inspiration comes for
the work we have in Washington that only those can feel whose residence
is not entirely in the West. Though born and brought up in New England
and later taking my residence on the Pacific Coast, I have been much out
of the country representing you abroad; and I rejoice in the ozone of
patriotism that I am able to absorb in a State like Minnesota. Time and
time again, after trips around the world I have arrived in New York or
in Washington hardly feeling that I was in the United States of America;
but when I have crossed the Alleghenies into the Mississippi valley,
into sections like this, then I have felt the pulsing of red blood, that
impulse and influence which is making our country great; and I am proud
today to be able to go back to Washington feeling more capable than ever
before for my humble task because of the contact with representative men
of the West. (Applause)
There are two personal references that I make before I sit down: When on
Tuesday I sat on the platform and saw the personality of the foremost
private citizen of the world exerting its influence, the prime thought
that came into my mind was, not that he was speaking for the great cause
of Conservation, not that he was appealing to the moral sense of our
people, but that there stood a splendid, a perfect example of what the
young men of this country can do (applause). Is there anything finer
than to see a man of his physique, with the glow of health upon his
face, the father of a family of which he can be proud, a man with a
clear moral life and courageous career, one whose voice has been heard
all over the world with respect--is there anything finer than that we
should raise up in this country that class of men? And I tell you it
would be disgraceful to our country with its 90,000,000 people if we
could not produce a man of that kind. It is the personal influence of
Theodore Roosevelt, all over this country, not only among our young men,
but among our young women, leading to world uplift and to sterling
character, that we must have in order to fight the battles that are
before us. (Great applause)
And there is this suggestion about his chief lieutenant who has perhaps
been the father of this movement: I have known Gifford Pinchot
personally, as a dear friend, for many years. It makes my heart well up
with joy, it makes my pride as an American citizen more emphatic than
ever before, when I think that a man born in affluence of a splendid
family, born with every opportunity in the most exclusive circles of New
York and Washington, a man who could own his private yacht or spend his
time in the gaieties of fashionable resorts, a man who could belong to
every club and enjoy all its pleasures--that such a man has devoted his
life unselfishly to the good of the American people and to the cause of
Conservation (great applause). It is a splendid example of true American
manhood; and when he speaks here, as he has spoken in other places, the
influence that he exerts is not merely for the cause of Conservation but
for the highest ideals which you and I have of American manhood. So I
rest assured that the cause of Conservation, with such an advocate as
Theodore Roosevelt and such an apostle as Gifford Pinchot, will not be
confined within the limits of the United States but will resound through
Canada and through Mexico and on south even to the limits of the
southern continent; and I foresee that you and I will be proud that we
were able to participate in the effort to extend this movement. (Great
applause)
* * * * *
A DELEGATE--Mr Chairman: As a member of the Executive Committee of the
National Conservation Congress, I ask for the privilege of the floor for
the purpose of introducing a resolution.
Professor CONDRA--That will be in order immediately after the response
by Honorable Esmond Ovey, Secretary of the British Embassy, which is a
part of the presentation now in progress.
I take pleasure in introducing Honorable Esmond Ovey. (Applause)
* * * * *
Mr OVEY--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: When I arrived here on
Monday I noticed in the program laid before me a very disquieting item
to the effect that a speech would be delivered on the subject of
"Conservation as a World-wide Question" by a visiting representative of
a foreign nation. I did not think that would mean me, and until
yesterday evening was still hoping that some other representative would
be found, more adequate than myself, to take the burden from my
shoulders. However, no savior has appeared, and I think my best course
will be, under the circumstances, to make an entirely clean breast in
the matter and tell you that my knowledge on the subject of the
technical details of the Conservation of natural resources is very
meager. The field of natural resources with which I personally am more
occupied is one which is slightly different from that which forms the
subject of your deliberations, a field that is perhaps as great and in
many ways certainly as important; it is a field which requires neither
phosphates nor potash, nor any of these ingredients of which I
unfortunately am so ignorant--it is the field of international relation,
and the crop or harvest is the harvest of peace and good will
(applause). The duty of the diplomat is to watch this crop ripen. It is
a crop which can go on forever ripening and getting greater, but there
is, of course, the possibility of some spark dropping; and it is then
the duty of the diplomat to attempt, so far as possible to arrest and
extinguish that spark before it flames up like these wasteful and
terrible conflagrations which occasionally sweep through the forests of
this country. In this connection I will point out that in the immediate
field of international relation between Great Britain and the United
States there has been an exceedingly long period in which there has been
no spark dropped (applause); the year after next will, Gentlemen--I may
call it to your attention--be the 100th birthday of peace between the
two great English-speaking nations of the world. (Applause)
I have the very great pleasure of being here as the representative of my
chief, the British Ambassador, Mr James Bryce (applause). The British
Board of Agriculture were unfortunately unable to send a delegate to
attend this great conference. Mr Bryce himself was the recipient of a
very cordial invitation from the President of this Congress, Mr Baker.
Mr Baker in his letter stated that should Mr Bryce be unable to accept,
he would be glad if a member of his staff could come. Mr Bryce had long
pre-arranged and planned a visit to Panama and South America; I can only
suppose with his great intelligence Mr Bryce (my own immediate chief)
has gone there for the purpose of improving his mind in the
contemplation of the achievements of my friend Mr John Barrett
(applause). I have been commissioned by Mr Bryce to tell you how very
glad he would have been to be able to accept this invitation.
Confidentially, I may tell you that, glad as Mr Bryce would have been to
be here, I do not believe he would have been so glad as I am to be here
myself. (Applause)
Mr Bryce is a man very difficult to represent (applause). His knowledge
is encyclopedic. Even if taken by surprise and asked to speak to an
audience such as this, containing so many representatives of all the
practical, scientific and technical phases of the great problem which is
being discussed at this Congress, he would, I am certain, have been able
to draw on the great storehouse of his knowledge and give you the
benefit of his accurate observation in a technically interesting form. I
can, unfortunately, lay claim to no such talents. I will, however,
refuse to yield to him in the enthusiasm--that sort of contagion to
which Mr Barrett referred--which I feel here in this great country and
in the State of Minnesota on the subject of the noble ideals, the
efforts and the aims of these congresses. It seems to me that the idea
of careful deliberation and open discussion by persons from all parts of
the world in an attempt to arrive at the conclusion and basis on which
to build up a policy of Conservation so you can hand down to posterity
the great benefits that you enjoy, is a very noble conception.
One of the great characteristic differences between Occidental
civilization and that of certain less civilized and advanced Oriental
nations is the great quality of foresight, of looking to the future; and
this is a quality which you possess in a most extraordinary degree. I do
not wish to deny that other people to whom I have referred also possess
this quality; I will, if you permit me, give you an instance to prove
that it is possessed by them, if in a less perfected form.
There was upon a time a gentleman from some unspecified country in the
Far East who had an orchard. To protect this orchard from the prevailing
cold northerly winds which destroyed his fruit in the early winter, he
built a wall on that side of his property. When he had built his wall he
called in a friend to admire it. The friend came and admired it. The
wall was solidly built, six feet high, and twelve feet wide. The friend
asked him, "Why have you chosen these peculiar dimensions for your
wall?" He said, "Ah, I have foresight. I built this way for a reason: my
neighbors' walls are frequently blown over by the wind. When mine is
blown over, it will be twice as high as it was before." (Laughter) Now,
that is not the sort of construction in this magnificent building of
Conservation that you are preparing.
Another quality, if I may be permitted to mention it, that I, as a
foreigner, have observed, is a great quality which is invariably a
concomitant of real progress; it is a certain kind of glorious
dissatisfaction with your own achievements, however great they may be
(applause). For instance, you have something which is very, very
great--your country. You never were satisfied with that, you want to
make it very, very good. You have something which is very, very good,
the great American people; you want to make them, as far as I can
understand, as numerous as possible (laughter and applause). You have
your natural resources, which are very great and very good, perhaps the
greatest and best on earth, and yet you are not satisfied. What do you
do then? You say, "Let's make them _everlasting_." (Applause) Now,
Ladies and Gentlemen, that seems to me a very fine and high ambition on
which you have set your minds.
Before concluding, I will venture to tell you about an impression that I
received on my way out to Saint Paul, on this my first visit west of
Washington. As I looked out of the windows at the flying countryside,
upon lake after lake, upon mountain, valley, plain, stream, forest,
farm, garden, factory, city, town, I said to myself, "What manner of
people then can these well be who have so kindly and courteously asked
me to a Congress which is apparently convening for the purpose of
conserving the natural resources? What manner of people can these be
that by digging, delving, plowing, mining, bridging, tunneling, felling,
and building roads and railroads on all these countless millions of
acres of rich and fertile land--many of which are protected from
approach on the east by apparently uncrossable mountains and unfordable
streams and what to lesser intelligence might seem unbridgable
rivers--what manner of people may these be who, in spite of these
obstacles, in this short period of time, have forced Dame Nature herself
to cry out, Gentlemen, please hold steady with me for a moment."
(Applause) Such were my thoughts: and it seems to me that the necessity
for convening these annual congresses for open discussion of the best
means of avoiding unnecessary waste and of giving nature a chance of
recuperation affords the highest compliment that it is possible to pay
to the enterprise, courage, perseverance, and indomitable pluck of any
nation.
Can you, therefore, Ladies and Gentlemen, ask if in view of these facts
the Government of Great Britain is interested in your efforts? As
Secretary of the British Embassy I myself was instrumental in forwarding
to my Government in one year, through the kind intermediation of the
State Department, no less than 110 copies of the report of the Governors
of 1908 on the Conservation of your National resources, which, if I
understand rightly, was one of the first expressions of this great
movement--110 departments of that Government interested in this
movement. (Applause)
It is my pleasurable duty to inform you that with her own magnificent
dominions across the seas, with her great enterprises in forestry,
irrigation, agriculture, and mining, in all scientific exploitation of
land for the public good in Canada, in Australia, in India, in Egypt, in
South Africa and British East Africa, and in all the other places
throughout the world in which Great Britain is now working, the
Government which I have the honor to serve is in the heartiest possible
sympathy with the great object of your endeavors in conserving for
posterity, for people not yet born, the same magnificent heritage which
you and we enjoy. (Applause)
* * * * *
Professor CONDRA--All those who wish to say that as Delegates we stand
for Pan-American conservation of natural resources, and for good
fellowship and world-wide Conservation of all things best for mankind on
all lines of industrial development, will please rise.
[The audience rose en masse.]
Professor CONDRA--There was a resolution to be offered at this time.
A DELEGATE--Mr Chairman: I move that the time for the election of
officers of the National Conservation Congress for the ensuing year be
fixed for the hour of 8 p.m., Thursday, September 8, and that the
Committee on Resolutions submit their report immediately following the
election of officers.
The motion was seconded by Delegates from Iowa, South Dakota, Utah,
Indiana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia; and the
motion was put and carried without dissenting voice.
Professor CONDRA--A recess will be taken until 2 oclock p.m.
_EIGHTH SESSION_
The Congress reassembled in the Auditorium, Saint Paul, at 2 oclock
p.m., Thursday, September 8, President Baker in the chair.
President BAKER--Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: It has been
urged that a nominating committee should be appointed to name officers
proposed to be elected by the Congress as President, Secretary,
Executive Secretary, and Treasurer. The Vice-Presidents have been chosen
by the State Delegations, and their names will be presented this
afternoon. So, unless some other course be preferred, the Chair will
proceed to form a nominating committee. [After a pause.] The nominating
committee will consist of Professor George E. Condra, of Nebraska, as
chairman; E. T. Allen, of Oregon; E. L. Worsham, of Georgia; Lynn B.
Meekins, of Maryland; and William Holton Dye, of Indiana. Delegates are
invited to offer suggestions or nominations to the committee, which will
hold a meeting during the afternoon.
I have the honor now of presenting as presiding officer, His Excellency
A. O. Eberhart, Governor of Minnesota. (Applause)
* * * * *
Governor EBERHART--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am indeed sorry
that I am to be engaged elsewhere a portion of this afternoon, so that
I cannot take part in the entire program. We have this afternoon an
unveiling of a statue in the Capital, and I will necessarily have to
take some part in the ceremony; but I shall hasten back just as soon as
I can, so that I may hear the speakers who are on the program for this
afternoon.
I do not know whether the President of this Congress has made a special
effort to secure splendid speakers for this afternoon, but certainly no
session of the Congress, either forenoon, afternoon, or evening, has had
better, more sincere, and more earnest and efficient workers along the
lines of Conservation interests than those for this afternoon; and for
that reason I am indeed sorry that I shall not hear them all.
I want to say to you that the State of Minnesota and the Twin Cities are
proud of the Delegates and the guests and the speakers of this
convention, realizing that perhaps never in the history of the
Conservation movement will there ever be another meeting so important as
this, and one that will redound so much to the progressive and effectual
work of the movement.
I take great pleasure in introducing to you as the first speaker of this
afternoon a man interested in the Conservation movement from the
standpoint of public health--Dr F. F. Wesbrook, Dean of the Medical
Department of our State University--who will speak on "Life and Health
as National Assets." I consider it one of the most important subjects of
the Conservation movement. I take great pleasure in introducing Dean
Wesbrook. (Applause)
* * * * *
Dean WESBROOK--Mr President, Your Excellency, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Short-sighted humanity fails to appreciate nature's gifts until
threatened with their loss. This is true of even the greatest of her
gifts, life itself. Although belated in our realization of the
threatened overdraft on nature's storehouse, a compensatory and
irresistible enthusiasm has developed within the last two years which
augurs well for the retention by our country of that international
leadership so manifestly foreordained by nature's bountiful equipment.
It is significant of our failure to value health, which above all other
considerations makes life worth the living, that the first meeting of
the Governors in the White House in 1908 failed to provide for the study
of health problems. The omission was noted, and in the National
Conservation Commission's Report of January 11, 1909, the general
schedule gave special consideration to life and health. Only four
sections, however, were created in the appointment of the National
Conservation Commission. Health was not provided with a special section
or with officers. In the North American Conservation Congress, in
addition to the Conservation of other National resources, the protection
of game received attention; but among the Commissioners representing the
various countries, there was seemingly no one whose training and
paramount interest lay in the field of public health. While it is
apparent that the initial oversight has been in part repaired it remains
to be seen what progress will result from the Second National
Conservation Congress, in relation to this, the people's most important
natural asset.
The inclusion in the program of a paper entitled "Life and Health as
National Assets" must not be taken as evidence that there is any doubt
as to the real and assessable value of life and health. Rather are we
called upon at this time to realize that they constitute National or
public resources furnished by nature and are not to be regarded as
strictly personal or private possessions. The individual life has its
economic and commercial value to the community and the Nation by virtue
of the contribution it may be expected to make to society. This view may
perhaps be novel to some. Our ideas concerning the conservation of other
natural resources however, have undergone such rapid evolution in the
recent past that we may easily orient ourselves to the viewpoint
exhibited by the officers of this Congress, that the individual in
matters of health, as of other resources, must respect the rights of
other individuals and of his municipality, State, and Government. The
health aspect of Conservation, which is its most important aspect,
cannot and will not be neglected, although it has not been the first to
which the attention of the Nation has been directed.
Nor can we dissociate health conservation from the other aspects of the
movement, even if we would. The history of man's progress in the
knowledge of the natural sciences bears out this statement. Even though
we ourselves have broken faith with nature, we are able today to make
her fulfil her promises in forestry, agriculture, and other economic
matters by the application of our knowledge of those very sciences which
may be said to owe their birth to man's search for perpetual life and
youth. One can easily imagine that the medieval conservation commission
comprised two sections, one on health and the other on minerals. In the
former, which undoubtedly was basic and dominated all other
considerations, the papers presented dealt with "elixir vitae" and the
"touchstone" whilst in the latter the chief interest was displayed in
the "transmutation of metals." At this stage the studies of health and
of the control of man's so-called material assets were carried on hand
in hand; and, if we are logical, they always will be.
In any event, man's health depends on the success of his efforts to
adapt his environment to his needs, more than it does on the adaptation
of himself to his environment. Health interests are fused with social
and economic development, but should undoubtedly dominate rather than be
dominated by them.
Our lack of interest in matters of health is more apparent than real. It
is characteristic of many of us that where our most vital interests are
involved, we betray the least public concern. In nothing is this better
exemplified than in matters of personal and public health, except it be
perhaps in matters of religious belief and practice. Nor should we deem
it strange that a similar attitude of mind obtains in matters of health
and religion. In medieval times the priest and the physician were one.
At the present day, aboriginal tribes combine religion and health, and
to too great an extent, perhaps, do our civilized nations fail to
discriminate between the two. Particularly is this exhibited in man's
cowardly attempt to shift his responsibility for disease and death upon
Providence.
One of the greatest causes of lethargy in the conservation of personal
and public health is the failure on the part of many to differentiate
clearly and sharply between disease and death. The former is really a
manifestation of life and vital force, and is capable of modification,
prevention, or cure by human agency, since man has shown himself quite
able to solve nature's other secrets for the benefit of his comfort or
convenience. We conserve health by the application of the same sciences
which enable us to conserve our other better recognized but less
material natural resources. Disease yields to man's mastery; death
remains man's mystery. Even death, however, may be postponed, and
Professor Irving Fisher has estimated that over 600,000 deaths occur
each year in our country which could be postponed by the systematic
application of the scientific knowledge already available. For those who
think more easily in terms of dollars and cents, he has estimated this
appalling annual National loss at over one billion dollars which can and
should be prevented.
We must not be lulled into any sense of well-being by such statistics.
There is no royal road to such a goal. Our very success in the
eradication of one disease or unsanitary condition may lead to undue
optimism in regard to other problems, which later may be found to be
dependent on altogether different causes and to require very different
methods of prevention or cure. Failure to realize the complexities of
modern social activity and economic development, in their relation to
health, and, at the same time, to recognize the immense number of
variable factors and agencies which are involved in health-protective
measures, cannot but lead to disappointment. The individual whose
enthusiasm is too easily aroused by the discovery of some hitherto
unknown cause of disease, or some new method or theory of cure or
prevention, is a source of danger to the commonwealth. The faddist,
whether in the matter of such things as food, clothing, fresh air,
baths, exercise or other therapeutic agents, as well as the individual
who thinks that he has discovered the one cause of all diseases, is to
be feared.
Our chief difficulty lies in coordinating the various forces and
agencies which are essential to success in the eradication of sickness.
There is no blanket method of preventing all diseases. Quarantine and
fumigation are now found to have but a limited application. Vaccination,
which is practically an absolute and the only reliable protection
against smallpox, cannot be applied to such diseases as malaria, yellow
fever, and diphtheria. The use of antitoxin, which prevents annually
many thousands of deaths from diphtheria, does not help us in many other
diseases. Our knowledge of mosquito-borne disease, which has reorganized
life in Cuba, Panama and the Philippines, is not of much practical use
in our northern States. As there is no single cause, so there can be no
single method either of cure or prevention.
These considerations should not discourage us. They show us, however,
the need of further study, and the imperative demand for employing the
services of trained physicians, biologists, chemists, engineers,
statisticians, sociologists, educationists, and other experts and of
coordinating all their efforts. We must steer a middle course, avoiding
on the one hand the Scylla upon which those run who become discouraged
in the face of what they believe to be the unknowable, and, on the other
hand, the Charybdis of that fateful tendency to minimize the actual
complexities of the present day health problem. Fatalist and faddist are
equally dangerous.
It is fair to count upon the same progress in the adaptation of
physical, chemical, biological, social and other sciences to the
diagnosis, cure and prevention of disease as in their application to
man's comfort, convenience and economic development. It is clear that
the efforts of all the various workers in the different fields must be
coordinated; yet the difficulties of coordination are at once apparent.
The forces and agencies may be roughly divided into international,
National, State, county, municipal and institutional, as well as
individual. Each one of these is capable of still further subdivision
into two classes, one of which is official or governmental and the other
is voluntary. Improvement in public health requires cooperation and
coordination of _all_ these.
Successful public health administration consists largely in making
individuals do what they do not wish to do--or that of which they do not
appreciate the necessity--for the good of themselves and others. This
brings us naturally to the consideration of another National weakness.
We encounter some of the same difficulties in public health work that we
meet in the exercise of our other public functions. Rampant
individualism is of even greater danger in matters of health
conservation than in other affairs of public concern, largely on account
of the fact that health is too often regarded as a purely personal
rather than a most important public asset. The individualist objects to
authority in matters of health control. Consequently he resents
dictation as to his personal action, and fails to recognize the need for
special training in health administration as in other branches of public
service.
Public service of many kinds, and particularly that which relates to the
conservation of health in our country, is all too often relegated to
voluntary agencies, while in other countries it devolves upon official
and governmental agencies. This volitional duty is nobly discharged.
The main function of the volunteer should be, however, to afford to the
general public object lessons of what is needed and of how progress can
be made. In this he rarely fails, although he labors under tremendous
difficulty imposed by lack of authority. Funds which are furnished from
private sources are frequently insufficient to permit of the employment
of experts of the highest order. Public apathy, on the one hand, and the
development of an abnormal interest on the part of voluntary workers on
the other, frequently lead to their continuance in service long after
they have ceased to be useful, with the result either that the public
delays the establishment of an official organization, or, if such an
organization be established, there is a conflict between the official
and voluntary forces. If municipal health departments, hospital
services, police departments, water, school, poor and park boards, and
other official servants and representatives of the people were supported
by the people and were quick to see and to seize their opportunities,
there would be less need of associated charities, of visiting nurses,
pure water and milk commissions, tuberculosis camps, play-grounds
associations, and other such voluntary organizations. Is it not
humiliating that public lethargy made it necessary for Mr Rockefeller to
provide funds for the investigation and eradication of hookworm disease?
In Germany, the Government, through its public health service and
universities, provides for medical and other research so that Nation has
become a leader of the world in scientific health protection and
scientific economic development.
Having seen some of the difficulties which stand in the way of
satisfactory conservation of the public health, we might perhaps ask
ourselves what proof of the possibility of conserving this asset is
available. If, at this day and time, the American public is unconvinced
of the need and possibility of conserving public health, it is
undeserving of the respect of other nations, or even of self-respect.
The daily and weekly press, our magazines, and governmental and other
publications, have overflowed with information. Our attention has been
particularly called to the possibility of preserving the health of men
in the field by Japan's experience in the recent war with Russia. Our
life insurance companies have been quick to see the practical
possibilities of prolonging the lives of their insured and of thus
increasing the earnings of their stockholders.
As illustrating our progress, the report on "National Vitality, Its
Wastes and Conservation," which was issued by the American Association
for the Advancement of Science, is a masterpiece; it was prepared and
presented by Professor Irving Fisher, of Yale University. The
publications of the various committees of the American Medical
Association, and the speech of Senator Owen in the Congressional Record
of March 24, 1910, as well as Federal, State, municipal and other health
reports, afford examples of what can be done.
Those who may be skeptical in regard to the ability of our people to
compete with older nations in the prevention of disease, should note
what has actually been done by Americans under the greatest of
difficulties. In Cuba, our Nation overturned the existing order of
affairs, and scientific discoveries, made and applied to sanitation by
Americans, afforded a lesson to the world. There has been no greater
factor in winning the world-wide confidence of other nations than the
production of the existing sanitary state of affairs in the Canal Zone
by our own citizens. Our work in Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines has
served to bring about hygienic conditions in supposedly pestilential
regions which are vastly superior to those which obtain at home. What
Americans have done for others they have failed to do for themselves,
owing largely to the lack of provision of adequate official and
governmental agencies and to the failure to coordinate those which
exist. Two Americans in Porto Rico showed the possibility of stamping
out hookworm disease. The brains were furnished by the United States,
and the money by the Island. We have the brains at home, but we refuse
to pay the bills.
It is manifest that a full and complete discussion of life and health as
National assets is impossible within the limits of a single paper. No
attempt need be made to present a complete basis either of comparison or
differentiation of health conservation from the other aspects of the
National movement. It must be clear to all that in the conservation of
lands, minerals, waters, and forests, effort is made to prevent the
individual from taking that which belongs to the public. In the
conservation of public health, our effort must be directed to preventing
the individual from giving to the public something which neither he nor
it desires. This is particularly true of infectious diseases. There are
many other phases of public health than those which relate to infectious
disease, but they cannot be discussed at this time.
I have the honor to be a Delegate to this Congress from both the
American Medical Association and the American Public Health Association,
which represent factors in the conservation of human life and health
concerning which the public needs more information than it possesses;
and with your permission, I shall briefly mention a few important
matters:
In the past, individual physicians and local medical associations and
societies have brought a scattering fire to bear upon the inactivity and
ignorance of the general public in matters which pertain to public
health. The public fails to believe in the urgency of health needs, when
presented by individuals or groups of physicians, because of its
inability to appreciate the motive which leads the physician to urge the
establishment of machinery and the special education of officials, as
also the provision of funds to carry on work which to the casual
observer would mean a diminution of the individual physician's work and
income. Physicians who have qualified by postgraduate training in
bacteriology, pathology, epidemiology, and in public health, hospital,
school and institutional administrative work must be drafted into the
direct and official service of the people. This need is increasingly
apparent. Others are required who can present evidence of special
scientific training in chemistry, engineering, statistical,
sociological, charity and other work. At present, great as is the actual
need, the demand on the part of the public and the remuneration offered
are so small and the possibility of employment so uncertain that
universities, technical schools, and other institutions which offer
special courses fail to attract students. The public seems to prefer as
yet to jeopardize its most valuable asset by employing untrained public
health servants who develop efficiency after, instead of before, their
appointment. This means a payment in life and health instead of dollars.
The average individual seems willing to pay, and pay well, for a cure
when he is sick. Communities pay the cost of epidemics, and will even
pay for engineering services in relation to public utilities, such as
water supply and sewage disposal; but this is usually done only under
the stimulus of some recent or threatened disaster. They, like the
individual, want a _cure_, not a _protection_. Clinical experts, life
insurance examiners, and consulting and commercial engineers, are all
sure of a good livelihood because they can help the individual or
community out of difficulties. Sanitarians and municipal engineers are
usually left to semi-starvation, because their function is to prevent
those same difficulties, without, however, having either available
public sentiment or funds to enable them to do it.
Physicians are naturally skeptical of the scientific training and
possession of proper ideals on the part of those who have not been
especially trained in medicine, and who may have failed to develop the
"disease point of view." That they are, however, of a receptive frame of
mind can be shown in many ways. The American Medical Association has a
number of standing committees, including a Council on Medical Education.
This Council, in the endeavor to raise the standard of medical teaching
throughout the United States, prepared a standard schedule of minimal
requirements, through the agency of ten committees, each of which
consisted of ten representative men. One of these ten committees (which
had to deal with hygiene, medical jurisprudence, and medical economics)
contained in its membership university and college professors of
chemistry, physiological chemistry, political economy, pathology,
bacteriology and hygiene. There were also executive officers of State
and municipal boards of health, and representatives of the Federal
Health Service; whilst among the collaborators were engineers and many
university professors. Bear in mind that this was a committee of the
so-called "medical trust"--the American Medical Association.
Through oversight for which no one is responsible, this Second National
Conservation Congress and the American Public Health Association are
meeting on exactly the same dates, September 5-9, we in Saint Paul and
the Association in Milwaukee--I was just able to get here from
Milwaukee. This Association consists of some physicians who are in
practice, but more particularly of Federal, State, municipal and
institutional administrative officers, as also of laboratory,
statistical, engineering, and other technical workers. The membership
includes representatives from all of the leading universities and
medical and technical colleges. It has three sections, namely,
laboratory, vital statistics, and municipal health officer sections. You
are familiar with the work of many of its officers and members. Colonel
Gorgas, who was responsible for the administrative health work in Cuba,
and who has made possible the building of the Panama Canal without undue
loss of life, is a member of both associations. The late Dr Walter Reed,
who eliminated yellow fever from civilized communities, was
vice-president. It is an international association in which Canada,
Mexico, and Cuba also participate, and much can be learned by attendance
at these annual meetings. One of its chief benefits has been the
formulation of standard methods of scientific procedure, applicable to
the suppression of disease in various districts of the several
countries.
We in this country are compelled to admit that our neighbors upon the
north and south have much in the way of advantage which is denied to our
own workers in the United States. In our sister countries, the tenure of
office depends on the fitness and training of the incumbent. As a rule
the compensation for public service is relatively higher, and the
official organizations are better provided with an authority which is
commensurate with their responsibility than is the case in our own
country. Time will not permit extended discussion of these conditions,
but the annual opportunity to compare notes; to tell each other of our
successes, as also of our failures; and to help in the formulation of
new methods and in an effort toward a higher standard of efficiency, is
of untold value. This is, however, a purely voluntary organization
maintained for over thirty years at the personal expense of its members
in the face of public apathy. This will be realized if I ask, "How many
of you knew that we have such an association," and "Did you know that it
is now in session"?
There yet remain a few matters of which a general understanding would
bring about yet greater cooperation between the doctor and the general
public. The medical profession has realized for a number of years that
its members must become teachers of personal hygiene to their patients
and families, as also to schools and the general public. It is a new
viewpoint, and involves the assumption of new responsibilities. The
doctor has guarded himself against publicity except through his
professional societies and journals and to his students, though ever
eager to furnish details of his own discoveries and to recount his
failures and his successes to those who could understand and sympathize.
This kind of publicity has been regarded, however, by the lay public as
a sort of soliloquy carried on in an unknown tongue, and intended for
the mystification of that same poor public.
Why there should be any failure of the medical profession, as a whole,
to be understood by the general public, it is difficult to see. The
general public is composed of individuals, each of whom has a feeling of
trust, affection, and possibly of veneration for one or more members of
the medical profession. Why then does the public, as an aggregation of
individuals, allow itself to become suspicious of the medical
profession, an aggregation of physicians? Why does the public abhor and
obstruct the physician in his study of anatomy, dissection, and autopsy
on the human body? Why is there so much suspicion of the motives and
work, as well as denial of the benefits which accrue to humanity from
animal experimentation, when it must be apparent to any right-thinking
individual that the extension of a physician's knowledge is possible
only by such means? Why must doctors from time to time be themselves
forced to urge the necessity of making every hospital a teaching and
research institution? A moment's thought would convince anyone that if
this be not done, and if medical knowledge be allowed to die out with
this generation, there will be no skilled men available for the
hospitals and patients of the future. It must also be patent to all that
the patients themselves cannot possibly receive such effective care in a
hospital in which medical research and teaching are not fostered. Why
should the burden of maintaining a high standard of entrance to the
profession and of preventing incompetent and untrained persons from
assuming the responsibility of physicians rest solely on the medical
profession, when the object is the protection of private citizens and
public health?
The physicians of the United States are now thoroughly organized. The
public should rejoice in this, since it is an attempt to neutralize the
narrowing effect of isolation and to foster an exchange of information
which physicians offer freely to each other and publish broadcast to the
world (applause). County and State associations are affiliated with the
American Medical Association, which numbers in its membership over
seventy thousand doctors. Just as the individual physician's concern is
the care of his patient, so that of the organized medical profession is
public health and welfare.
The medical profession is, as a rule, underpaid, but members spend their
hard-earned-money and a large portion of their time in efforts to
benefit humanity, individually and _en masse_. It is the people's
concern to demand a broad education and a thorough scientific training
of all students and practitioners of medicine, public and private. It is
to their interest to see that every possible facility is afforded for
teaching and that a rigid standard of teaching, examination, degree
conference, and licensure is maintained. Nothing is more exasperating to
the physician of high ideals, whose length and breadth of sacrifice is
known to none, than to hear the sneer directed at his profession for its
effort to protect the public. The time has come when the medical
profession is in a position to demand that the people exercise
discrimination and protect themselves.
One of the first steps toward the betterment of our public health
conditions is the coordination of the existing Federal agencies in
Washington, of which we are all so proud. When no logical reason can be
advanced in explanation of further delay, it is very discouraging to
realize that this important matter has been postponed. At the 61st
Congress, various bills were introduced, including that of Senator Owen.
In support of these bills appeared those who by special training and
long experience are recognized at home and abroad as the highest
authorities on public health. The whole country is waiting to see what
action her representatives will take to protect her most precious asset.
With your permission, I should like to cite some sixteen reasons why the
people of the United States should have a department of health at
Washington, which were published by the Committee of One Hundred of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science:
1--To stop the spread of typhoid fever through drinking
sewage-polluted water of interstate streams.
2--To enforce adequate quarantine regulations so as to keep out
of the country plague and other similar pestilences.
3--To supervise interstate common carriers, in so far as
without such supervision they prove a menace to the health of
the traveling public.
4--To have a central organization of such dignity and
importance that departments of health of States and cities will
seek its cooperation and will pay heed to its advice.
5--To influence health authorities, State and municipal, to
enact reform legislation in relation to health matters.
6--To act as a clearing-house of State and local health
regulations, and to codify such regulations.
7--To draw up a model scheme of sanitary legislation for the
assistance of State and municipal health officers.
8--To gather accurate data on all questions of sanitation
throughout the United States.
9--To establish the chief causes of preventable disease and
unnecessary ill-health.
10--To study conditions and causes of disease recurring in
different parts of the United States.
11--To correlate and assist investigations carried on in many
separate and unrelated biological and pathological Federal,
State and private laboratories.
12--To consolidate and coordinate the many separate Government
bureaus now engaged in independent health work.
13--To effect economies in the administration of these bureaus.
14--To publish and distribute, throughout the country,
bulletins in relation to human health.
15--To apply our existing knowledge of hygiene to our living
conditions.
16--To reduce the death-rate.
In 1912 there will meet in Washington, on the invitation of the
President and Congress of the United States, the International Congress
of Hygiene and Demography. This Congress meets triennially in the
capitals of the world, and brings together the leaders in health
conservation who are officially delegated by the governments of all
civilized countries. We have many things to show them of which we can be
justly proud. Our Federal, State, municipal and other official health
organizations, however, leave much to be desired: and it behooves us, in
the few months still at our disposal, to prepare to show the visiting
nations our methods and successes. We need many other things, but due
recognition and coordination of our Federal health mechanism is the
first step which, if we have taken it before the meeting of this
International Congress, will best enable us to profit by the experience
of the world's experts there assembled.
Nature has been prodigal in her gifts to our Nation. In no respect has
she been kinder than in opportunities for health and efficiency. Her
very prodigality has rendered us careless and extravagant. It is high
time that Americans do as well for themselves in health protection at
home as they have done for themselves and others in Cuba, the Canal
Zone, Porto Rico, and the Philippines (applause). This demands the
creation and maintenance of official organizations to amplify, extend,
and ultimately replace the work of our voluntary organizations whose
lack of authority prevents their complete success, and whose continuance
is an admission of popular inertia and official incompetence. (Applause)
* * * * *
[During the foregoing, Governor Eberhart withdrew, and professor Condra
took the chair.]
Professor CONDRA--Ladies and Gentlemen: In the temporary absence of
Governor Eberhart I have the pleasure of introducing Mr Wallace D.
Simmons, of Saint Louis, who will address you on "Our Resources as the
Basis for Business." (Applause)
* * * * *
Mr SIMMONS--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: The President of the
United States in opening this Congress called upon the speakers to make
definite practical suggestions. The ex-President of the United States
the next day emphasized the need of further enlightenment of the people
regarding Conservation. It has frequently been my privilege to cooperate
with both of them, and I will endeavor to do so now by suggesting a
definite plan for spreading enlightenment in a practical manner.
We of this generation have developed a distinctly new type in our
American citizenship, one which has no counterpart in the history of any
other people, one which has become a most potent and influential factor
in our daily affairs: our modern high-class commercial traveler. In any
campaign of education, such as I am going to suggest, you can have no
more efficient allies than the 600,000 commercial travelers covering
this country--not the old-time drummers of questionable methods, but the
gentlemen of high character who have won the confidence, the respect and
friendship of the merchants and the people generally in every part of
this country; and I may add, as a requisite to their success that they
are resourceful.
To this development I attribute my having the honor of addressing you
today regarding our resources as the basis of our business, because the
organization of which I am president employs probably the largest corps
of such representatives in the country, and has through them the best
system of keeping accurately informed regarding all matters that affect
business.
From conclusions based largely upon the observations of the commercial
travelers of this country, I will endeavor to outline to you what I
believe to be the relationship between our business interests and the
question of natural resources; and I believe this phase of the question
is most vitally important to the people in whose interest you have
gathered here from every State in the Union. The primary reason for that
belief--and the one on which all others hinge--is that we are a Nation
in trade; a whole people engaged in business. Eighty-odd percent of our
people are directly or indirectly dependent for their living on business
conditions. The business interest therefore is the greatest interest,
collectively, in the country.
Anything which directly affects the living of the majority of our people
is not only worthy of our most earnest attention, but should be
approached with due consideration. We should be especially cautious
about experimenting with legislation that may interfere with the natural
laws of trade. When this is more generally recognized, and the people
begin to understand that their individual daily incomes are at stake,
they will put a stop to using the business interests of the country as a
football for politics.
Not only does there appear to me to be a direct relation between our
natural resources and our business, but as I view it our resources are
the foundation of our business, or as Mr Hill so aptly put it yesterday,
they constitute the capital on which our business is done.
In business we endeavor, by industrious and intelligent use of our
capital, to produce as the fruit of our efforts an annual return without
impairing the capital--without touching the principle or jeopardizing it
in any manner. In private enterprises, the man who assumes the headship
of a business organization in which the funds of others are invested as
capital, and who then makes a show of prosperity by drawing on that
capital to pay what he represents as dividends, is charged with running
a "get-rich quick" scheme, and in most States is, by law, held
personally liable. I commend to your consideration the consistency of
applying that principle where there is involved the capital of all the
people--the Nation's resources. (Applause)
If we are a people in trade and mean to continue to be, and if our
resources are our capital, can there be any doubt about the wisdom of
handling that capital according to the rules of good business? Can there
be any doubt where we as a Nation will land if we make annual inroads
upon that capital; if we, in the management of the people's business,
follow methods which in private affairs bring those responsible before
the bar of justice?
We as a Nation take just pride in our business successes; we attribute
them to the brains we put into our work, to the thoroughness with which
we study what we do and what others have done that we may profit by
experience. Is it not well for us thoughtfully to inquire whether the
histories of any other nations record the handling of their resources on
the "get-rich quick" plan, that we may see what has been the outcome?
History is full of such instances; many of them have been pointed out
by eminent advocates of this movement. I will therefore not attempt
anything but passing reference to some of them. Volumes could be written
from evidences found in the Valley of the Euphrates and of the Tigris,
where stood the great Kingdom of Babylonia, the wonder of the ancient
world; in the ruins of Palmyra and Palestine; in the Barbary States,
once famed as the granary of Rome but now a howling wilderness, because
the Mohammedans who conquered it neglected its natural resources; in the
ruins of the Cities of the Sahara, whose crumbling courts bring to mind
the words of Omar Khayyam--
They say the lion and the leopard keep
The courts where Jamshyd gloried and drank deep.
If we look to history for the other side of the picture--for instances
where business prosperity has gone on without interruption as long as
natural resources have been conserved and intelligently maintained--we
find them so well defined as to lead to but one conclusion. This is
illustrated in Germany where they have maintained the fertility of their
soil for centuries. It produces more per acre today than it did many
generations ago. Their great forest estates have remained intact; they
have cut a crop of timber from them regularly every year, producing an
annual income, but the capital--the forest estate--is greater and more
valuable today than it was before our country was discovered. Fires have
not destroyed their forests. They have long since learned the wisdom of
applying, "an ounce of prevention," and fortunately have no
"pork-barrel" to stand in the way. (Applause)
And we find in our own history many instances where great business
enterprises have sprung promptly from efforts to intelligently develop
the resources around us. The State of Illinois was passed over by the
first settlers as a land of no opportunities. It is today, in
productiveness and volume of business, one of the greatest States in the
Union. In the States of Utah and Colorado vast areas formerly looked
upon as barren and useless wastes, have been, by the intelligent
handling of natural resources, made to produce annually wonderful crops
of fruit and vegetables, the traffic in which has become a great
commercial industry. The development of the Southwest, dependent very
largely on one resource--the fertility of its soil--has called into
being such lusty young giants as Wichita, Oklahoma City, Dallas, and
other cities of that type. In the vicinity of Birmingham, a section
which before the War was occupied mainly by cotton plantations--wherein
there was nothing that could be properly called business--where
generations came and passed to the Great Beyond and never saw the smoke
of a factory or heard the hum of a busy mart of trade, today, with but
one generation intervening, we find a live and prosperous modern city,
the heart of a great industrial region. The change has come from
developing three great natural resources, which up to the close of the
War had been allowed to lie idle and unproductive--the forests, the coal
and the iron.
Here again we find an example of the business dependence of natural
resources one upon the other. The timber from the forests was needed for
the mining of the coal, and the coal was needed in the manufactures from
the iron ore; and again the forests in the development of means of
transportation to the markets of the world.
So there is ample evidence that business activity follows promptly upon
the intelligent development of natural resources, and decay with equal
certainty follows the neglect or wasteful use of the capital which
nature tenders us, and for the intelligent use of which she holds us
strictly accountable.
I have frequently been asked by those who know our system of getting
reliable information, "How do people over the country feel in regard to
Conservation; are they in favor of it in all its aspects, or do they
seem to be interested only in certain features?"
As that is a question that has direct bearing on the business of the
country, we naturally had made careful inquiry regarding it from Maine
to California, and we had learned that the majority of the people do not
understand enough about it to hold any real opinion. They have no
adequate idea what Conservation means as applied, for instance, by this
organization to our natural resources. In spite of exhaustive reports
issued by the Government, in spite of scholarly and illuminative
articles on the subject, the people generally do not yet understand the
real object of Conservation. A busy people in trade do not have time to
read Government reports or long speeches on any subject, and of course
no one can do justice to even one element of this great subject in a
short article. The net result is therefore that there is no general
understanding of even the A B C of Conservation such as should be given
to the people, such as they would be glad to have, and such as they must
have before there is warrant for feeling that the foundation stones of
Conservation are so firmly grounded that no transitory wave of agitation
on unimportant details can be successfully used to dislodge them.
The majority have not yet grasped the idea that one of the prime objects
of this Conservation movement is to preserve the fertility and
productiveness of the soil, on which we all depend for our food supply.
They are not aware that already in many parts of this country, where
formerly any man who rented farm lands was entirely free to use them
with indifference to their future, he is now required by the owners to
enter into a written contract which provides just how the land is to be
cultivated--how the crops are to be rotated and fertilizers used. The
owners of these lands today require their tenants to practice
Conservation. (Applause)
The people do not generally understand that when a territory which has
been used as a range for cattle is by proclamation withdrawn, as we
express it, that does not mean it is no longer to be used for pasturage.
Conservation does not aim to suspend use--its object is to perpetuate
usefulness in full measure this year, and every year to come. (Applause)
A farmer who owns a pasture--large or small--and rents it for stock
grazing, takes due care to cover in his agreement the number of head and
the length of time they are to be kept on his land. He makes sure that
his pasture is not to be so abused in any one season as to ruin it for
the future. He cares for his own land as it is the province of the
Forest Service to care for the public land entrusted to their
supervision. He practices Conservation because he cannot afford to do
otherwise.
It is not widely known that instead of wishing to keep settlers out of
the National Forests, inducements are given to get people to settle
within their boundaries; homesteaders are free to pasture their domestic
stock within the reservation and to cut from the forests the timber they
require for building houses, barns and fences. It is not generally
understood that making a forest reservation does not mean that no more
timber is to be cut there for market; on the contrary, its prime object
is to insure continued cutting and selling of it for all time. It is not
widely known that the revenue from timber cutting on the public forest
lands amounts already to a million dollars a year, and the annual
revenue from the pastures puts another million into the public
treasury--and that this is only a beginning; or that meanwhile this kind
of revenue-making regulation also affects the regularity of water supply
through our rivers and streams--a most vital question as has been shown
by many able exponents of Conservation.
When this Nation of business people understands that Conservation is
simply another term for business management of the people's capital, the
pressure of public opinion will be so strong behind this movement as to
brook no interference or delay in the passage and enforcement of the
laws needed to begin at once a business administration.
How to spread more widely a correct understanding of such facts is today
a most important problem. How shall we reach the people who have not yet
been reached, and who in all probability will not be reached by anything
published in the usual way?
I have a suggestion to make which I ask you Delegates to take to the
Governors who appointed you to attend this Congress; that is, that each
Governor summon to his Capitol for consultation, say six of the leading
business men of the State, selecting those who in their own business
have, by successful use of modern advertising, demonstrated that they
have learned from experience how to reach the individual and tell him
something they want him to know. Knowing how to do that is just as much
a matter of education and experience as are the methods of the Forester
or of the politician who is a "past master" at the game. Give the people
of your State the benefit of this experience. It can be had for the
asking. The business men can be depended on to help whenever called
upon. They will be particularly ready in this matter which, in
proportion as it is successful, will make for good trade and stable
business conditions; and the Conservation of our natural resources
stands for more stable business conditions year after year, in that it
tends to reduce the chances of losing our new wealth in crops just when
it seems to be practically sure.
Ask such a group of successful advertisers to formulate a scheme of
reaching the public generally with the kind of information they want and
should have about Conservation. Enlist the cooperation of the army of
commercial travelers within the State--there are no more loyal American
citizens anywhere, none who can do more in such a campaign, none who
will more gladly lend a hand when once they are advised along proper
lines, and know how great a factor the Conservation of our natural
resources can be in the upbuilding of business and, through it, the
general prosperity of our people.
Ask this business council to formulate ways of making known not only the
facts about forests and water supply, and the importance of these facts
to every individual man, woman and child in the Nation, but why we in
the United States average 13-1/2 bushels of wheat per acre, instead of
23-1/2 bushels, as they do in Germany, and 30-9/10 bushels in Great
Britain; how this is making homestead lands scarce, and prices high,
because we only get half the amount of crops we should get from the land
we have under cultivation. When we find our production less to the acre
each succeeding year and more mouths to feed, it is time everybody knew
why.
Tell them in the simplest and most direct manner possible what is meant
by the "pork barrel" in politics--how it is being used to retard the
proper development of our natural resources, and why therefore it stands
in the way of the Nation's progress. Let them know why we all have
reason to thank God that we have in the White House a President who does
not let politics silence his tongue on that subject or swerve him from
his determination to stop this waste of the Nation's funds. (Applause)
Write up a short story of what Reclamation has done and can do in
relieving the situation by opening up to us millions of acres of land
which can and will add greatly to our food and meat supply; tell them
what has already been accomplished and the progress that is still being
made by reclamation work, to the great benefit of the people. Explain in
a simple manner that hand in hand with the profitable development of our
natural resources must go the development of our great waterways and
railroads--that there can be no general prosperity without railroad
prosperity; that our railroads and waterways are the connecting links
which make our natural resources available, and that the practical value
of our natural resources depends largely on the efficiency of our
transportation service. (Applause)
Point out to them the lessons which we should get from cases of
individual effort along the lines of modern methods in farming; how, for
instance, Mr Claude Hollingsworth, near Colfax, Washington, raised this
year 45 bushels of wheat to the acre, averaging 62 pounds to the bushel,
and of barley 72-1/3 bushels to the acre, when his neighbors, with the
same conditions of soil, climate, and rainfall, averaged only half as
much; or in South Carolina, where Mr E. McI. Williamson has, by the
proper application of fertilizers, modern methods, and little additional
expense, increased his production of corn from 15 bushels per acre to an
average of nearly 60 bushels, and of cotton from less than half a bale
to an average of a bale per acre. Such examples are most convincing, and
will do much to arouse interest in the practical value of Conservation.
The conservation of the National health deserves to be emphasized even
when we have under consideration this general subject from purely a
business standpoint. When we consider that tuberculosis alone costs the
people of the State of New York over $200,000,000 per year, and that it
is a preventable disease, and that that $200,000,000 might be used as
capital to give to millions of people profitable and wholesome
occupation, the relation of the health movement to the business
interests of the country is self-evident.
Of course, this suggestion is based upon entire confidence in the
cooperation of the daily press--I have no doubt about that whatever. The
newspapers and magazines are not only most potent factors in spreading
enlightenment, but they can always be depended on to take enthusiastic
hold of any movement that is honestly and disinterestedly for the
general good. (Applause)
This whole subject of Conservation is fundamentally a business
proposition--a question of managing the people's business with the same
care and foresight that we put into private business--a question of
using the Nation's capital in a way that will produce a regular, steady
and proper income year after year, and at the same time so safeguard the
principal that the people of these United States may go on in business
indefinitely.
History tells of many peoples who have spent their capital and
disappeared from the face of the earth. Let us so organize this Nation's
business that it may go on down the centuries as history's exception to
the general rule of rise and fall (applause). As we point with pride,
honor and gratitude to the signers of our Declaration of Independence
and the makers of our Constitution, so may the coming generations of
Americans, having in mind the fates of other peoples, look back with
gratitude to us and have occasion to exclaim "See what would also have
been our lot had it not been for the foresight and business judgment of
our ancestors of the Twentieth Century--worthy successors of the great
men who founded this Government of the people by the people and for the
people, not only for their own time, but for all time." (Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: Nothing is more important to
Conservation than education; and I have the honor now to introduce the
Commissioner of Education, Dr Elmer Ellsworth Brown, who will address
you on "Education and Conservation."
* * * * *
Commissioner BROWN--Mr President, Ladies, and Gentlemen: Every uplift
and reform comes back to education. It is uplift carried to the sticking
point. It is reform continually going on. In speaking of the educational
aspect of Conservation, I am not concerned with anything merely
incidental or subordinate, but have to do with a matter as large and
vital as any upon which the success of the Conservation movement
depends.
It must be admitted on the other hand that education has much to get
from the Conservation movement as well as much to give. The schools are
learners as well as teachers. To support and further Conservation they
will need to learn Conservation facts and doctrines. This Congress and
American education are aiming at the same thing in the end--the
betterment of American life. What shall it profit to conserve everything
else on earth if we fail to conserve the spirit and fiber of our
citizens, young and old? That is a view in which Conservationists and
educators are fully agreed.
Now, what is our educational establishment, as it stands over against
the body of our material resources? It is a group of State school
systems, having in the aggregate a certain National character. We cannot
insist too strongly that education is primarily a concern of the States.
This group of State school systems represents a combination of public
and private agencies, for our State institutions are supplemented by
many institutions privately supported and controlled. It represents an
extraordinary unity as between elementary education and the higher
education, as between the democracy of the lower schools and the science
of the universities. It represents, moreover, in all of its grades, an
everlasting devotion to intellectual and moral values, as having to do
with enlightened citizenship. This is the educational establishment that
faces the needs and aspirations with which the Conservation Congress is
concerned. There are three or four ways in which I should like to speak
of the great work of that establishment as related to your own great
work:
1. In the first place, there is the fact that our scholastic education
is facing about and turning its attention toward industry and industrial
life. This is a new movement in which all States and sections are taking
part. It is a change which is attended with the gravest difficulty. No
one who is not familiar with the actual administration of schools and
colleges can guess how hard a thing it is to introduce a new practice of
teaching and make it successful at the hands of many teachers in widely
different communities. Yet our educational leaders have addressed
themselves to this task with courage and enthusiasm. In 25 States
provision is now made for teaching agriculture in public schools. Such
provision takes the form of agricultural high schools in Alabama,
Massachusetts, Minnesota and Virginia, and in several other widely
scattered States. In the best of these schools, there is arising a new
interest in all that relates to the soil and the life on the farm. It is
no uncommon thing to have class work interrupted by visits from
neighboring farmers, who consult the expert teachers regarding drainage
and fertilizers and the care of their horses and cows. The boys try out
at school the seed corn they are to plant on the home farm, and the
girls learn at school to raise poultry and vegetables and make from them
appetizing dishes for home consumption. Large provision has been made
for consolidated rural schools, and in Minnesota lands are added for
instruction in the practice of farming. Oklahoma requires the teaching
of agriculture in all public schools, with the cooperation of the normal
schools and the agricultural college. This new instruction is spreading
in unexpected ways. Columbia University, in the heart of New York City,
has begun to offer courses in agriculture, taking up this work where it
left it off early in the nineteenth century. And an agricultural
conference has been held at Bryn Mawr College. After that what more is
there to be said! (Applause)
But there is still a good deal more. Much might be said about the new
trade schools in the cities, and the new instruction in household arts
for girls; but I pass these matters by and go back to the farm. What is
especially interesting is the freedom with which new modes of teaching
have been adopted. Corn contests, potato trains, demonstration
farms--our old manuals of teaching knew nothing of these things. Then
there is all manner of summer schools, short winter courses, farmers'
institutes, and an assortment of other teaching devices. The University
of Idaho is employing three field men, a horticulturist, a dairyman, and
an irrigation and potato specialist, and is sending regular schools of
agriculture about the State on wheels. In Virginia and three or four
other States supervisors of rural schools have been appointed. They are
making a close study of the resources, industries, and social needs of
typical sections of their States, and are lending new life to the effort
to make the schools more directly serviceable.
One of the earlier developments of this movement, and one that comes
into peculiarly close relations with the Conservation campaign, is the
setting apart of a day in each year for planting trees. Nebraska is
looked upon as the original center of this movement. A recent report
shows the planting of 20,000 trees in a single year in Minnesota, in
connection with the Arbor Day celebration in this State (applause). The
observance has received a fresh impetus in more than twenty of the
States from the publication by the State education offices of attractive
manuals offering suggestions regarding the celebration.
The leaders of the new movement in our schools have called for a
redirection of rural education. Such a redirection is actually taking
place. So much has been begun that it would be easy to believe that the
work is done. There are many who suppose that this new education is
already in the saddle and is moving triumphantly forward. But that is a
mistake. Great changes in education are not brought about so easily.
There is a long campaign and a hard campaign before us if the desired
ends are to be attained. State superintendents of public instruction,
those who are training teachers in colleges and normal schools, and all
who are engaged in this work in supervisory and teaching positions, will
need for a long time to come the moral backing and the material support
which this influential body can command. That is what they should have
without reserve and without stint. (Applause)
The lack of well-prepared teachers of these subjects is one of the most
serious difficulties the new movement has encountered. A recent report
shows about seventy State normal schools offering regular instruction in
agriculture. The Nelson Amendment to the Agricultural Appropriation Act
of 1907 provided Federal funds for the training of teachers in the
land-grant colleges. At least thirty of these colleges are now offering
such instruction. But this work, too, is only begun.
2. And this suggests the second thing that I wish to say. The new
movement is making a new demand for men in the business of
teaching--strong men, technically trained for their work. If education
is to help Conservation, the teaching profession must be enabled to
compete with the industries in attracting and holding such men. We are
considering both ends of our educational system, the scientific end in
the universities and the popular end in the schools. A man who has
enough knowledge and skill to train others for an industrial occupation
has enough to give him a place in the industry itself. And the industry
pays a great deal better than the teaching. It is not necessary that the
income of teachers and that of industrial leaders should be equalized.
Many men will continue to teach because they prefer to teach. But when
the disparity becomes too great, many good teachers, in fairness to
themselves and to their families, must give up the struggle and go over
into the more lucrative employments. This is what has been going on in
recent years. With a rapidly growing population and an increasing body
of teachers, we have fewer men engaged in teaching than we had five
years ago. We need opportunities in the teaching profession that will
attract strong men to face the work before us (applause). I have the
highest regard for the work of our women teachers; but both men and
women are needed to give us a well balanced public education, and I
welcome the alliance of the schools with the Conservation movement,
because of the new demand it makes for competent men in the schools.
Let me point out some of the places in our scholastic organization where
strong men are needed, for Conservation purposes as well as for
educational purposes. It is generally understood that men of the largest
caliber are in demand as presidents of technical colleges and
universities. It should be equally obvious that such men are needed as
State superintendents of public instruction. We have such men, and have
had many such in the office of State superintendent--but in many of the
States that office cannot attract men as do our college presidencies,
because of the short term of service and other limitations with which it
is hedged about. We need broad men and strong men as instructors in the
technical departments of our higher institutions. Those who deal with
our National resources industriously can know but little of the personal
strain and sacrifice with which other men have stuck to their task of
dealing with these same resources educationally. In our secondary and
elementary education there is not only need of specially trained men as
teachers, but there is need in particular of specially trained
supervisors.
I was in Vermont not many days ago, and there I saw one result of a new
law, which provides for the employment of union district superintendents
of schools, at a respectable minimum salary. The State superintendent
had called together these local superintendents in their annual
conference. There were nearly forty of them, where three years before
there was not one. Rather young men they were for the most part, though
well-seasoned in the responsibilities of teaching. College graduates,
alert and ambitious, they gave themselves over to the business which had
brought them together, with a heartiness that was vastly encouraging.
Other States have made provisions for a similar staff of supervisory
officers. New York is one of the latest to take such action. The great
States of the West, in which the county is a common unit of school
supervision, need in their counties traveling supervisors of special
subjects, particularly those relating to the practical business of life
on the farm. Such supervisors can become veritable evangelists, bringers
of good news concerning the things which make our National resources
interesting and full of hope.
3. I have spoken of the new movement toward industrial education in our
several States. I have tried to show that this movement is making only
gradual headway against great difficulties, but that it can become a
strong reinforcement of Conservation and of other public interests _if
given a fair chance_. Now, in the third place it should be said that the
Federal Government is concerned with giving it a fair chance. We have no
National system of school administration. We do not want such a system.
No one seriously proposes to relieve the States of their powers and
responsibilities in this matter. But how can the Nation be indifferent
to the very stuff out of which it is made? While we have no National
system of schools, we have and we are bound to have a National program
of education.
It is no new thing that I am proposing. I would simply propose that the
program blocked out and entered upon many years ago should be carried
out and made as useful as possible. This National program is a simple
one. In the earlier days it consisted in the granting of lands for
educational purposes. Within the past half-century two additions to this
earlier plan have been made. The first of these was the establishment
of a central office of information, the Federal Bureau of Education; the
second was the annual appropriation of Federal funds for institutions
serving a special and urgent National need--the acts for the further
support of the land-grant colleges.
Stated now in other words, our whole American scheme of public
educational management consists of these four parts: First, the
independent school and university systems of the several States, aided
by grants of public lands and supplemented by privately managed
institutions; second, the free cooperation of the States in educational
matters of common interest; third, a Federal education office, aiding
the States by its information service and furthering their cooperation;
and finally, the distribution of Federal funds, under the supervision of
the Bureau of Education.
Let me say a few words concerning that part of this plan with which I
have personally the most to do. It is the business of the Federal Bureau
to survey the whole field of American education, and make the best
things contagious throughout that field. In such a subject as industrial
education, it is to study our present needs in the large, and to set
before our people the best examples of the successful meeting of such
needs in this and in foreign lands. It is to promote unity of effort, by
enabling every part of the country to profit at once by whatever has
been well done in any other part of the world. As regards such a subject
as the Conservation of our National resources, it is to take the broad
view which concerns education in all the States, and to further the
common treatment of that subject as related to the geography, the
history, and the industries of the American people. Such work as this it
is now doing in a preliminary and fragmentary way; but it needs more
men--expert and informing men--to make of its educational contagion the
really large and transforming thing that these times demand. Give us the
men, and we will give the help. When the Nation has made its program, it
cannot afford to carry it out on less than a National scale. (Applause)
I have said that our National program already involves a measure of
direct Federal aid to education in the States. There is every reason why
such aid should be reserved as a last resort. But as a last resort, it
has its place in our program. It is doubtful whether the industrial
education which the Nation now requires can be adequately carried out
without an increase of such Federal participation. But the point to be
especially emphasized is this: Any such extension of Federal aid should
be based on an accurate knowledge of the needs, and should be made in
such ways as will strengthen and not weaken the educational systems of
the States. For these reasons, a general investigation of the subject of
industrial education in all sections of the country is one of the next
things that should be undertaken by the Education Bureau. Such an
inquiry has already been recommended from the office of the Secretary of
the Interior. It has been urgently requested by the National Society for
the Promotion of Industrial Education. Our neighbors of the Dominion of
Canada already have a strong commission engaged in a similar inquiry. I
earnestly hope that this Congress will call upon the Congress of the
United States to institute such an inquiry at the earliest practicable
date, and provide for carrying it on in a manner commensurate with the
importance of the subject.
When I speak of our National program in education, it is with warmth and
conviction. No nation can come to its greatest, industrially and
politically, save as it comes to its greatest in education. We have in
our American form of governmental relations the basis for the noblest
educational structure that any nation has ever erected. In full loyalty
to the true relations of State and Nation, we have only to go forward
doing generously the things which may rightly be done, in order to have
an infinitely varied yet gloriously united educational organization, in
which our democracy, our science, and our nationality shall all of them
come to their best.
4. Fourthly and finally, what kind of education is it that the new needs
call for? I cannot leave the subject without saying a few words on that
theme.
Our American schools and colleges have stood in the past for liberal
culture. They have taken pride in doing so and they have believed that
by so doing they have been serving the ends of democratic citizenship.
American education from the beginning has looked the almighty dollar
squarely in the face and passed on in serene devotion to spiritual ends.
Is all of this to be changed with the new interest in industrial life?
Is the technical, in other words, to take place of the liberal? I do not
believe it. In fact, no greater calamity could befall our industrial
interests. But we are undoubtedly changing our conception of what is
liberal and what is technical. We may describe a liberally educated man
as one who has learned so thoroughly how the whole world hangs together
that he constantly sees his own interests only as related to general and
permanent human interests (applause). A technical education, on the
other hand, enables a man to do that which most men cannot do, but which
has some useful relation to those general human interests. If this is a
fair statement, there is no field in which a liberal education is more
to be desired than that of our material resources and our industries;
for this is the field on which the whole game and drama of human life is
to be played, though there is no other in which the temptation to
illiberal, narrow, and selfish views is so great. To make the material
basis of human society itself a subject of liberal education is one of
the greatest things that scholastic enterprise can possibly accomplish.
The next step is to join the training for technical pursuits directly to
our liberal culture thus broadly conceived, so that every citizen shall
add some valuable skill to his more general attainments, and every
special skill shall grow directly out of his general knowledge.
This, I believe, will be the great aim of American education
everywhere. It is a high patriotic service to further such education.
Even in the elementary schools, let our pupils learn that their private
interests are to be advanced only in accord with more general interests,
and that they are to make their success in life by doing some one thing
well for which the world at large has need. We have been, according to
our critics, a Nation whose resources were greater and more impressive
than our civilization. With such an education as this, we shall be a
Nation whose civilization shall overtop all of the natural goods that
may ever be discovered or conserved (applause). Such an education,
moreover, could do much to overcome some of the chief obstacles which
the Conservation movement now encounters; for it should give us a people
who, from engineers and managers to farmers and miners, should not only
be masters of their own trades but should pursue them with some positive
regard for the public good (applause). Our education is not big enough
and virile enough until it can deal with such great National issues as
this. I am confident that it will come up to that high measure of power
and efficiency, and that already it has begun to carry those larger
responsibilities. (Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: Can there be higher patriotism
than in the efforts of this Congress to protect the rights of all?
Conservation is true patriotism; and Mrs Matthew T. Scott,
President-General of the National Society of Daughters of the American
Revolution, will now address you on this subject. (Applause, the entire
audience rising)
* * * * *
Mrs SCOTT--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: In behalf of the National
Society of Daughters of the American Revolution, I wish to make my
grateful acknowledgments to the Executive Committee (through its
President, Honorable Bernard N. Baker) for its courtesy in giving to Mrs
Amos G. Draper, the able Chairman of our D. A. R. Conservation Committee
who has so splendidly inaugurated and developed this work, and to
myself, the privilege and honor of taking part in these splendid
exercises. In its last analysis the generic term "Conservation"--in its
widest scope, and broadest sense--may be said to be the keynote and
touchstone of our great D. A. R. organization. The finest brains and
blood and nerve force of the land have been absorbed and found noble
expression in various lines of work of the D. A. R. While the Daughters
have turned their sympathetic attention to various material branches of
Conservation work, we have not neglected the higher intellectual,
ethical, and moral Conservation interests; we aim to help preserve the
glorious heritage that has fallen to us of self-government, and hand
down the birthright undiminished to those who come after us that the
priceless boon of "government of the people by the people and for the
people" perish not from the earth. (Applause)
It has been borne in upon me of late that there are two Conservation
interests whose importance we have not fully recognized, and they are
the conservation of true womanliness, and the conservation of the
supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race on this continent. As to the former,
the President of the United States in a recent address at Washington
before the annual Congress of the D. A. R., said that woman's place and
sphere are on too high a plane to be even discussed. It is surely an
inspiration to have the privilege before this splendid assemblage of
representing the great patriotic movement, which under the banner of the
D. A. R., marches steadily forward, with ever increasing numbers,
enthusiasm, prestige, and practical power.
The Daughters of the American Revolution in distinctive and especial
ways have lent their organized strength to various good causes, which
may all be practically considered as Conservation interests: among other
objects, to social uplift, to patriotic education in its widest scope,
to placing bounds to the abuse of child labor, to playgrounds, to
juvenile courts, to improvement of hygienic conditions in our great
cities, to preservation of historic spots and records, to the safe and
sane celebration of July Fourth; and to cooperation with the S. A. R. in
their noble work for immigrants landing upon our shores and subsequently
for these foreigners and their children in the effort to Americanize
them and to inoculate them with ideals and principles known in this
twentieth century as Americanism.
Much has been done also among the mountain whites of the South. Every
mountaineer, child or adult, that in our work we help to educate toward
intelligent citizenship--and many of these mountaineers are of
Revolutionary ancestry--is a barrier raised against the anarchistic
tendencies and the unrest of our great cities; is a guarantee for the
supremacy of the Caucasian race in America. Read, if you can secure it,
Mr Thomas Nelson Page's plea for the education of the Southern Mountain
whites in his magnificent address delivered at Washington before the
last Continental Congress! We are also preserving, all over this broad
land, landmarks of history--sacred relics of a vanished age--which are
object-lessons for our own youth and for the strangers who crowd our
shores. Every monument we rear, every tablet we place, every statue we
erect, every old fort or bastian, every Revolutionary relic or
Revolutionary soldier's grave we honor, is a tribute to those to whom we
owe the imperishable gifts of liberty, of independence, of the right to
worship God in our own way. Every fountain or stone recording the trail
of the pioneer, the priest, the trader, the soldier, or the devotion of
the Revolutionary heroine, is a breath of incense wafted back to the
immortals, an inspiration for "tangible immortality" for ourselves, and
those who come after us. (Applause)
The Conservation of our natural resources is a subject of intensely
practical importance to the D. A. R. Representing as we do the
motherhood of the Nation, we feel that it is for us to see that the
children of this and future generations are not robbed of their
God-given privileges. It is our high privilege and mission to see to it
that the future shall be the uncankered fruit of the past. The ideal
democracy solemnly dedicated by the Founders, we, as their Daughters,
declare shall not be forestalled. As women we cannot be silent and see
the high ends at which they aimed made futile by the growth of a
grovelling lust for material and commercial aggrandizement. This
headlong haste for enormous gain, the total disregard of the future for
the present moment, if not stopped will bring us to the condition of the
Old World where the fertility and habitability of past ages have been
destroyed forever. We feel that it is for us, who are not wholly
absorbed in business, to preserve ideals that are higher than
business--the outlook for the future, the common interests, and the
betterment of all classes. The wasteful scrambling and greedy clutching
at our natural treasures has made the present generation rich; but the
mothers of the future must be warned by us lest they find that our
boasted prosperity has been bought at the price of the suffering, of the
poverty, and class war of our descendants. There is no lack of patriotic
devotion in the country; but the mere thoughtlessness and inability or
unwillingness of the commercial class to drop the interests of the
moment long enough to realize how they are compromising the future--this
hot haste and heedlessness, it is for us with our larger outlook, to
restrain.
Women have already preserved a large National forest in the Pennsylvania
mountains; the women of Minnesota have to their credit the Minnesota
National forests; it was the women of California who saved the
immemorial groves of the Calaveras big trees. Our own work in behalf of
the preservation of the Appalachian watersheds, in behalf of the
preservation of historic sites, as well as the efforts being made by
various women's organizations to preserve the natural beauty of the
Palisades, of Niagara Falls, and of other precious scenic treasures of
the Nation, are all steps in the right direction, are all preparation
for the larger Conservation interests which the D. A. R. have begun
actively to champion. It should be a second nature to women, with the
spirit of motherhood and protecting care innate in them, to take an
effective stand in the spirit of true patriotism--against the spirit of
rank selfishness--the anti-social spirit of the man who declines to take
into account any other interests than his own. (Applause)
There is another great world interest that is peculiarly our own as
Daughters and descendants of the peace-loving patriots who took up arms
a century and a half ago. They were not professional soldiers, but plain
citizens hastily rallied together in often-wavering lines of defense of
home and country. All the world wondered when at Lexington and Concord,
on the village green and at the wooden bridge, the embattled farmers
stood across the line of march of the British regular army, and fired
"the shot heard round the world." It is the opening decade of the
twentieth century of the Christian era; it is time that brute force--the
recourse of primitive, barbaric man--cease to be the last arbitrament
between great nations calling themselves Christian and civilized, and
that the Conservation of peace be established by international
arbitration. (Applause)
Again, it is one of the glories of our great organization that we are
first, last, and all the time, considering the child. Today in all
civilized countries the child is leading the way. I am happy to be able
to say that through the instrumentality of our chapters in different
parts of the country, interest has been awakened in homeless and
dependent children; organizations have been formed for children of
foreign birth to teach them respect for the flag, and some things about
our form of government. Many chapters provide instructive lectures in
their own language for foreigners, who listen eagerly. Many chapters
offer prize medals for the best essays on historical subjects--American
history especially--and for memorizing our National songs. Nothing is
more important than our organized work for the "Children of the American
Revolution"--children of American birth and descent--unless it be our
work for the "Children of the Republic" in teaching to be American
citizens boys of foreign parentage who come to us with little idea of
the difference between liberty and license. For patriotism consists as
much in making good citizens as in saving the Nation from bad ones
(applause). Every boy of foreign birth or extraction that we can help to
transform into a thorough American through this magnificent branch of
our work, every lad of foreign birth or extraction that we can help
train to become a useful citizen and grow up into honorable manhood as a
credit to his adopted land is an added asset to the ethical wealth of
the country. Think for a moment what it means to help train these young
foreigners in the plastic period of their life in the patriotic
principles of their adopted country! A long stride has been taken in
their patriotic and civic education, when through the exertions of noble
women they have been given some idea of the great principles which are
the basis of our form of government.
Another branch of our Conservation work which is especially near my
heart, and which I think must be near to the heart of every mother in
this broad land, is that in connection with the splendid crusade now
being carried on against the evil of child labor. We have attempted, in
dealing with this as with every other problem, first to obtain a wide
and sure knowledge of the facts, and secondly to avoid everything
savoring of the spirit of fanaticism in concentrating our energies on
some great constructive policy. The committee on child labor, under the
leadership of its noble chairman--the late Mrs J. Ellen Foster, whose
life was dedicated to the needs of humanity--has made herculean efforts
to bring this matter properly before the attention not only of the D. A.
R. but of all the women of our land who are capable of responding to the
pathetic appeal of suffering and stunted childhood, that we may wipe
away this inexcusable stain on our National honor and this irreparable
blight on that product which is more valuable than all the combined
harvests of this fertile continent--the splendid American crop of human
souls. (Applause)
If in a serener atmosphere than that of the politics of the hour, we as
patriotic women can meet and help to solve these and other equally
important problems in the eternally feminine way that has always given
us power over men--if we would indeed, in the words of the old
Athenians, help to transmit our fatherland not only undiminished but
better and greater than it was transmitted to us, and if we are indeed
unwilling to transmit to posterity mere material possessions unillumined
by divine ideals; if we can but rise to the height and might of a pure,
disinterested, passionless consecration to the principles which time has
proved to be the soul of the purpose of the Fathers of the Republic, and
on that high level, above the distracting personalities and passing
incidents and accidents of the hour, "live and move and have our being"
as a National Society, then we shall best establish and preserve the
useful influence and leadership in the country to which we loyally
aspire. Our interest and work for these great Conservation interests we
cannot too often reiterate for our own encouragement and inspiration and
for the enlightenment of the public.
As I said before, in the light of recent incidents and experiences, it
has been borne in upon me that there are two great Conservation
interests we have not yet sufficiently touched. With all the advance in
learning, all the discoveries of science, all the enlightenment and
uplifting of religion, all the refining of manners, all the acquisitions
of men through invention and additions to the facilities for work and
comfort of living, all the improvements of institutions providing for
the farther and farther spread of well-being among the children of men,
still, in the great underlying physical principles of existence, in the
"main travelled roads" of humanity from birth to death, there is and can
be no essential change. Nevertheless, there are an infinite number of
variations and gradations in the product of these eternal operations of
nature. Man's battle with nature--for human progress is a constant
struggle against natural conditions, a continual re-making of the
planet--has been ever accompanied, step by step, by the battle within
himself against the contradictions in his inescapable heredity. It is
the degree of success in this struggle for the triumph of the spiritual
and the intellectual that marks the differences in racial types. Here
then are the grand elements of the problem, the condition as well as
theory confronting every well-wisher to humanity, every lover of her
kind and her country, especially among women. For it is woman who is
the divinity of the spring whence flows the stream of humanity--nay, she
is the source herself. To her keeping has been entrusted the sacred
font. In her hands rests the precious cup, the golden bowl of life.
Holier than the Holy Grail itself is this chalice glowing ever, with its
own share of the divine fire, its own vital spark from the altar of
Almighty power. Never has this office of cup-bearer to creation placed
greater responsibility upon woman than in this our own day, and this our
own country. Freely we have received, and generously must we respond;
and deeply must we realize what a charge to keep we have--nothing less
than the Conservation of the greatest experiment in enlightened
self-government the world ever saw. Is that sacred trust to be
jeopardized by untried, impracticable, uncalled for innovations upon the
institutions of Government sufficing for the Fathers of the Country, and
providing for its splendid development thus far? Shall we grasp at a
shadow in the stream, like the dog in the fable, and drop the substance
to sink away from us beyond recall? Is any _real_ interest of the women
of the land in danger? Is any _real_ interest of women inseparable from
the interests of the fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons of the women
of the land? Is there any interest of women to be compared in vital
importance to themselves, with the conservation of true womanliness?
I plead, as the representative of a great National organization of the
women of the land, for the Conservation of true womanliness, for the
exalting, for the lifting up in special honor, of the Holy Grail of
Womanhood. But not merely the cup whence flows the stream of human life,
must we guard and cherish; we must look to the ingredients which are
being cast into the cup. We must protect the fountain from pollution. We
must not so eagerly invite all the sons of Shem, Ham, and Japhet,
wherever they may have first seen the light, and under whatever
traditions and influences and ideals foreign and antagonistic to ours
they may have been reared, to trample the mud of millions of alien feet
into our spring. We must conserve the sources of our race in the
Anglo-Saxon line, Mother of Liberty and Self-government in the modern
world. I would rather our coming census showed a lesser population and a
greater homogeneity. Especially do I dread the clouding of the purity of
the cup with color and character acquired under tropical suns, in the
jungle, or in paradisian islands of the sea alternately basking in
heavenlike beauty and serenity and devastated by earthquake and tornado
and revolution. (Applause)
I come of the old Virginia stock (applause) which first passed over the
Blue Ridge and possessed the great Middle West, just in time to prevent
it from becoming Spanish or French or British. Some of the pioneers of
Washington's times have stayed on right there, in that eagle's nest of
pure Americans where Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia meet in the
mountains against which Cornwallis' previously invincible raiding
column--after devastating the Carolinas--dashed itself to pieces, wiped
out by volunteer mountaineers in that wonderful battle of Kings Mountain
which no general planned or even heard of until it was over. Personally,
I would be willing to reduce our population-boast by many millions, had
the remnant the unadulterated Americanism conserved to this day in these
mountaineers' descendants! We may be destined to see our cup of liberty,
which we have so generously proffered to the whole world, grow to the
proportion of a grand mixing-bowl of races; but if so, will it not at
least be wise to see that our own race dominate?
We, the mothers of this generation--ancestresses of future
generations--have a right to insist upon the conserving not only of
soil, forest, birds, minerals, fishes, waterways, in the interest of our
future home-makers, but also upon the conserving of the supremacy of the
Caucasian race in our land. This Conservation, second to none in
pressing importance, may and should be insured in the best interests of
all races concerned; and the sooner attention is turned upon it the
better. (Great applause)
* * * * *
[Pending the foregoing, Governor Eberhart resumed the Chair.]
Professor CONDRA--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: At the instance of
the President of the Congress, and inspired by the splendid address of
Mrs Matthew T. Scott, President-General of the Daughters of the American
Revolution and one of the most eminent of American women, I move that
the Secretary of the Congress be empowered to prepare a suitable
expression of the condolence of the Congress to be sent to the family of
the late Mrs J. Ellen Foster, a member of the Executive Committee of the
Congress and one of the most militant women of the country in behalf of
Conservation.
The motion was seconded by several delegates.
Governor EBERHART--Ladies and Gentlemen: You have all heard the motion.
As many as favor its adoption will please rise to their feet. [The
entire Congress arose.] The motion is carried unanimously, and the
Secretary will be instructed to forward the expression.
While the formal addresses of the women of the Nation to this
Conservation Congress are now concluded, there is a little presentation
which a lady of our State wishes to make; and in accordance with the
instructions of the President of the Congress, I am pleased to introduce
Mrs J. C. Howard, of Duluth. (Applause)
* * * * *
Mrs HOWARD--Your Excellency, and Ladies and Gentlemen: Mrs Scott asks me
to present this certificate which I hold in my hand, for her and for the
D. A. R., to a man whom we all delight to honor.
I used to live in Washington before I grew up and came to Minnesota,
where I hope to spend the rest of my life; and there in my time I met
many near-heroes and many heroes. I observed that modesty was always a
sure sign of the real heroes; and if you had witnessed my efforts with
Mr Gifford Pinchot to persuade him to come on the stage and stay there
until I could give him this card, you would have no more doubt than
before in which category he belongs (laughter and applause). Now,
Governor, please don't let him get away while my back is turned
(laughter), because I feel he really ought to have this certificate.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this certificate is a tribute by the D. A. R., in
the form of a diploma, as you see; it says, in part,
=He that planteth a tree is a servant of God. He provideth a kindness
for many generations, and faces that he hath not seen shall bless him.=
I have intense pride in presenting it to the man who is first in the
Conservation war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of all
tree-lovers.
[Mrs Howard here presented the certificate to Mr Pinchot amid great and
prolonged applause, with cries of "Pinchot!" "Speech!"]
Mr GIFFORD PINCHOT--Mr Chairman, Mrs Scott, and Mrs Howard: There are
two reasons, Ladies and Gentlemen, why I am profoundly moved, and
delighted to receive this certificate: One of them is--and it is not a
bit modified by the fact that you have so kindly, yesterday and today,
given me far more credit than I deserve--that I would rather have the
good opinion of the women who are interested in Conservation than that
of the men--by far (applause and laughter). The other is, that of all
the organizations that have been working for the Conservation movement,
for the preservation of the forests and for the extension of the same
idea to all our natural resources, there has been none more devoted and
more effective than the D. A. R. Besides, of all the women in the D. A.
R., no one has been more devoted or more effective than Mrs Howard's
mother, Mrs Draper (applause). And in this certificate I have joined
together in my mind the kindness of Mrs Scott and the organization which
she represents, the good-will of Mrs Draper which I very deeply prize,
and that of her daughter, Mrs Howard, who was kind enough to give it to
me; and I want to thank them all most heartily. (Great applause)
* * * * *
Governor EBERHART--When our friend Mr Pinchot comes here for the next
Conservation meeting, after having seen all the charming ladies who have
attended this Congress and worked in its interest, it is to be hoped
that there may be still another certificate which he may have in his
possession at that time (great applause). I am not saying this for the
purpose of announcing any competition on the part of the ladies, but
merely because Mr Pinchot himself suggested that he prizes this
certificate so highly. But he would, I am sure, prize the other one
still more if he got it (laughter).
Some time ago, when it became necessary to send a man of ability, honor,
and integrity out West to prosecute land frauds, President Roosevelt
looked quite a while before he could find the right one. The
instruction under which that man went was that he should prosecute every
guilty person, no matter what position in life he held, whether of high
or low standing; and the man he sent was eminently successful. After
successfully prosecuting those land frauds, he went to San Francisco and
continued in the same work with equally great credit and distinction; so
that in introducing him to you I am introducing the best-known, the
ablest and strongest, apostle of clean citizenship in the United States,
a man who stands for a square deal, and who believes in what is best and
highest and truest and cleanest and purest in American citizenship.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have the honor and privilege of introducing to
you that conserver of clean citizenship, who will address you on the
subject of "Safeguarding the Property of the People," Honorable Francis
J. Heney, of California.
[Great and prolonged applause and cheers. Voices: "What's the matter
with Heney?" "He's all right!"]
* * * * *
Mr HENEY (after asking an attendant to remove the water pitcher)--Mr
Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen: As I never take water, I have requested
that it be moved over to another table before I commence. (Laughter)
The efficiency of a democracy must ultimately depend on the intelligence
of its voters. It was the recognition of that idea which caused the
Fathers of this Republic to advocate so strongly the establishment of a
public school system in this country. Any effort on the part of any
public servant to prevent the voters of this country from having full
knowledge of all its public affairs is, therefore, a species of treason,
and any failure on the part of any citizen to acquaint himself as fully
as possible with our National affairs is a failure to perform one of the
duties and obligations which are imposed upon every member of a
democracy. (Applause)
Public opinion, it is said, rules the Nation. It might better be said
(because it would be more accurate) that public opinion in a democracy
_should_ rule the Nation; and it might further be said that if we had a
real democracy, and a real representative government, public opinion
_would_ rule the Nation (applause). There are some evidences, however,
that public opinion in this country does not have a free chance to
operate. I need not mention many instances to convince you. Ninety
percent of the people of the United States were opposed to men being
permitted to make a profit by poisoning a people; they wanted a
pure-food law, and yet it was locked up on the high shelf in Congress
for sixteen years until Theodore Roosevelt, with the Big Stick, forced
it out (great applause). What public opinion failed to do the Big Stick
accomplished. (Renewed applause)
Now, my friends, public opinion should be intelligent; and that requires
accurate information. A friend of mine, riding on a street-car in the
city of Washington, at a time when the Ballinger-Pinchot investigation
was going on, saw two young men, beyond the voting age, reading the
morning newspaper. They had a paper apiece. He was standing close by
hanging on to a strap. He heard one of them say to the other, "They are
having a great fuss up there in Congress over this Ballinger-Pinchot
controversy, aren't they?" "Yes," said the other; "I see that Ballinger
has been found three million dollars short in his accounts" (laughter).
"Yes, I see that," said the first, "and that they found Pinchot has
stolen a _million acres_ of public land" (laughter). Whereupon both of
them turned to the sporting column to see whether Johnson or Jeffries
was predicted to win (laughter). They seemed to have a pretty accurate
knowledge, also, of which club was ahead in the baseball game.
Now, my friends, that sort of misinformation is one of the diseases with
which we are afflicted in this Republic, and I again call your attention
to the responsibility of citizenship; and in that connection I
congratulate myself, and I congratulate the Nation, that so many women
are beginning to come to places like this, on occasions like this, to
learn something about our National affairs (applause), because the
future of this country is in the hands of the boys who are now growing
up, and, perchance, the girls--who knows what may become of woman
suffrage in the next generation? (Applause) Therefore, the more
information the mothers have the better opportunity the Nation has of
getting intelligent action from the voters.
The subject of my text today is "Safeguarding the Property of the
People." Well, my friends, there are just two ways in which the property
of the people may be safeguarded: one is by the Legislative arm of the
Government, to whom the Constitution of the United States has entrusted
the power of disposing of, regulating, and controlling public property;
the other is the Executive arm of the Government, to which, under the
Constitution, the power is entrusted of enforcing the laws which have
been provided by the Legislative body.
Now, it must be apparent to any one that the most efficient Executive
must fail in safeguarding the property of the people if the laws
provided for that purpose by the Legislative body are loose, inaccurate,
or unfitted to conditions. I want to make the charge plainly and
unequivocally that, when we come (as we shall in a moment) to inquire
into the safeguarding of the property of this Nation, we will find that
all the despoiling of the Nation is directly chargeable upon the
Legislative branch of the Government, the Congress of the United States,
to whom, under the Constitution, we gave the power of trustees.
In the first place, if unfortunately _our_ representatives in the United
States Senate--and I use the word "our" figuratively--if the
representatives in the United States Senate from each State,
respectively, are there in the interest of specially privileged classes
instead of in the interest of the average, common man, it will follow
that the Executive arm of the Government will be inefficient; and I
have discovered that it _is_ inefficient in the greater part of the
West, where the greater part of the public property of the Nation
lies--the Executive arm of the Government _is_, and since the Civil War
has been the greater part of the time, utterly inefficient to safeguard
the property of the people (applause). But I would be failing in my
performance of duty if I failed to tell you why: It is because, while we
have entrusted to the President of the United States the appointing of
the United States attorneys for the different districts throughout the
United States, a rule has grown up in the Senate of the United States
which has in effect robbed the Executive of any real power in that
respect, and has placed the appointing of such officials in the hands of
the United States Senators from the respective States in which those
districts lie. (Applause)
What is the result? The result is that if the lumber interests in a
particular district are strong, because of having already succeeded in
despoiling the people of a large part of their timber interests, they
are apt to dominate the election of a United States Senator; and those
lumber interests are also liable to dictate, through that United States
Senator, the appointment of the United States officials whose duty it
will be to enforce the laws of the United States against their
benefactors. (Applause)
I would not dare to make such serious charges if I did not speak from
absolute experience (applause). When I reached Oregon I found that
situation existing in Oregon--indeed, I found on investigation before a
grand jury that the then United States attorney was protecting certain
men, who belonged to the higher-up class, from indictment, and that he
had entered into a corrupt conspiracy with both the United States
Senators from that State, by which they had agreed to have him
reappointed United States attorney _upon condition_ that these men
should not be prosecuted (applause). Moreover, I found that when the
first stealing of timber commenced in Oregon and men were arrested for
it, a man representing a big and influential timber company had taken to
the railroad train about twenty-five men at Portland and carried them up
to Salem and had them file openly on contiguous timber claims, each one
swearing falsely that he was taking the timber for his own use; and when
the matter was exposed immediately and the United States attorney took
the matter before a grand jury and indicted the leaders who had
instigated those men to go up and make the filings, influential State
officials appealed to the United States Senators from Oregon to
interfere, and appeals were sent to the Commissioner of the General Land
Office and the Secretary of the Interior, so that finally the
indictments were dismissed. Shortly thereafter about one hundred men
filed on timber claims, under a contract to turn them over as soon as
they were acquired, and again the influence of politicians and big
business men brought about a failure of justice through an assistant
United States attorney, who was the brother of the attorney representing
the big interests who had hired these men to make the filings. Case
after case of that kind came to my knowledge in Oregon; case after case
of that kind has been brought to my attention in four or five other
States. All of it can be traced back to the system under which we have
been electing our United States Senators. (Applause)
Professor Hadley has well said that the fundamental divisions of power
in the Constitution of the United States are between the voters on the
one hand and the property owners on the other. That is the fight. That
always has been the fight. That always will be the fight in this
country. You heard, probably, all of you, that great address by the
greatest citizen of the world, made in this hall the other day
(applause), in which he outlined those conditions.
Now let us come back, for I want to show you wherein our trouble lies;
and I want to show that great genius in railroad building (who is a
citizen of your State, and who talked to you yesterday afternoon)--I
want to show you and him who is responsible for the "extravagance and
waste" of the great natural resources of this country. (Applause)
I have pointed out to you how big business controlled the execution of
the laws in practically every place in the West--except, of course,
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota; in the early days when there was
timber here none of these evils existed because these conditions didn't
exist; your timber lands were not stolen in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan; you didn't have United States attorneys suggested by United
States Senators who had been selected by owners of large timber tracts
or railroads. Some States in the Union have suffered from that, but you
never had any such thing come home to _you_ (laughter). I congratulate
you (renewed laughter). The Nation has had in its possession, owned in
common by all of us and our forefathers, 1,800,000,000 acres of land.
That is _some_ property (laughter); that is more than either you or I
possess today (laughter). And that included all of the present
Rockefeller oil possessions, it included all of the Northern Pacific's
land-grant possessions, it included all of the great anthracite
companies' coal possessions, it comprised all of the millions of acres
of timber land throughout the United States, including what there was in
Minnesota. It belonged to you and me and our fathers and mothers and
sisters and brothers. We were pretty rich at that time. We _could_ have
held on to it and developed it, because I can't believe that if we had
offered to pay a patriotic citizen like James J. Hill the sum of $50,000
a year to build a railroad for us from Lake Superior to Puget Sound and
to furnish him the money with which to build it, that he would have
refused the job (applause); even had he considered it inadequate
compensation for his great ability, his patriotic love of the people of
the United States would have led him to do it. (Great applause and
cheers) In talking with a banker the other night--one of the Big Four of
New York--I asked him if in his opinion Mr Harriman, in the gigantic
operations performed by him, was influenced by love of money and the
desire to gain filthy lucre, or whether he was influenced by the great
gratification of achievement, and he said undoubtedly by the latter;
that Mr Harriman would have combined all these railroads for the people
of the United States on a salary of $50 a month, if we didn't want to
give him any more, just for the pleasure of doing it. (Laughter and
applause) But we have received misinformation, and are receiving it yet,
to the effect that there are no patriots in the United States; that no
man is willing to develop our coal or our oil or our iron or our
water-power or anything else that is left unless we give him everything
in sight. (Laughter and applause)
My friends, the way the people of the United States have been treated in
regard to this vast property which we owned reminds me of a story I
heard about a man down South--a white man. He was going along the river
in flood time in the back country, and the river was full of floating
logs and refuse and all sorts of timber, and he saw a nigger sitting on
the bank--and will you pardon me for using the word "nigger" instead of
"colored man," because I have just been making a visit down in Virginia
and I suppose I fell into it (laughter); it is not meant as a term of
reproach, nor is it used as such there or here--and seeing this negro
sitting on the bank, he said to him, "Sam, what are you doing?"
"Nothin', Suh." "Whose boat is that?" "That's mine, Suh." "Well, Sam,
let me tell you what I'll do; you take your boat and go and haul those
logs out of the river there, and I'll give you half of all you get on
shore." (Laughter)
It took a little while for that to sink in (laughter). It has taken you
forty years to let this railroad proposition sink in. (Laughter)
Right while I am on it, while it is fresh in my mind and in yours: Mr
Hill says, "We have been extravagant." Why, my friends, do you know what
we gave to Mr Hill? I say we "gave" it; as a matter of fact, we weren't
consulted (laughter); we didn't have a referendum on it (laughter and
great applause). We gave the greatest land-grant ever given to an
individual or a corporation in the history of the world--sixty millions
of acres; when I say to Mr Hill, of course I mean the Northern Pacific.
We gave outright a strip of land 2000 miles long, 20 miles wide in the
States and 40 miles wide in the Territories! Worse than that: instead of
giving it in a solid body, we gave every even section, so that in timber
lands it carried an immense advantage over anybody else coming in from
the outside. Now, it is easy to demonstrate, and I hardly believe Mr
Hill would care to deny it--and if he does, I'll get the figures and
demonstrate it (applause)--that this land-grant was worth, at a fair
figure, ten dollars an acre at the very least. That is six hundred
million dollars (applause) of _our_ property that we "extravagantly and
improvidently wasted," as Mr Hill would call it; and I agree with him.
(Laughter and applause)
But what does that mean? Why, the road is 2000 miles long; $50,000 a
mile on an average for the entire road is a very fair figure as the cost
of it, making, if I calculate correctly, $100,000,000, to build it.
Let's double that, and allow $100,000 a mile for the 2000 miles; that
certainly would build and equip the road. That is two hundred million
dollars. And we gave six hundred million dollars worth of land, and the
railroad was built and now wants _forever_ to charge you rates--upon how
much of a capitalization? Well, I don't know. But four hundred million
dollars profit! Why, that would more than build the Panama Canal--and I
wonder that some private corporation didn't do _that_ (laughter). It
_would_, undoubtedly, if we had been willing to give to it all of the
remaining 700,000,000 acres of land that we have left--including Alaska,
with the coal mines that Guggenheim wants (laughter and applause). We
_have_ been "improvident"--or somebody has--with the property of the
people.
Now, who was so improvident? Why, Congress; because the Constitution
places in the hands of Congress the power to dispose of, regulate, and
control the property of the United States; and Congress did it--and
_did_ us, too (laughter and applause). But not satisfied with that,
Congress gave to the Southern Pacific, the Central Pacific, and the
Union Pacific 120,000,000 acres more of our inheritance, which we
purchased with both blood and money--because the war with Mexico led to
a part of the purchase, in which thousands of American citizens were
killed, and thousands of American women widowed, and thousands of
American children orphaned, while we put fifteen millions of _our_
money--our common pot--into the purchase on top of that human blood; and
then we "extravagantly and improvidently" gave it away. (Applause)
Not satisfied with that, when we commenced to realize that it was
necessary to save the forests of this country--some of the forests which
were left--Congress again passed an act, in 1907, called the New Land
Act. In 1891 it had passed the law authorizing the President to create
National forest reserves. At the same time it had passed a law
authorizing the States to select new lands for the school sections which
might be included in the National forest reserves. A gentleman in
California by the name of Frederick A. Hyde, and another gentleman (who
is since dead, and who served a year in jail, just before his death, for
defrauding the United States), were actively operating in the State of
California in school lands. Now, don't get the idea in your heads from
what I have been saying about the way Congress has handled the lands and
property of the United States that I am in favor of turning over to the
States the power to handle any property in the hope that it will be
better handled, because there, again, my experience teaches me that it
will be worse--_if possible_ (laughter and applause). Well, under that
law of 1891, Hyde and his companion adopted this system: Where they
found that school lands were in reserve (they had a man in the
Surveyor-General's office who was looking out for them), they would go
down and get bootblacks, and saloon barkeepers, and Tom, Dick, and Harry
to sign an application for school lands--under the law of California 320
acres--the law requiring that in making his filing the applicant should
swear that he was taking it for his own use and benefit and not for
speculative purposes. And at the same time that Mr Bootblack signed the
application, he would sign a transfer of his interest, a conveyance of
the land, with the date left blank; and a very agreeable notary public
would put his seal and acknowledgment upon the affidavit and the
assignment, despite the blanks and the absence even of any description
of the lands in the application. Then, when Mr Hyde had one or two
hundred of these, he would go and take up all those school lands, and
have the agent of the State thereupon locate all of these school lands
in a body in the finest forest he could find in California--some of the
finest that ever grew on earth are there, trees two and three hundred
feet high, sixteen to twenty feet in diameter, cutting so many millions
of feet to the quarter-section that it would astound even a Minnesota
lumberman unless he had been out there and seen it; and those
magnificent virgin forests would be separated from public ownership by
our "extravagance"--and this, mark you, through Congress passing the
1891 law for the benefit (?) of the schools of the State so loosely
drawn that speculators could take advantage of it in this way. So the
virgin forests went into private ownership; and Mr Hill will tell you,
"What of it? Doesn't that develop the country?"
Why, my friends, they didn't even put the patents on record, because the
tax collector of the county would put them on the assessment roll if
they did (laughter). And so they grabbed millions of acres, that they
had no idea of using in the present; they were holding it for the profit
which would come from scarcity of timber through the waste and use which
is going on. Why, people living in the very neighborhood of the timber
grabbed don't know that it has passed out of Government ownership! And
yet those are some of the people who have been living "extravagantly." I
believe that some of them wear shoes that cost the high price of a
dollar, and eat bacon that is four-fifths fat. (Laughter and applause)
Let me tell you that extravagance is largely a matter of trying to copy
after the Higher-ups. No nation was ever destroyed until it had a large
leisure class to set a bad example (applause) in living to the common
people; and this Nation has a leisure class which is rapidly growing,
and which is more wealthy than any leisure class ever known to the
world, civilized or barbarian. Why? My friends, _solely_ because
Congress has by bad laws permitted all this vast property of the people
to get into the hands of the few (applause). There is not a fortune in
this country today large enough to be a menace to the liberties of the
common people which has not been acquired by despoiling the people
through legislation that was either corrupt or the result of such
ignorance that it ought to be punished as criminal negligence, or else
through unfair discrimination made by common carriers giving one man an
advantage over his competitors. (Applause)
Now, I haven't time to finish--I am afraid I have overstepped my time
already--(Voices: "Go on, go on," and applause) but I want to "go on"
just a little longer (laughter and applause) because I have something on
my mind that I want to put on yours. (Laughter)
We didn't lose our great inheritance until after the Civil War.
Practically all of the rapes of this Nation by Congress have been
committed since the Civil War, and every land law which Congress has
placed upon the statute books since 1860 has been vicious--absolutely
vicious--in its tendencies, and the Commissioner of the General Land
Office and the Secretary of the Interior have constantly, every year,
told Congress about it in printed reports and begged and urged Congress
to change the laws: _and it has refused to do it!_ (Applause)
Of course all members of Congress are not to blame for that; because
this fight which Hadley says is going on always, and always will go on,
in the division of power fundamentally between the voters and the
property owners, has resulted in the property owners having more
representatives in Congress than the people ever had. (Applause)
Now, I am not here to abuse anybody. I heard a man tell a homely story
last night that went directly to my heart; it's exactly in line with
what I think about most of the men who are responsible for the present
condition; I don't say these men are bad, but only that they have a
wrong viewpoint--and that was illustrated in the story. This gentleman
said that one day his boy brought home a fox-terrier. They had poultry
at his home, some brown leghorns and some white chickens. This
fox-terrier had been born and raised on a ranch where they had nothing
but brown leghorns, and consequently when he went out in the
chicken-yard and saw the feed thrown out he rushed out immediately--of
course, without being told to do it--and weeded out the white chickens
from the brown leghorns and drove them away from the feed and let the
brown leghorns have it all (laughter). Now, it wasn't the fault of the
dog that the white chickens lost their feed (laughter); we mustn't blame
him; that had become second nature, from what we would call, speaking in
reference to human beings, _environment_ (laughter and applause); and
it's a rare dog who can discover for himself that the white chickens
ought to have an equal right with the brown leghorns to get _some_ of
the feed. (Laughter and applause)
When, after the Civil War, business commenced to swing with great
strides in this country, owing to the great inventions in machinery,
the discovery of the cotton-gin and so many other things that we can't
stop to enumerate them, and the growth of the use of electricity in
later days, a few men commenced to see business enlarge--and they were
not the men who fought in the War, but the men who remained at home and
reflected (laughter and applause). Some of them were like the man
pictured in one of the illustrated papers where there was a cartoon of
Thomas Jefferson signing the Declaration of Independence, with one of
the imaginary corporation men of the day--a Tory--rushing in through the
door and saying, "Hold on, Thomas, don't sign that document; it'll hurt
_business_" (laughter); and these men said, "Let's stop this War, it's
hurting business." And there were others who thought the War _made_
business, though that was before they had commenced to can beef
(laughter). Then after the War, when the men who had made the fight for
human liberty and the continuance of equal opportunities in this country
came home and went to work, they went ahead satisfied to make a living
for their little families in the best way they could, while these
_business men_ who had remained at home had discovered that _if_ a man
can get possession of those natural resources which can be turned into
energy--the energy which drives modern machinery, which can do the work
of human hands--he can sit back and fold his arms and say to the eighty
million people in the United States, "Go ahead; when you want energy to
run your machinery, you'll have to come to me and buy it; when your
money is gone the eighty millions of you will have to work for me; and
when you get to be one hundred and sixty millions, you'll still have to
work for me." Now, it requires some imagination to see that, but it is
just as fundamentally true as that the earth is spherical--flattened at
the poles, as Cook tells us (laughter); and Peary corroborates it.
(Laughter)
Let me explain; because I want you to take home something, besides
figures, that you will remember. When a man in the old days, when they
had no machinery, employed four or five men, he commenced to be a
business man; and when he began to put profit in his pocket--even at the
rate of only ten cents a day for the labor of each man working for him,
if he had five men he was making a clear profit of fifty cents a day,
and if he had fifty men the profit was five dollars a day--he got on the
road to "big business." If he could have five hundred men and could make
fifty cents a day off the labor of each one, he would be making two
hundred and fifty dollars a day; and if he could have factories spread
out over the United States in which he had an aggregate of ten million
men working for him--as in shoe factories when they made shoes entirely
by hand--and could make fifty cents a day off each of the ten million
men, he would make five million dollars a day. The figures stagger us.
Now, with machinery you can take coal, oil, timber, gas, or
water-power--those are the energy-creating natural resources--and make
machinery run with them; and if you own enough of those energy-creating
natural resources to be equivalent to the labor of ten million men, and
apply it to the right machinery, you can compete with the man who has
ten million slaves to work for him and does not possess this other
energy--and you can do better than merely compete, because your
water-power doesn't wear out shoes at the toes nor coats at the elbows
nor trousers at the knees; so, my friends, the man who owns the
water-power is a greater slave-owner--has more energy that can be turned
into wealth--than all the planters who owned the colored men of the
South.
Now, at the time of the Civil War we didn't understand this great power
and the importance of preserving it in the ownership of the
people--because it all belonged to us then. There is available--so the
report of the National Conservation Commission says--37,000,000
horsepower in the streams of this country. What does this mean? Why, my
friends, the energy expended by an average draft-horse working eight
hours a day is equal to only four-fifths of the unit horsepower, as we
use it in speaking of water-power, so that it would be equivalent, for
an eight-hour day's work, to more than fifty-four million average draft
horses. Now, machinery used to be driven by man-power before the draft
horse was made to work in place of the man; that was what they did in
the old tread-mill before the discovery of steam, which has only been in
effective use about a hundred years; and in man-power, what does the
forty million horsepower available immediately for use mean? You don't
conceive of it, I am sure. A horsepower is equal to the work of at least
ten men, and forty million horsepower would be equal to the work of
400,000,000 men! Why, all the people in the United States today are only
90,000,000, including babies. Four-hundred-million-of-men power! And
just as sure as the sun will rise, if we permit that to go into
perpetual ownership of individuals, the day will come when one
corporation will own it all and one man will dictate and dominate that
corporation (applause). If you want this country to have material
progress at the cost of human liberty, let this source of energy slip
out of your hands (applause); but if you want to hold on to any kind of
a chance for your children and children's children to have equal
opportunities like yours, then follow the policies laid down by Theodore
Roosevelt the other day in regard to those energy-producing
resources--coal, oil, gas, and water, as well as timber--and this
country will be so great that all earlier history will never have told
of such progress as the human race will make within these confines.
(Applause)
It seems to me that we all ought to be able to realize that no human
being in the short space of a lifetime can have earned a hundred million
dollars--he cannot have given an equivalent to mankind for $100,000,000;
and when we see the example set by some of these great captains of
industry who go over to Monte Carlo and risk a fortune on one bet and
one turn of the wheel, and come back to this country and talk about
their great benevolence, and then find that the Pittsburg "Survey" found
conditions of human life at their workshops so low that it is bound to
degrade and pull down the human race--surely it is time to stop and
consider. (Tremendous and prolonged applause)
My friends, we must have more democracy in this country (applause). I
know this is no place to talk politics, and I am not here for the
purpose of talking politics in a partisan sense; but the Conservation of
the natural resources for the benefit of the human race--not only the
people of the United States--is of such transcendent importance that it
rises above all parties and all men (great applause). Why is it that
some of these men who have profited by our mistakes and our improvidence
in the past are fighting against this Conservation movement? Is it
because they fear that we will fail to develop the country rapidly
enough? No! Every true Conservationist believes in developing the
country rapidly as possible. But we realize the danger, the menace to
human liberty, that lies in _parting with the fee title_ to all these
great energy-producing natural resources; and if we can arouse the
people of the United States to a realization and understanding of this
question--which, after all, is simple when we get down to it--there will
be such a wave of insurgency sweep over this country as will drive the
representatives of the special interests out of every public office in
the Nation. (Great and prolonged applause and cheers)
Now, in order to illustrate what I have said about what these people--or
Congress--have done and failed to do, I must draw your attention to the
fact that under the Timber and Stone Act, 13,000,000 acres of the finest
timber in the world have been extravagantly and improvidently disposed
of and lost to the people through a vicious Act of Congress, and have
gone largely into the hands of a few owners; for the repeated reports of
the Secretary of the Interior--even the present Secretary, Mr
Ballinger--show that ten of the thirteen million acres are in the hands
of a few individuals and corporations. Ten million acres! Why, that is
equal to two of the smaller eastern States. In 1878, the then Secretary
of the Interior, immediately after the Act was passed, said in his
report for that year (Report of Secretary of Interior, 1878-1879, pp.
xii-xv):
While no legislation applicable to all parts of the country
with regard to this subject was had, two bills of a local
character were passed, one "Authorizing the citizens of
Colorado, Nevada, and the Territories to fell and remove timber
on the public domain for mining and domestic purposes," and one
"For the sale of timber lands in the States of California and
Oregon and in Washington Territory."
In the opinion of the Commissioner of the General Land Office,
which is on record in this Department, these two acts are more
calculated to _hasten the destruction_ of the forests in the
States and Territories named than to secure the preservation of
them.
Of this act the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in a
letter addressed to the Secretary of the Interior, expresses
the following opinion:
"It is a fact well known that while almost all the
timber-bearing land in those States and all the Territories,
except Dakota and Washington, is regarded as mineral, only a
small portion is so in reality. The effect of this bill will,
in my opinion, be to prevent the survey and sale of any of the
timber lands, or the timber upon the lands, in the States and
Territories named, thus cutting off large prospective revenues
that might and should be derived from the sale of such lands or
the timber upon them. It is equivalent to a donation of all the
timber lands _to the inhabitants of those States and
Territories_, which will be found to be the largest donation of
the public domain hitherto made by Congress. This bill
authorizes the registers and receivers of the land offices in
the several districts in which the lands are situated to make
investigations without any specific directions from the
Secretary of the Interior or the Commissioner of the General
Land Office, to settle and adjust their own accounts, and
retain from the moneys coming into their hands arising from
sales of lands such amounts as they may expend or cause to be
expended. This method will be found exceedingly expensive and
result in no good. Experience has shown that the machinery of
the land offices is wholly inadequate to prevent depredations."
The "Rules and Regulations" issued in pursuance of the first
section of this act are to be found in the report of the
Commissioner of the General Land Office, herewith presented.
These rules, drawn up with a view to and the intention of
preserving the young timber and undergrowth upon the mineral
lands of the United States and to the end that the mountain
sides may not be left denuded and barren of the timber and
undergrowth necessary to prevent the precipitation of the
rain-fall and melting snows in floods upon the fertile arable
lands in the valleys below, thus destroying the agricultural
and pasturage interests of the mineral and mountainous portions
of the country, make it the duty of registers and receivers to
see to it that trespassers upon timber lands, not mineral, be
duly reported, that upon mineral lands only timber of a certain
size be cut, and that young trees and undergrowth be protected,
and that timber be cut only for the purposes mentioned in the
act. These "Rules and Regulations" will be enforced with all
the power left to this department to that end, in order to save
what may be saved. But I deem it my duty to call attention to
the fact that, as set forth by the Commissioner in the letter
above quoted, the machinery of the land offices is utterly
inadequate to accomplish the object in view.
After a careful consideration of the above-named Act and its
probable effects, I venture the prediction that the permission
given the inhabitants of the States and Territories named
therein, to take timber from the public lands in any quantity
and wherever they can find it, for all purposes except export
and sale to railroads, will be taken advantage of, not only by
settlers and miners to provide economically for their actual
current wants, but by persons who will see in this donation a
chance to make money quickly; that it will stimulate a wasteful
consumption beyond actual need and lead to wanton destruction;
that the machinery left to this Department to prevent or
repress such waste and destruction through the enforcement of
the rules above mentioned will prove entirely inadequate; that
as a final result in a few years the mountain sides of those
States and Territories will be stripped bare of the timber now
growing upon them, with no possibility of its reproduction, the
soil being once washed off from the slopes, and that the
irreparable destruction of the forests will bring upon those
States all the calamities experienced from the same causes in
districts in Europe and Asia similarly situated.
It appears to me, therefore, that the repeal of the above-named
act, and the substitution therefor of a law embodying a more
provident policy, similar to that of the above-mentioned Senate
Bill No. 609, is in the highest degree desirable. If the
destruction of the forests in those States be permitted, the
agricultural and pasturage interests in the mountainous regions
will inevitably be sacrificed, and the valleys in the course of
time become unfit for the habitation of men.
The act for the sale of timber lands in the States of
California, Oregon, and Nevada, and in Washington Territory,
passed by Congress at its last session, is, in a letter
addressed to this Department, commented upon by the
Commissioner of the General Land Office, in the following
language:
"It is a bill of local and not general application to the
timber lands of the United States, and adds one more to the
already numerous special acts for the disposal of the public
domain. The price fixed is too low, as much of the land is
worth from five to fifty dollars per acre.
"Under the provisions of the bill the timber lands will, in my
opinion, be speedily taken up and pass into the hands of
speculators, notwithstanding the provisions to prevent such
results. The soil should not be sold with the timber where the
land is not fit for cultivation. Only the timber of a certain
size should be sold, and the soil and young timber retained
with a view to the reproduction of the forests. The bill should
have limited the sale of the lands to persons who have farms
and homes within the State or Territory, and it ought to have
required the purchasers to show affirmatively that they had
need of timber for domestic uses."
No less emphatic were later recommendations for repeal or amendment of
the Timber and Stone Acts (Report of Secretary of Interior, 1879-80, p.
27):
In my last annual report I discussed the inadequacy of the laws
enacted by the last Congress "Authorizing the citizens of
Colorado, Nevada, and the Territories to fell and remove timber
on the public domain for mining and domestic purposes," and
providing "for the sale of timber lands in the States of
California and Oregon and in Washington Territory." The opinion
I then ventured to express, that the first of these Acts would
be taken advantage of not only by settlers and miners to
provide economically for their actual current wants, but by
persons who see in this donation a chance to make money
quickly; that it would stimulate a wasteful consumption beyond
all actual need and lead to wanton destruction, and that the
machinery left to this Department to prevent or repress such
waste and destruction through the enforcement of the rules to
be made by the Commissioner of the General Land Office would be
found insufficient for that purpose, _has already_ in many
places _been verified by experience_; also the predictions made
by the Commissioner of the General Land Office with regard to
the effect of the second one of the above-named acts. Referring
to what was said about these laws in my last annual report, I
repeat my _earnest_ recommendation that they be _repealed_, and
that more adequate legislation be substituted therefor.
It is by no means denied that the people of the above-named
States and Territories must have timber for their domestic use
as well as the requirements of their local industries. Neither
is it insisted upon that the timber so required should be
imported from a distance, so that the forests in those States
and Territories might remain intact. This would be
unreasonable. But it is deemed necessary that a law be enacted
providing that the people may lawfully acquire the timber
required for their domestic use and their local industries from
the public lands under such regulations as will prevent the
indiscriminate and irreparable destruction of forests, with its
train of disastrous consequences. It is thought that this end
will be reached by authorizing the Government _to sell timber
from the public lands principally valuable for the timber
thereon_, _without conveying the fee_, and to conduct such
sales by Government officers under such instructions from this
Department as will be calculated to _prevent the denudation of
large tracts_, especially in those mountain regions _where
forests once destroyed will not reproduce themselves_. I have
no doubt that under such a law, well considered in its
provisions, the people of those States and Territories would be
enabled to obtain all the timber they need for domestic as well
as industrial purposes at reasonable rates, and that at the
same time the cutting of timber can be so regulated as to
afford sufficient protection to the existence and reproduction
of the forests, which is so indispensable to the future
prosperity of those regions. I venture to express the opinion
that the enactment of such a law has become a pressing
necessity, and cannot much longer be delayed without great and
irreparable injury to one of the most vital interests of the
people. I therefore again commend to the consideration of
Congress the bill introduced as Senate Bill No. 609 in the
_last_ Congress:
"The last clause of the second section will permit any person
applying for a tract of timber land and securing a certificate
from the Register to sell his right and interest therein
_immediately_, and the purchaser, although it may have been
obtained by perjury, may be entitled to a patent for the land.
"Section 5 provides that any person prosecuted under Sec. 2461
of the Revised Statutes of the United States, may be relieved
of the penalty by the payment of two dollars and fifty cents
per acre for the land trespassed upon. This is objectionable,
for the reason that the penalty fixed is altogether inadequate,
and does not require the payment of costs of prosecution, which
are often greater than the penalty to be collected. It should
require that the trespasser should pay for the entire
subdivision trespassed upon.
"There can be no doubt that if this bill becomes a law it will
be taken advantage of, by persons who want to make money
quickly, to acquire the timber lands under its provisions at a
very low price, and strip the mountain sides of their forest
growth as rapidly as possible. How disastrous such a result
will be to these States and Territories need not be detailed
here."
My friends, every report from 1878 down to the last report this year,
tells Congress exactly the same thing, and begs and urges Congress to
repeal this Timber and Stone Act. Not only that; every report goes on
and tells that large tracts are being stolen and taken fraudulently,
and Congress is urged for that reason to repeal it and make a different
rule in regard to the sale of the timber, not to hold it but to sell the
timber off the land letting buyers take the mature growth, and
replanting and reforesting so that the timber will always be there; and
Congress failed to act until 1892, fourteen years later. After the above
reports went in, with a report of the same kind every year for fourteen
years, then, in 1892, with a report before them at the time to the same
effect, Congress _extended_ the Timber and Stone Act to take in Montana
and some other States. _Who got them to do it?_ The great amalgamated
copper interests are in Montana, and the great smelting interests there
wanted _timber_--that belonged to us, and that they could well afford to
pay for--and they wanted to get it under this vicious Act, and they
_did_ get it under this vicious Act; and indictments followed only a
short time ago, but there was failure of proof although everybody knew
who was guilty (applause). And, my friends, the Act of Congress in
extension of the vicious law, with all these reports before them, cannot
be accounted for upon any other theory than that the people of the
United States have a minority of representatives in both branches of
Congress (applause). Now, after the extension, the adverse reports
commenced to come in again; and they have been followed up every year
down to the present year, yet that Timber and Stone Act still remains on
the statute books unamended and unrepealed! _How_ can you account for
it? I'll tell you how. Why, _there is still some timber to be stolen_!
(Applause)
Now, I have taken altogether too much of your time. I have not been able
to present this matter as satisfactorily to myself as I would have liked
on account of the limitation of time--I suppose most of you are glad of
that. (Voices: "No, no, no; go on!") I can't go on; it wouldn't be fair
to other gentlemen who are here to speak, especially to Mr Gifford
Pinchot who is to talk to you immediately after I conclude, and I know
you want to hear from him (applause). But I want to say to you that the
fight to prevent our natural resources from getting into private
ownership is a war that will have a greater influence upon the future of
the human race than even the great Civil War in this country had
(applause); and I want to say to you, further, that I have enlisted in
that war as a private soldier (applause, and a voice: "We'll make you
the leader!") for the full term of my natural life. (Great applause)
* * * * *
Governor EBERHART--The next subject for consideration is "The
Conservation Program"; and I wish that time would permit me to say some
of the fine things I would like to say about the speaker. I will say
just one thing: A short time ago I was in the Belasco Theater in the
city of Washington and the question of Conservation was up, and this man
stood on the rostrum and said to that vast congregation that the time
had come when we must forget personalities and men, and work for
principles--that it was time for every man interested in the welfare of
the Nation to come forward in this Conservation work, forgetting the
past, and forget all personal prejudices and jealousies, and work for
this one movement; and at the close of his address he was given such an
ovation at the hands of that gathering as he has frequently received
here. It is not necessary for me to formally introduce him; you know him
as the best friend of our forests--Gifford Pinchot. (Great applause and
cheers)
* * * * *
Mr GIFFORD PINCHOT--Governor, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am not tired of
receiving your kindness, but I wonder if you are not tired of receiving
my thanks! I _do_ want to thank you most earnestly for all your
kindness; and I have wished all along that one person who has made the
fight with me could be here, and that is my Mother. (Great applause)
I shall have to read a good deal of my paper to you tonight, because
there are some things I want to say more exactly than I otherwise could;
but I will read just as little as possible.
Like nearly every great reform--and Conservation _is_ a great
reform--the Conservation movement first passed through a period of
generalities, general agitation and general approval, when all men were
its friends; and it hadn't yet really begun. You have all noticed that
when a minister in church makes a general arraignment of wickedness, no
particular sinner seems to care very much--it passes over his head, or
he applies it to the other fellow; but when he comes down to particular
cases, and the special shortcomings, the special desires, the special
impulses which control each one of us, begin to be the subject of his
oration, then there is a very different situation. Now, it was just so
with the Conservation movement. At first everyone approved it, because
it touched no one nearly; then it passed into a period of practical
application, out of the sweep of the generalities, and at once the men
whose particular interests were threatened began to take an active
interest in the question, and the opposition began; and with that opened
the second period of the Conservation movement.
When this fight began, it was found that the people believed in
Conservation all over this Nation, and that fact had to be taken into
consideration by the people who were opposing the movement. When there
is a general movement of which all men approve, the regular way in which
the attack is made upon it is to join in the approval and then get after
the men and the methods by which the general proposition is being
carried out. So, now we find that the desire of the opponents of
Conservation--and there are not so very many of them in numbers--is not
at all that we should abandon the principle of making the best use of
our natural resources; they do not urge that we should abandon the ideas
of doing the best thing for all of us for the longest time; but the
soft-pedal Conservationists _do_ demand that Conservation shall be safe
and sane. Safety and sanity, in the meaning of the men who use that term
most as applied to legislation, means legislation not unfriendly to the
continued domination of the great interests as opposed to the welfare
of the people (applause); and safe and sane Conservation, as that
expression is used by those same men, means Conservation so carefully
sterilized that it will do no harm to the special interests and very
little good to the people. (Prolonged applause)
I take it, of course, that every friend of Conservation is fully and
heartily in sympathy with safety and sanity; that goes without saying,
for if there ever was a prudent, safe and sane program, it is that of
the Conservation movement, expressing a prudent, safe and sane spirit,
and intention as well. But we must never forget that safety and sanity
from the point of view of the men who are advocating Conservation--from
the point of view of a great gathering like this--means that, first,
last, and all the time, the interests of _all_ the people shall be set
ahead of the interests of any part of the people. (Applause)
Among the things that have been charged against the Conservation
movement is this, that Conservation does not know what it wants--that
the Conservation movement is an indefinite striving after no one knows
exactly what. I want to tell you, on the other hand, that the
Conservation program is now, and has for at least two years been a
definite concrete attempt to get certain specific things; and that the
impression which has been made, or has been sought to be made, that we
didn't know what we were after, is wholly misleading. (Applause)
The Conservation program may be found, most of it, in the following
reports--the report of the Public Lands Commission of 1905; the report
of the Inland Waterways Commission, March, 1908; the great Declaration
of Principles adopted by the Governors at the White House, in May,
1908--one of the great documents of our history; the report of the
Commission on Country Life, January, 1909; and the Declaration of the
North American Conservation Conference, February, 1909. By the close of
the last Administration, the Conservation program had grown into a
well-defined platform, and the only important addition of more recent
date is a clearer understanding--and we have now a very clear
understanding--that monopoly of natural resources is the great enemy of
Conservation, and that monopoly always must depend on the control of
natural resources and natural advantages of a few as against the
interests of the many. (Applause)
None of the men, so far as I know, who are engaged in the Conservation
movement, took hold of that side of the fight because they wanted to. I
can say, for myself at least, that it was not until I was forced into it
by experience that I could not doubt, by being defeated over and over
again in trying to get things I knew were right--it was not until the
covert opposition of the special interests in Conservation was beaten
into me, and beaten into the rest of us, that that end of it was taken
up at all. There are troubles enough in this world without any of us
hunting a fight; but this fight hunted us (applause), and we are in it
yet, as Mr Heney declares.
The principles of Conservation are very few and very simple. That is one
of the beauties of this whole movement--that there is nothing mysterious
or complicated or hard to understand about it; it is the simplest
possible application of common sense. The first of the principles is
this: that the natural resources and the natural advantages both belong
to all the people and should be developed, protected, and perpetuated
directly for the benefit of all the people and not mainly for the profit
of a few (applause). The second principle is that the natural resources
still owned by the people which are necessaries of life, like coal and
water-power, should remain in the public ownership and should be
disposed of only under lease for limited periods and with fair
compensation to the public for the rights granted (applause). I have
never sympathized with the ideas we have heard so much of that the
people must not try to protect themselves because they are not fit to
handle their own affairs, and especially that they cannot handle their
affairs in the matter of Conservation. By all means let us have the
resources cared for, held in ownership by the people of the States as
well as of the Nation, and handled for the benefit of the people first
of all. (Applause)
Now, I want to state a few propositions as to each of the four great
categories of the natural resources, which seem to me to include not all
but a very considerable proportion of the fundamental things that
Conservation people seek. It is very likely that some will not agree
that these are the fundamental things; but I believe these propositions,
taken together, represent fairly the opinion of most of the many
millions of men and women who believe in Conservation.
First, as to our waterways: Every stream should be made useful for every
purpose in which it can be made to serve the public. We have been in the
habit of sacrificing, for example, irrigation to power, or power to the
city water supply. Let us study our streams and use them for every
purpose to which they can be put. The preparation of a broad plan is
needed without delay for the development of our waterways for
navigation, domestic supply, irrigation, drainage and power. (Applause)
Second, every water-power site now in State or Federal control should be
held in that control (applause), and should be disposed of only under
lease for a limited time and with fair compensation to the public.
Third, in the development of our waterways, the cooperation of the
States with the Nation is essential to the general welfare. (Applause)
Now, as to our forests: First, all forests necessary for the public
welfare should be in the public ownership and remain there (applause).
Among these are the National Forests already in existence and the
proposed Appalachian and White Mountain National Forests (applause). I
am glad to hear you applaud the proposition for the Appalachian and
White Mountain forests--we need them (applause). We want also the State
forests to be taken care of--the State forests of New York,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and other States.
Second, the protection of forests against fire is the duty of State and
Nation alike (applause); and that lesson has been driven home this year
in a way that I think will make our people understand and remember it
for many years to come. I want to pay a tribute in a word, if you will
allow me, to the wonderful work done by the boys of the National Forest
Service, of the Army, and of the great fire-fighting associations of the
West, and by many private citizens, in making what seems to me to have
been one of the best, one of the boldest, one of the most devoted fights
for the public welfare of which I know anything in recent years
(applause). The way to stop fires in a forest, as in a town, is to get
men to them as soon as they begin. The maintenance and extension of
forest fire patrol by the Nation and States and by their subdivisions
and by associations or private citizens who own timber lands is
absolutely necessary. And we must have not only a patrol but a
_sufficient_ patrol.
Third, the development of existing forests by wise use is the first step
in forestry, and reforestation is the second. Practical forestry in our
existing forests comes first, tree planting follows; both are absolutely
essential if we are to handle this problem right. (Applause)
Fourth: Land bearing forests should be taxed annually on the land value
alone, and the timber crop should be taxed only when cut, so that
private forestry may be encouraged (applause). Next to fire, there is
nothing that so stubbornly stands in the way of practical forestry in
this country as bad methods of taxation. (Applause)
Fifth--and I feel very strongly about this: The private ownership of
forest lands is in reality a public trust, and the people have both the
right and the duty to regulate the use of such private forest lands in
the general interest. (Applause)
Then as to the lands: Every acre of land should be put to whatever use
will make it most serviceable to all the people (applause). All
agricultural land should be put to agricultural use. I have never been
one to maintain that forest-bearing land which could be more useful
under the plow should be kept for forest uses (applause); I have never
been one to maintain, either, that land bearing heavy timber, acquired
ostensibly for agricultural uses, should be cut over and afterward
abandoned (applause). The fundamental object of our land policy should
be the making and maintenance of permanent prosperous homes--that is the
whole story (applause). Land monopoly, and excessive holdings of lands
in private ownership in great bodies, must not be tolerated (applause).
One of the very great difficulties in several parts of our country
arises in huge consolidated holdings of land, which make tenants out of
men who ought to be freeholders--free men on their own land. (Applause)
Settlement should be encouraged by every legitimate means on all the
land that will support homes. That is a fundamental proposition. Thus
the tillable land in public ownership, within and without the National
Forest, should be disposed of in fee simple to actual settlers, but
never to speculators. (Applause)
The first and most needed thing to do for our cultivated lands is to
preserve their fertility by preventing erosion, the greatest tax the
farmer pays. (Applause)
The non-irrigable and arid public grazing lands should be administered
and controlled by the Federal Government in the interest of the small
stockman and the homemaker until they can pass directly into the hands
of actual settlers (applause). Many millions of acres are now having
their forage value destroyed because Uncle Sam exercises no control
whatever over a territory vastly larger than any single State--even
Texas.
Finally, rights to the surface of the public land should be separated
from rights to the forests upon it and the minerals beneath it, and each
should be held subject to separate disposal; _and the Timber and Stone
Act should be repealed!_ (Applause)
As to our minerals: Those which still remain in Government ownership
should not be sold--especially coal--but should be leased on terms
favorable to development up to the full requirements of our people. I
want to make it plain, if anyone should happen not to understand, that
the withdrawals which have been made of coal lands and oil lands and
phosphate lands are not intended to be permanent; they are intended
simply to prevent those lands from passing into private ownership until
Congress can pass proper laws for retaining them in the public ownership
and having them used there (applause). Until legislation to this effect
can be enacted, temporary withdrawals of land containing coal, oil, gas,
and phosphate rock, are required in order to prevent speculation and
monopoly.
It is the clear duty of the Federal Government, as well as that of the
States in their spheres, to provide, through investigation, legislation,
and regulation, against loss of life and waste of mineral resources in
mining. The recent creation of a National Bureau of Mines makes a real
advance in the right direction. And I want here to pay my tribute to the
man who has recently and most wisely been appointed director of that
Bureau of Mines, Joseph A. Holmes, one of the best fighters for
Conservation that this country has produced. (Applause)
With regard to National efficiency: The maintenance of National and
State conservation commissions is necessary to ascertain and make public
the facts as to our natural resources. That seems to me to be
fundamental. We must have the machinery for continuing this work. Such
commissions supply the fundamental basis for cooperation between the
Nation and the States for the development and protection of the
foundations of our prosperity.
A National Health Service is needed to act in cooperation with similar
agencies within the States for the purpose of lengthening life,
decreasing suffering, and promoting the vigor and efficiency of our
people (applause). I think it is high time we began to take as much care
of ourselves as we do of our natural resources. (Applause)
These are not all the things for which Conservation stands, but they are
some of the more important. I had meant to speak here of the conflict
between State and Federal jurisdictions, which we have seen illustrated
in this Congress, but I prefer to speak, not of the conflicts, but of
the chances for cooperation (applause). I believe in the Federal control
of water-power in navigable and source streams and of water-power sites
that are now in the Federal hands. I believe equally that every State
has a great duty to its own people in Conservation, and that only by
full and free and hearty cooperation between the Nation and the States
can we all of us get together to control or develop, as the case may be,
those intrastate or interstate agencies which are attempting for private
profit to harm all the people (applause). When a question is settled, as
I think this Congress has pretty well settled in its own mind certain of
the questions relating to the division of the Federal and State work,
that is the time to go on and act upon it; and I believe we ought to
emphasize here most vigorously the functions of the State as well as the
functions of the National Government, always remembering that the
Federal Government alone is capable of handling questions which exceed
the limits of any one State, and that, as Colonel Roosevelt said here
the other day, nearly all of the great corporations have affiliations
extending throughout the Nation or at least across State boundaries. I
am as vigorously for the recognition of the State power and the State
duty as I am for the recognition of the Federal power and the Federal
duty, each in its proper place (applause). But should I at any time see
an attempt made to hide behind either one of these powers at the expense
of the people, I would not be doing my duty if I didn't stand up and say
so.
Just a word in closing: No body like this can get together without
firing a man's imagination and heart. I have been at many great
meetings, but never at one that seemed to me to contain within itself
the possibility and power for good that this one does (applause). I have
watched this Conservation movement grow, as we all have; I see it now on
the very verge of the most practical kind of results. The clouds have
cleared away; we know where we stand; we are ready to go forward, and we
know where we are going and how. There has been gathered here a body of
men and women whose motive is clearly this, that they propose when they
depart to leave this good old earth better for their children than when
they found it (applause), and they are carrying that message to the
people of the United States more powerfully than it has ever been
carried before. If any man or any woman were disposed not to be hopeful
about the Conservation movement, I think this Congress would lift them
to a new plane; it gives us new hope for the future of our country. I
thank you. (Great applause)
* * * * *
Governor EBERHART--Ladies and Gentlemen: Just a few words before we take
a recess until this evening: I wish on this occasion, as it will be
perhaps the only one afforded to me, to express my sincere thanks to the
officers of this Congress for the splendid manner in which they have
done their work. I have never met a more congenial and kindly set of
officers than those who are handling this convention (applause), and a
great deal of the credit of the success of this convention is due to
their personal, persistent, and strenuous efforts. I take it that this
is the time at which, as Chief Executive of the State, I should present
my acknowledgments. I regret that the President of the Congress, who is
always unselfish, has determined that, in order to give the other
officers, delegates and guests a chance tonight to be heard, his own
lecture--which we have all been waiting for--shall not be presented at
this time.
Among the splendid sentiments which Mr Pinchot has uttered, one of the
very best, I think, was that the States and the Nation instead of
struggling among themselves as to how authority should be divided,
should cooperate (applause) in the Conservation of the resources of the
country for the benefit of all the people for all time.
After two or three announcements have been made, we will take a recess
until this evening at 8 oclock.
Professor CONDRA--The Committee on Nominations will meet, immediately
after this meeting adjourns, in Room 601, Saint Paul Hotel.
Since the report of the Committee on Credentials was received and filed
with the Secretary yesterday, there has been an additional registration
of 40 or 50 delegates.
It was announced this morning that the Call of the States would be made
this afternoon, but it became impossible to do so. President Baker asks
me to say that tonight the order of business will be, _first_, the
election of officers; _second_, the reception of the resolutions from
the Committee on Resolutions; and _third_, special reports from the
States--this to continue tomorrow if necessary.
Another suggestion: If any of you have anything to be read from the
platform, please put it in such form that it can be read properly and
understood clearly. We had an example of misunderstanding this morning,
which I regret; and I want to advertise the papers of this city by
asking you to read the report in one of them from which you will see the
results of that misunderstanding. Do not blame anybody; these things
come. Do not blame the ladies of this State for any misunderstanding. I
have had too many thousands of womanly women in my classes at the
university and elsewhere (and I married one of the most lovely women in
the world), and I have too much faith in women to blame them. I blame
myself for trying to read a statement which I had not had the time to
look at. Let a thing like that not come into this Congress again. Blame
no one.
Thereupon Governor Eberhart, for President Baker, declared a recess
until 8 oclock p.m.
_CLOSING SESSION_
The Congress was called to order by President Baker in the Auditorium,
Saint Paul, at 8 oclock p.m., September 8.
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: The first business in order is
action on the report of the Nominating Committee, to be followed by
action on the report of the Resolutions Committee. While waiting for
these reports we should be glad to hear from some of the States.
Washington made a special request to be heard. Is the Gentleman from the
State of Washington present?
[There was no response.]
W. S. HARVEY--Mr President: In the absence of the representative of
Washington, may the Delegation from the Keystone State, Pennsylvania, be
heard at this time?
President BAKER--Colonel Harvey has the floor, and will speak for his
State.
Colonel HARVEY--Mr President and Delegates: On behalf of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which it is our honor to represent, we
desire to say first of all that no other State in the whole galaxy
constituting our Union of States possesses such great natural resources.
In some, indeed, the resources may be more varied, but in none are they
of such productive and wealth-creating capacity as in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania leads all other States in the production of coal, the value
of our annual output reaching approximately $325,000,000 per annum. In
the value of its petroleum, natural gas, clay products, and pig iron it
has no close second. The annual value of our petroleum production is
about $18,000,000, and of our natural gas about the same, while the
value of our pig-iron production reaches about $235,000,000; of our
clays it might be said we have scarcely begun to develop them, yet the
value of our clay product is more than $20,000,000 yearly. We are among
the leading States in the production of cement, roofing-slate, lime, and
building stone. Among our other mineral products are graphite, glass
sand, mineral waters, metallic paints, mortar colors, and ochre. It will
doubtless surprise many to learn that in the year 1907 the total value
of all of the mineral products of all of the States west of the
Mississippi was more than $100,000,000 less than the value of the
mineral products of Pennsylvania for the same year; and that the value
of our mineral products in the same year was equal to almost one-third
of the entire value of all of the mineral products of the United States,
including Alaska. This also includes gold and silver.
We have thus far spoken only of our mineral resources, but when we add
to this our magnificent resources in agriculture (one of our counties
leading all others in the United States in the value of its agricultural
products), of our timber and our water-power, and more important still,
a population second only to that of the Empire State and nearly equal to
Canada, it is apparent that we should be vitally interested in the
subject of Conservation; and we beg now to be permitted to mention what
has been and now is being done along this line:
Our State has for many years had a Forestry Department with a
Commissioner and a Forest Reservation Commission, who have purchased for
the creation of State forest reserves and paid for up to September 1,
1910, 918,529 acres of land at a cost of $2,061,872.45 or an average of
$2.25 per acre, and have under contract for purchase about 50,000 acres
more. The State also has established nurseries for seedlings, and has
turned out thus far 2,500,000; next spring the increased capacity of
these nurseries will turn out about 6,000,000 seedlings, and we hope and
expect to be in a position within a few years to turn out 20,000,000
each year. These seedlings are being used for reforestation on the State
reservations and other lands that have been cut over or denuded, and in
time will produce forests from which the State will derive a large
revenue. The State has also established a Forest Academy, for which
appropriations amounting to $96,000 have been made; 39 students have
been graduated, all of whom, with the exception of two, are now in the
employ of the State; 30 students are maintained in the academy; and the
course is three years, 10 students being admitted each year. The State
has also made provision for protection against, and the extinguishing
of, forest fires, and the sum of $245,000 has been appropriated for this
purpose. The State has appropriated for maintenance and administration
of forest reserves since they were first created the sum of $877,142. In
addition to the foresters employed, 41 in number, the State employs 116
rangers and a large labor force.
One of the most important Conservation movements entered into by our
State has been the conserving of the health of its citizens by
protecting from pollution, through a Water Commission and the State
Board of Health, the waterways of the entire Commonwealth. Human life
and its preservation from disease and impairment of usefulness and its
loss of producing power is the most fundamental of all subjects of
Conservation. Pennsylvania has also set an example that we sincerely
trust may be followed by every other State wherein forest reserves can
be created, by establishing camps for tuberculosis patients, where those
who are unable to provide the necessary expense to be cared for in
private institutions and in climatically suitable locations can be cared
for by the State. Since 1907 Pennsylvania has appropriated to the State
Department of Health for the construction of suitable buildings and
camps for the treatment of tuberculosis on the reservations of the
State, $3,000,000. The sanitarium established at Mount Alto has treated
3,301 patients, and 115 dispensaries established throughout the State
have treated 32,247 patients. The present enrollment at Mount Alto is
nearly 800, and of dispensary patients 9,000. This work is under the
supervision of the distinguished and capable gentleman at the head of
our Health Department, Dr Samuel G. Dixon. The movement for the
establishment of tuberculosis camps was inaugurated by Dr J. T. Rothrock
about twenty years ago, and his name with that of others who have been
influential in this work for the cause of humanity and the conservation
of health and happiness will continue to be honored in our State.
Pennsylvania also makes much larger appropriations than any other State
in the Union for its general hospitals, furnishing free of cost the best
surgical and medical skill to those who are unable to pay for the same,
thus saving many lives as well as adding to the bread-winning capacity
of every community.
Our Department of Mines is doing a good work in trying to make more
secure the lives of the miners and their occupation less hazardous. Our
system of factory inspection is doing much to protect the lives of our
workers in mills and factories, and the topographic and geologic survey
commission of our State is also carrying on a most important work in the
conservation and development of our natural resources.
Pennsylvania has a Forestry Association that has been in continued
active existence for 23 years. Its membership extends to every county in
the State, and it has taken the initiative and been the organizer and
promoter of the measures that caused the creation by the State of forest
reserves and a Forestry Commission; and its members have been largely
instrumental, through the earnest, persistent, public-spirited devotion
to measures and methods, in educating the people not only of
Pennsylvania but of other States to appreciate the value and merits of
conserving all our natural resources; and what Pennsylvania has done has
helped in no small degree to develop conditions that have made possible
the present nation-wide movement for Conservation. (Applause)
The State of Pennsylvania has in the above brief statement shown the
practical interest it has had for years and will continue to have in the
subject of Conservation; and we earnestly assure this Congress of the
hearty support and cooperation of the Keystone State in this great
cause.
Respectfully submitted, on behalf of the State of Pennsylvania, by Wm.
S. Harvey, G. W. McNees, and Joseph C. Righter. (Applause)
* * * * *
President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: We wish to give everybody a
chance to speak, and I am willing to stay here all night and all day
tomorrow. We shall have some very important business in a few minutes.
It might be well under the Call of the States, for speakers to be
limited to five minutes (applause). Is that your pleasure? All in favor
of a five minute rule will please say "Aye."
[Many voices: "Aye."]
President BAKER--Are any opposed? (After a pause) It is carried
unanimously.
A DELEGATE--Mr President: I move you that the States be called in
alphabetic order. It will save confusion, prevent Delegates from rising
in all parts of the house, and expedite business.
The motion was seconded, put, and carried without dissent.
Mr E. W. ROSS (of Olympia, Washington)--Mr Chairman: Nobody in this part
of the house knows what is going on. What is the question before the
house?
President BAKER--The question before the house just now was on the
motion that the States be called in alphabetic order, which was carried;
and the Call of the States is now in order.
Mr ROSS--We have expected, since 9:30 oclock this morning, to have the
States called in alphabetic order. What is the use in talking to
Delegates now about calling the States in alphabetic order at 9 oclock
on next to the last day of this Congress? This is the first time since I
have attended this Congress that I have heard the Delegates vote on
something which pertained to their own proceedings. (Confusion on the
floor) Who brought this anyway? Are we to sit here day after day like a
flock of cattle and--
President BAKER--The Gentleman is out of order.
Mr ROSS--I have traveled two thousand miles, and I had something to say
on a proposition germane to what was going on at the time, and I was
informed that there would be a time later and a motion was put here and
voted on that at 8:30 this morning the States would be called--
President BAKER--The officers were here at 8:30, but there were no
Delegates.
Mr ROSS--It is now 9 oclock and you talk about--
President BAKER--We were ready at 8:30 this morning.
Mr ROSS--I was here and the representative of the State of Washington--
President BAKER--Washington was twice called.
Mr ROSS--And he has been--
President BAKER--You are out of order.
Mr ROSS--Has been sitting on the rostrum there since 8 oclock this
morning, and he hasn't been heard yet!
President BAKER (rapping on the table)--The Gentleman is out of order.
Is the Chair sustained?
Many Voices: Yes.
A DELEGATE--Mr President: I make the point of order that the Committee
on Nominations was to report immediately after 8 oclock this evening. I
therefore call for the previous question and ask that the election of
officers proceed.
President BAKER--The Committee will be ready to report in a few minutes.
Mr ROSS--Mr Chairman--
President BAKER--You are out of order.
Mr ROSS--The gag rule is trying to be enforced, and I appeal to this
Congress. That is what we have had from the beginning to the end. Put on
your gag rule, and we will go home and never forget it--(Calls from the
floor: "Order, order!")
President BAKER--Will the house be in order?
Mr ROSS--Put the screws down, the harder you do it the greater the
recoil and the rebound, and the boomerang will hit you in the end--
President BAKER--The Chairman of the Committee on Nominations will now
report: Professor Condra.
Mr ROSS--And I want to say now that when Theodore Roosevelt occupied the
platform, myself and 200 delegates walked to the front door and we
knocked and we knocked and we knocked--
Many Voices: "You are out of order!"
Mr ROSS--and I am tired of the way things have been going on; the
representative of the State of Washington has been sitting on that
rostrum since 8:30 this morning waiting for the States to be called and
the States were--
A DELEGATE--Mr President: I call for the report.
Professor CONDRA--Mr President, and Ladies and Gentlemen: In this
committee work we have tried to do our best for the interests of
Conservation throughout the whole country for next year and the ensuing
years. No member of this committee has been unduly influenced or has any
axe to grind whatever (applause)--
[Mr Ross interrupts, and momentary confusion ensues]
Professor CONDRA--As to the Delegates that tried to gain admission to
our room this evening, that is a closed chapter and our report is
without bias and we hope it will receive your approval (applause). We
thought of nominating for the Presidency of the Congress, among others,
two persons now on this platform. We consulted them, and they both said
it would be better to place in nomination another. One of the two men
whom we first thought of nominating is Captain White, the other is
Gifford Pinchot. The Committee will ask the former to nominate the
President, and the latter to second the nomination. (Applause)
Captain WHITE--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen, and Delegates to this
Congress: It is a pleasure that comes to man but seldom in life when he
can do a great benefit to a people; even if it involves a sacrifice, it
is often a pleasure to do it. I did not wish to have my name mentioned,
as it has been (nor did I know that it would be), as a possible nominee
for the Presidency of this honorable body, nor did I know that my friend
Mr Pinchot's name would be mentioned; but in thinking it over, after we
were consulted, we both felt like influencing the Nominating Committee
to do what was best for the country, this organization, and for all the
State associations. The great back-bone of this country is the farming
element. It is the farmers who make the country, and to them we must
look for prosperity, and when they are prosperous and contented the
country is prosperous and the people are happy. So, to that department
of Conservation we have looked for a man to act as President of this
organization--one who would be satisfactory to the farmers. We found the
right man. We are going to put in nomination to this Congress a man in
whom there is no guile, who is not only well known in this country but
who has international fame; a man who has published for many years one
of the largest, if not the largest, of farm journals in the country; one
who was appointed by President Roosevelt as a member of the Country Life
Commission, who has lived close to the farmer, who has done perhaps more
than any man in his community, making greater sacrifices according to
his ability; who has made speeches on many platforms, and during a long
life has worked earnestly for the benefit of humanity. I take pleasure
in nominating for the Presidency that prince of men, Mr Henry Wallace,
of Des Moines. (Great applause)
Mr GIFFORD PINCHOT--Ladies and Gentlemen: I pray your indulgence for a
moment while I try to say a little of what I think about "Uncle Henry"
Wallace. I call him "Uncle Henry" for the best of all reasons--that when
a man has reached his age in a life of usefulness, he becomes, in a
sense, the forebear of all the rest of us, and our affectionate esteem
naturally expresses itself in calling him "Uncle"; and I say "Uncle
Henry" Wallace because I love him. (Applause) I want to add, too, an
expression of my highest respect for his character, for his achievement,
and, above all, for his breadth of view, which covers intelligently and
fully every interest for which this Conservation Congress stands. Mr
Wallace lives in the center of the country; his main attention has been
given to our central industry. His advice and assistance have been
poured forth freely for that class of citizens among us all who have the
most to do with the fundamental occupation of conserving the earth and
making it forever fruitful; and I deem it to be a most fitting
nomination that the Committee has laid before you in suggesting his
name.
Before I sit down I want, with your permission, to say a word, also
about Captain White. Captain White and Mr Wallace stand together in my
mind as two of the finest types of ripened American citizens (applause).
I am proud to say that I believe I enjoy the friendship of both. I have
been associated with Captain White for many years in Conservation work.
He was one of the first of the lumbermen--the very first of the
lumbermen, I believe--to take an earnest and effective and active
interest in Conservation. It was to his lands that the first class from
one of the great forest schools went to study lumbering and forestry on
the ground; and at every point his helpful, wise, and effective
assistance has been given to the movement for which this great Congress
stands. I know that Mr Wallace will not mind my interjecting remarks
about another man in seconding his nomination, however irregular it may
appear. I wanted to say (and this is the only chance I have) what I
think of Captain White; and I want to add that I shall make only one
suggestion to Mr Wallace, if he is elected, and he will accept it or not
as he pleases; but I shall certainly advise him to keep Captain White as
Chairman of the Executive Committee. (Applause)
Mr President, I take the greatest pleasure in seconding the nomination
of Mr Wallace. (Applause)
A DELEGATE--Mr President: I move that the rules be suspended, and that
Mr Wallace be elected by acclamation.
The motion was seconded, put, and declared unanimously carried.
Mr BAKER--It gives me very great honor, Mr President Wallace, to present
to you the gavel. No man will do more, to the extent of his ability, in
supporting your administration and carrying it forward to success.
(Applause)
President WALLACE--Mr Baker, and Ladies and Gentlemen: Believe me, this
is the greatest surprise of my life. No one had said a word to me about
it until a few moments before I came into this room. I believe that if I
had had time to think of it I would have declined, but in an unguarded
moment, I said if the unanimous choice of this Congress I would do my
best to serve you. I know I am undertaking a very great work; I know I
shall need all the help of your wisest counsels. I shall probably make
mistakes. The man who makes no mistakes is the man who does nothing
(applause). I have made mistakes in other undertakings. It is a rule of
my life not to mourn over the irreparable past, but to make the best out
of the available future (applause); to do one day's work well, and be
ready if possible to embrace the opportunities that may come tomorrow.
Now, I feel conscious of my inability to act as President of your
organization. I have studiously avoided such offices in the past; I have
studiously avoided taking office of any kind or class; but this having
been forced upon me, and the offer coming utterly without my
knowledge--without a whisper of it, in fact--it gives me an opportunity
of service which I will do my best to meet. I shall have to ask you to
excuse me from serving tonight, for I am leaving on a train in a very
short time. I shall ask you to wait, if I have the Executive Committee
to appoint (as I am told I have), until I have time to study this
Conservation movement from the organization's side. I shall make the
best selections I can; I will do the very best that lies in me, and that
is all that any man can do. (Applause)
I want to say to you that if there have been any factions in this
organization, I know nothing of them (applause). I have no part in them.
I believe in the Conservation of the resources of the country. I believe
that if this is to be done wisely we must imagine ourselves in the
position of the men who have differences of opinion here. I realize that
the Western people have peculiar difficulties; I realize that their
position must be studied from their standpoint (applause)--that
whatever help may be given them for the solution of their problems must
be given; and if I am to be President of this organization, I will be
President of a National organization (applause), and I will know no
State (renewed applause), no faction, no party (renewed applause); and,
so far as I am concerned, there will be no politics (great applause) in
this association.
I thank you for this unexpected and unsolicited honor, and I accept it
as an opportunity to serve the American people in this generation and
perform a service which will be beneficial to generations yet unborn
(applause); for I believe that the mission of this Nation is not to
build great cities, not to be a world-power, not to amass wealth untold,
but to develop character (applause) and manhood that can stand facing
all the storms that blow, that can solve the problems as they come--a
manhood that owes its highest obedience not to laws made by mortal man
but to the laws made for human guidance by Almighty God. (Applause)
Professor CONDRA--Mr President, and Ladies and Gentlemen: Your Committee
nominate for Executive Secretary Thomas R. Shipp (applause), for
Recording Secretary James C. Gipe, and for Treasurer D. Austin Latchaw.
I move the election of these nominees.
President WALLACE--It is moved that Thomas R. Shipp be elected Executive
Secretary. Is that motion seconded?
The motion was seconded from all parts of the house.
President WALLACE--It is moved and seconded that Thomas R. Shipp be
chosen Executive Secretary. Are there any remarks?
(Calls of "Question, question!")
Mr ROSS--Mr Chairman: I would like to have a little information on that
subject. I would like to inquire whether Mr Shipp occupies any position
of trust or profit in the way of emolument under the United States or
any State government?
(Calls of "Question!" "Regular order!" "Order!")
President WALLACE--The Chair is unable to give the Gentleman any
information on that subject. The question is called for. All in favor,
signify by saying "Aye." (Hundreds of voices: "Aye.") Contrary "No."
(Pause.) The motion is carried.
VOICES--"Shipp, Shipp!"
Mr ROSS--Mr Chairman--
President WALLACE--Has the Gentleman a motion to make?
Mr ROSS--I was recognized by the Chair and the previous question has not
yet been voted upon.
President WALLACE--Has the Gentleman any motion to make the order of
business?
Mr ROSS--I rise to a point of order. I have the floor. The Chairman
recognized me and the previous question has not yet been voted. I ask
for a matter of information.
President WALLACE--The Chair has no information to give except that the
Gentleman is out of order.
Mr ROSS--I ask if Mr Shipp occupies a position or employment in any
capacity for the United States Government or any State or Territory.
President WALLACE--I don't know. The motion was duly put and was
carried.
VOICE--"He is out of order."
President WALLACE--He is. The next nominee is James C. Gipe for
Recording Secretary.
Mr ROSS--Does the Chair rule that I am out of order?
President WALLACE--I have, several times.
Mr ROSS--Thank you, sir. That is the cap sheaf.
President WALLACE--Is there a second to the nomination of Mr Gipe for
Recording Secretary?
The nomination was seconded.
President WALLACE--Are there remarks on that question?
Many DELEGATES--"Question."
The motion was put and carried, and Mr Gipe was declared unanimously
elected Recording Secretary.
President WALLACE--The Committee also recommend the election of D. A.
Latchaw for Treasurer. Is there a second to the motion for his election?
(The motion was seconded.) Any remarks on the motion?
VOICES--"Question."
The motion was put and carried, and Mr Latchaw was declared elected
Treasurer.
Delegate HUNT--Mr President: The District of Columbia moves a vote of
thanks to the Nominating Committee who have done their work so well and
so pleasingly to this Congress.
The motion received a second, and was put and unanimously carried.
Mr ROSS--Will the Chairman please announce what the motion is? We didn't
hear a word of it here.
The DELEGATE--That a vote of thanks be tendered to the Nominating
Committee for the work which they have done so well and satisfactorily
to this Congress.
Mr ROSS--Mr Chairman, I second that motion. (Laughter)
Colonel FLEMING JONES (of New Mexico)--Mr President: I understand that
Governor Pardee is about to submit the report of the Committee on
Resolutions, and I have a resolution here which I should like to see
embodied in the report.
Mr ROSS--The Gentleman from New Mexico is out of order.
President WALLACE--The Chair thinks the resolution out of order.
Delegate HARDTNER (of Louisiana)--Mr President: I move you that the
rules be suspended for the purpose of permitting Colonel Fleming Jones
to submit his resolution.
Delegate DYE (of Indiana)--I second the motion.
The motion being duly put and carried, Colonel W. A. Fleming Jones
submitted the following:
_Resolved_, That this Congress express its grateful appreciation of the
highly intelligent, unselfish, and successful services of its first
President, Mr Bernard N. Baker, of Maryland. Through his untiring effort
and his purpose to bring into consultation all the interests of
Conservation, the Congress has resulted in a meeting that will be
historic in the records of American progress and achievement.
Being formally put, the resolution was adopted unanimously and
enthusiastically.
Mr BAKER--Mr President: I wish to express my appreciation, and to have
it show in the Proceedings. I have not taken one moment to present
anything in which I was directly interested. I thank you very much.
(Applause)
President WALLACE--We will now hear from the Committee on Resolutions.
Governor PARDEE--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: As Chairman of the
Committee on Resolutions I have been ordered and directed by a majority
of the Committee--some 26 or 27 out of about 30 present at the last
session of the Committee--to present the following report, as the report
of the majority in the proportions I have mentioned:
RESOLUTIONS OF THE SECOND NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS
The Second National Conservation Congress, made up of Delegates from all
sections and nearly every State and Territory of the United States, met
at the call of a great moral issue (applause), now in session assembled
in the city of Saint Paul and State of Minnesota, does hereby adopt and
solemnly declare the following platform of opinion and conclusion
concerning the inherent rights of the People of the United States:
Heartily accepting the spirit and intent of the Constitution and
adhering to the principles laid down by Washington and Lincoln, we
declare our conviction that we live under a Government of the People, by
the People, for the People; and we repudiate any and all special or
local interests or platforms or policies in conflict with the inherent
rights and sovereign will of our People. (Great applause)
Recognizing the natural resources of the country as the prime basis of
property and opportunity, we hold the rights of the People in these
resources to be natural and inherent, and justly inalienable and
indefeasible (applause); and we insist that the resources should and
shall be developed, used, and conserved in ways consistent both with
current welfare and with the perpetuity of our People. (Applause)
Recognizing the waters of the country as a great National resource, we
approve and endorse the opinion that all the waters belong to all the
People (applause), and hold that they should be administered in the
interest of all the people. (Great applause)
Realizing that all parts of each drainage basin are related and
interdependent, we hold that each stream should be regarded and treated
as a unit from its source to its mouth; and since the waters are
essentially mobile and transitory and are generally interstate, we hold
that in all cases of divided or doubtful jurisdiction the waters should
be administered by cooperation between State and Federal agencies.
(Prolonged applause)
Recognizing the interdependence of the various uses of the waters of the
country, we hold that the primary uses are for domestic supply and for
agriculture through irrigation or otherwise, and that the uses for
navigation and for power, in which water is not consumed, are secondary;
and we commend the modern view that each use of the waters should be
made with reference to all other uses for the public welfare in
accordance with the principle of the greatest good to the greatest
number for the longest time. (Great applause)
Viewing purity of water supply as essential to the public health and
general welfare, we urge upon all municipal, State, and Federal
authorities, and on individuals and corporations, requisite action
toward purifying and preventing contamination of the waters. (Applause)
Approving the successful efforts of the United States to provide homes
on arid lands through irrigation, we indorse and commend the Reclamation
Service (applause) and urge its continuance and the extension of the
same policy to the drainage of swamp and overflow lands, to be carried
forward so far as appropriate through cooperation between State and
Federal agencies. (Great applause)
Viewing adequate and economical transportation facilities as among the
means of Conservation, and realizing that the growth of the country has
exceeded the development of transportation facilities, we approve the
prompt adoption of a comprehensive plan for developing navigation
throughout the rivers and lakes of the United States, proceeding in the
order of their magnitude and commercial importance. (Loud applause)
Recognizing the vast economic benefit to the People of water-power
derived largely from interstate and source streams no less than from
navigable rivers, we favor Federal control of water-power development
(applause); we deny the right of State or Federal governments to
continue alienating or conveying water by granting franchises for the
use thereof in perpetuity (applause); and we demand that the use of
water rights be permitted only for limited periods, with just
compensation in the interests of the People. (Prolonged applause)
We demand the maintenance of a Federal commission empowered to deal with
all uses of the waters and to coordinate these uses for the public
welfare in cooperation with similar commissions or other agencies
maintained by the States. (Loud applause)
Approving the withdrawal of public lands pending classification, and
the separation of surface rights from mineral, forest, and water rights,
including water-power sites (applause), we recommend legislation for the
classification and leasing for grazing purposes of all unreserved public
lands suitable chiefly for this purpose, subject to the rights of
homesteaders and settlers, or the acquisition thereof under the land
laws of the United States; and we hold that arid and non-irrigable
public grazing lands should be administered by the Government in the
interest of small stock-men and homeseekers until they have passed into
the possession of actual settlers. (Applause)
We hold that the deposits of important minerals underlying public lands,
particularly mineral fuels, iron ores, and phosphate deposits, should be
leased for limited periods, not exceeding fifty years, but subject to
renewal, the royalty to be adjusted at more frequent intervals; such
leases to be in amounts and subject to such regulations as to prevent
monopoly and unnecessary waste. (Applause)
We hold that phosphate deposits underlying the public lands should be
safeguarded for the American People by appropriate legislation; and we
recommend the early opening of the Alaskan and other coal fields
belonging to the People of the United States for commercial purposes on
a system of leasing, National ownership to be retained. (Applause)
We urge immediate investigation by the Federal Government of the damage
done by the smelting of copper ores, and the feasibility of so improving
methods as to utilize the injurious by-products in connection with
phosphatic fertilizers.
We favor cooperative action on the part of States and the Federal
Government looking to the preservation and better utilization of the
soils by approved scientific methods. (Applause)
We approve the continuance of the control of the National Forests by the
Federal Government (applause), and approve the policy of restoring to
settlement such public lands as are more valuable for agriculture. We
earnestly recommend that the States and Federal Government acquire for
reforestation lands not more valuable for other purposes, and that all
existing forests publicly and privately owned be carefully protected by
State and Federal governments. We recognize the invaluable services of
the Forest Service to the People (applause), and earnestly recommend
that it be more generously supported by the Federal Government, and that
State, Federal, and private fire patrol be more generously provided for
the preservation of forests and human life; and we appreciate and
approve of the continuance of the services of the United States Army in
fire control in emergencies.
We favor the repeal of the Timber and Stone Law. (Applause)
We endorse the proposition for the preservation by the Federal
Government of the Southern Appalachian and White Mountain forests.
We recommend that the Federal Government conserve migratory birds and
wild game animals.
We recommend that both public and private schools instruct the youth of
the land in the fundamental doctrines of Conservation.
We realize that the fullest enjoyment of our natural resources depends
on the life and development of the people physically, intellectually,
and morally; and in order to promote this, we recommend that the
training and protection of the people, and whatever pertains to the
public health and general efficiency, be encouraged by methods and
legislation suitable to this end. Child labor should be prevented and
child life protected and developed.
Realizing the waste of life in transportation and mining operations, we
recommend legislation increasing the use of proper safeguards for the
conservation of life; and we also recommend that in order to make better
provision for securing the health of the Nation a department of public
health be established by the National Government.
We recommend the adequate maintenance of a National Conservation
Commission to investigate the natural resources of the country and
cooperate with the work of the State conservation commissions; and we
urge the legal establishment and maintenance of conservation commissions
or corresponding agencies on the part of all States of the Union.
Nothing in these resolutions is to be construed as questioning the
rights of the States or the People of the United States guaranteed under
the Federal Constitution.[2] (Prolonged applause)
* * * * *
Governor PARDEE--Mr President: Again reminding you that this is a
majority report, and that the Committee were told that a minority report
would be presented (and I am looking directly at the member of the
Committee who gave this intimation), I move you that the report just
read be adopted as the voice of this Congress.
Mr G. M. HUNT--Mr President, the District of Columbia seconds the
motion of the Chairman of the Committee.
Mr FRANK H. SHORT (of California)--Mr President: In view of the remark
that there was to be a minority report presented to this Congress, I
think, perhaps, I should say, on behalf of those who have been referred
to as the minority (who may be "insurgents" some day) that in view of
the provision in the resolutions that nothing shall be construed as
contrary to the Constitution of the United States, we do not offer any
amendment. We think that no person in this country is entitled to
anything that does not belong to him under the Constitution and the law,
and we don't think he should ever be offered anything else; and we
suppose, if a conflict should arise, that the Constitution will prevail.
A DELEGATE--Pennsylvania rises to second the motion to adopt the
resolutions as read.
A DELEGATE--Mr President: As a Delegate from the State of Illinois, I
rise to second the motion.
President WALLACE--All in favor of the adoption of these resolutions as
read will say "Aye." (A chorus of "ayes.") Contrary, "Nay." (There were
no negative votes.) The resolutions are declared adopted.
Mr ROSS--Mr Chairman--
President WALLACE--We will hear you.
Mr ROSS--That is all I want, that you should hear me. In view of the
fact that this report is presented and heard by the Delegates at this
late hour for the first time, and in view of the fact that the report of
the Committee on Resolutions and the action of the Congress thereon is
all-important and the final result of such a Congress, and in view of
the fact that we are to meet tomorrow morning at 10 oclock or half-past,
or whatever time it is, I move you, Mr Chairman, that action upon this
report be deferred until the convening of this Congress tomorrow
morning, in order that the Delegates may be able to read the report,
section by section, as it may appear in the newspapers tomorrow
morning--
President WALLACE--The Gentleman is out of order.
Mr ROSS--So we can act intelligently.
President WALLACE--The Gentleman is out of order. The resolutions have
already been adopted.
Mr ROSS--Mr Chairman, the motion is made. Will somebody second my
motion? I will see if I am out of order.
Mr JOHNS (of Washington)--Mr President: I move to lay the motion on the
table. I am from the State of Washington and glory in it, but I do not
glory in some of the men that the Governor appointed.
The motion to table was seconded, put, and carried with one dissenting
voice.
President WALLACE--What is the further business before the Congress? Are
there any other committees to report?
Professor CONDRA--Mr President, and Ladies and Gentlemen: We have
neglected one matter of business, and with your permission (at the
request of those who have noticed it) I will read the names of the
Vice-Presidents selected by State Delegations.
Mr ROSS--Mr Chairman: That is what we expected at 8:30 oclock this
morning. It is now twenty minutes past 9. I move you that leave to print
be extended to the various Vice-Presidents and those designated by
States, and if they can succeed in getting their written speeches
printed in the record possibly we will have a chance to read them.
Delegate HORR (of Washington)--Mr President, I have a request to make:
that when you print the address read by Lieutenant-Governor (and Acting
Governor) Hay, of Washington, you also print, right with it, the
dispatch from C. B. Kegley, representing 20,000 Grangers, and also the
dispatch from Charles R. Case, representing the organized labor of
Washington, both approving the Federal policies of Conservation. I make
that as a request coming, as I believe, from the majority of the
patriotic citizens of the State of Washington. (Applause)
Professor CONDRA--Mr President, just a moment. This list of
Vice-Presidents selected by State Delegations is not the Call of States;
we will come to that in a few minutes. The reports by State Delegations
might be turned over to the Secretary who will ask that it be printed in
the papers in the morning. A few States have not yet sent in the names
of their Vice-Presidents, so that the list is not quite complete.
A DELEGATE--Read the list.
President WALLACE--Let us hear the list read.
A DELEGATE--Mr Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The report of the
Nominating Committee is the special order at this hour. Having begun on
nominations, they should continue until they are closed. The States
should be called upon to name their Vice-Presidents. (Applause)
Professor CONDRA--Mr President, if agreeable I will read the names which
we have. Reads list.[3]
President WALLACE--Shall we vote on these Vice-Presidents selected by
the Delegates from the different States? All who favor the selections
will please say "Aye" (Pause). Any opposed will say "No" (Pause). The
selections are approved unanimously.
Mr Pinchot wishes to offer a resolution that you will all agree to.
Mr PINCHOT--_Whereas_, Professor Samuel B. Green, Dean of the School of
Forestry in the University of Minnesota, and for twenty-two years a
teacher in the State Agricultural College, has recently been called to
his reward; and
_Whereas_, Professor Green for years ranked as one of the most prominent
and progressive instructors in Forestry, and has been a great force in
the cause of developing and conserving our National resources; therefore
be it
_Resolved_, That in the death of Professor Green the State of Minnesota
and the Nation have lost a distinguished citizen, and the cause of
Forestry one of its most valuable assets.
President WALLACE--Let us take a rising vote. All in favor of the
resolution please rise. It is unanimously carried.
We are now ready for the Call of the States.
The States were then called alphabetically, whereupon the following
responded:
Mr A. H. PURDUE (of Arkansas)--As regards Arkansas and Conservation, I
will say that that subject with us is not a burning question. People are
not yet clamoring for Conservation. Nevertheless, the movement set on
foot by those who are promoting it is making itself felt among us, and
the thoughtful people of the State are giving it their attention.
Mr O. B. BANNISTER (of Indiana)--I will not take five minutes. I first
want to appeal to your spirit of fairness, and express the hope that at
the next National Conservation Congress you will not ask Delegates to
wait until the eleventh hour of the last day of the Convention.
(Applause)
Indiana is represented here by fourteen Delegates. We have spent about
$2500 to attend this Congress (applause). We have sat here for four
solid days and attended every single session, and heard the history of
things from the birth of our Saviour down to 1908, when Theodore
Roosevelt called the Governors together for Conservation, but up to this
moment we have not been heard or given an opportunity to talk at all
(applause). I just want to call your attention to that fact. I have only
had three and a half minutes, and I am perfectly willing that the next
speaker shall have my allotted minute and a half. (Applause)
President WALLACE--The President will say that if you live until the
next Congress, and I preside over it, you will all have a chance to make
your speeches as early in the meeting as possible. (Applause)
Mr BANNISTER--Mr President: It is not a question of speeches; it is a
question of voting and being considered as the rank and file, if you
please, of this organization.
Mr A. C. MILLER (of Iowa)--The report of the Iowa State Delegation is in
the hands of the Secretary.[4]
Mr YOUNG (of Kansas)--Our report has been filed with the Secretary.
President WALLACE--Ladies and Gentlemen: I am obliged to leave for my
train, and I will ask Captain White to act as Presiding officer. (The
audience rose as Mr Wallace withdrew.)
Mr BERNARD N. BAKER (of Maryland)--I just want to say "Thank you," for
Maryland, for the opportunity of being here.
Mr FREEMAN THORP (of Minnesota)--Mr Chairman, a way has been found (not
theoretically but practically and demonstrably) whereby the time of the
growth of forest trees is reduced to one-half. The Secretary of
Agriculture, Mr Wilson, who merely hinted at this in the last paragraph
of his speech the other day, will give you the exact information in
detail in his bulletins this winter. It is not a theory or wild guess.
It has been demonstrated, only 150 miles from where you sit. There are
thousands of trees there, some 11 inches in diameter, grown from seed in
fifteen years (applause). There are shown at the Minnesota State Fair
today products of the soil grown upon the lightest sandy soils that we
have in the State, during the greatest drought ever known, and the corn
is as large as any in the State, and the clover superior (applause).
This simply shows the new force and new instrumentality which will be at
our hands in the great work of Conservation. I will not take your time
longer because the information will be given you this winter in
bulletins from the Department of Agriculture at Washington. (Applause)
Dr E. N. LOWE (of Mississippi)--Mr Chairman and Fellow Delegates: We
from Mississippi have come here to be heard on Conservation and to learn
about Conservation. We are interested in the subject. We have made some
progress along the lines of Conservation. I wish to say that the most
enthusiastic Conservationist in the State of Mississippi is our Chief
Executive, Governor Noel. Practically all that has been done in
Conservation in Mississippi has been instigated and encouraged by him.
We are at the present time engaged in the study of our soil in
cooperation with the Bureau of Soils at Washington. The work has been in
progress since December last, and will be prosecuted as rapidly as
possible. We have four parties in the field at the present time. In
addition to our soil resources we have, in the southern half of
Mississippi, a large pine forest; the virgin forest has been depleted
very rapidly, and we are realizing the necessity of investigation along
that line.
General NOBLE (of Missouri)--Mr Chairman: I have been appointed to
attend this Congress as a Delegate from the Trans-Mississippi Commercial
Congress, and also as a Delegate from Missouri. I have been associated
in the Trans-Mississippi Commercial Congress with Mr Larimore, of
Larimore, North Dakota. We were instructed by the President of the
Trans-Mississippi Congress to present an invitation to this Congress,
which was put in the form of a resolution. I want to say that the
Trans-Mississippi Commercial Congress has been in existence for more
than twenty years. It has been my privilege and honor to attend many of
its different sessions, and I speak whereof I know when I say that it
has been one of the most influential bodies in the western country for
the advancement of western interests, including among others, the great
proposition of the Conservation of our natural resources for the people.
Now, I wish to present this resolution: (Reading)
"_Whereas_, the Trans-Mississippi Commercial Congress has for its
purpose the inauguration and advocacy of great National policies, and
has for many years been a friend of the beneficent and progressive
Conservation of our natural resources, and that Congress is to meet at
San Antonio, Texas, on the twenty-second to twenty-fifth days of
November next; therefore--
"_Resolved_, That the present Congress at Saint Paul does hereby
earnestly request the National Conservation Association, by its
President, to select and send to the approaching session of the
Trans-Mississippi Congress a delegation of such members as he may deem
best (say forty in number), to advocate the cooperation of that body in
support of the measures here approved."
I move you, Mr President, that that resolution be adopted as a
recommendation of this Congress. You can get no better cooperator and
successful worker for Conservation in any portion of this country; so
help us to carry into effect the great purposes of this Congress, the
Conservation of our natural resources. (Applause)
The CHAIRMAN--Gentlemen, you have heard the resolution.
A DELEGATE--I move that the same be adopted.
The CHAIRMAN--It has been moved and seconded that the resolution be
adopted. Are there any remarks?
A DELEGATE--I move that it be referred to the Executive Committee for
such action as they see fit, to be reported tomorrow morning.
The CHAIRMAN--The Committee on Resolutions has made its report. This
resolution is in order, because it was offered by the Gentleman from
Missouri as part of his remarks, and it has been moved and seconded that
it be adopted. An amendment has been offered, which was also seconded,
that it be referred to the Executive Committee. Are you ready to vote on
the amendment?
A DELEGATE--It was not put in the form of an amendment; it was put as a
distinct motion.
The CHAIRMAN--Two motions cannot be entertained at once.
General NOBLE--Mr Chairman: May I explain that this is merely a
recommendation to the Association. It is not a resolution passed by this
Congress to send a delegation; it is a recommendation by this Congress
to the body called the National Conservation Association, to act on it
or not as they please.
The CHAIRMAN--Gentlemen, we will vote on the original question. All
those who are in favor of adopting the resolution as read by General
Noble will say "Aye." (The resolution was adopted)
Professor CONDRA--Would it not be in order to hear from the Executive
Committee relative to the work in Missouri? I would ask that you grant
to Chairman White a minute or two to respond for that State. (Applause)
Chairman WHITE--Gentlemen: I will not take much time, as it is getting
late. I may say that Missouri does not have to be "shown."
On behalf of the Executive Committee, let me say this: We have had a
pretty hard time in trying to satisfy everybody. I wish to apologize for
any shortcomings on the part of President Baker and myself. I was
Chairman of the Executive Committee, and had a great deal to do in
trying to frame a program that would be satisfactory to every Delegate
and everybody else who attended the Congress; but it was a hard thing to
do. The President of the United States and the ex-President of the
United States occupied two distinct days, and drew great crowds in
opposition to the State Fair; since then the Fair has been doing
business in opposition to this Congress. Then we had the Governors here,
and other great speakers; and the program had to be carried out. I wish
to say that this organization will remain in session tomorrow if, at the
close of this session, you so desire. I am going to stay here; I have
authority to act as President protem tomorrow, and President Baker will
also stay with me, and we will gladly do all the good we can.
Delegate VON TOBEL (of Montana)--Montana has filed a report.
Professor CONDRA--For Nebraska, I will speak briefly:
I have had the very great privilege and honor of being connected with a
Nebraska State Commission for eighteen or twenty years. We have a great
variety of resources, mostly agricultural. He who says Nebraska is a
poor agricultural spot does not know; he who thinks Nebraska is a
sand-hill region does not know. In Nebraska there are four great soil
regions. Some of them are very fertile; some 40,000 square miles are
unusually fertile, the land values ranging from $100 to $200 per acre.
We have 18,000 square miles of land worth from $1.00 to $5.00 per acre.
I am not going to take the time to tell you just how good and how bad
Nebraska really is; there is enough of it that is especially good.
We have a number of problems that should be taken up in the way of
Conservation, and we have undertaken to do it. We have irrigation, dry
farming, forestation of sandhills and the like; also conservation of
soil fertility, and the conservation of lands. Our Commission is
non-political; and I believe all States taking up Conservation problems
should have non-political commissions. We have in Nebraska, working with
the Commission, some ten or twelve committees, with 30 to 40 men at
work, studying the problems of the State. We believe in cooperation and
thorough investigation, and we believe, further, in contributing that
which is suited to those who wish our contributions.
We held a State Congress not long ago in which it was the sentiment, and
was declared by the President of the Congress, "We want at this time
that there may be made no reference to the controversy now waging in the
Nation." And no man on that floor spoke one word pertaining to the
controversy. It was said further that, "We wish at this time that our
work be non-political, that no man will stand here and talk that he may
gain favor, or gain notice in the State, for political purposes;" and
with but one exception no man undertook so to talk, and that man was
stopped immediately (applause). It was also asked that no man take the
floor unless he had a message and facts for the others, such facts as
would be worth something to those attending and those at home.
Such is the spirit of Nebraska. We are not the only State, we cooperate
with others. We have good features and bad; but we want to learn to do
practical things worth while to the farmers, worth while to those who
are laboring, and worth while to all the people in the State. One of our
committees is working on vital resources. We realize that while we grow
wheat and corn for man and beast, we are working chiefly for the
elevation of man; and in Nebraska one thing we will see to is that the
conditions are suitable for crops, for animals, and for man--and we
propose to do our part in conserving the public health, and in looking
to better living conveniences and better water supplies in the State.
I have spoken three minutes, but I ask, since I happen to represent the
Association of Congresses of the various States, that you join with
those commissioners who were in the meeting last night in practical work
in the States, and in the United States, so that when we reassemble we
will have reports from men who are doing practical work. We ask for
reliable cooperation to the end that our investigations will serve as a
basis for action of use to the practical people of our country,
especially the farmers. I thank you. (Applause)
A DELEGATE (from New York)--In the absence of our chairman, the
Delegation from New York would say, in a word, that we are making
progress; that we are with this movement first, last and all the time,
and that we hope at the next Congress there may be opportunity, as
suggested by the gentleman from Indiana, to draw out fuller information
regarding resources from the Delegations who have come from all over the
country. Many of the Delegations have come here at great expense.
Perhaps no one has listened with greater interest to the able speeches
that have been made here than have the Delegates from New York, but we
felt, in a representative organization like this, much in the position
of the man who, in a legislative body, said that whenever they began to
make speeches he went to the committee-room and went to work. We
believed that with combined action (as the Chairman has announced) at
our next meeting we shall have the speeches and at the same time draw
out the resources of the people, and so get down to work and make rapid
progress right along. (Applause)
Delegate R. A. NESTOS (of North Dakota)--Mr Chairman: North Dakota has
the honor of sending the largest number of Delegates to this Congress
with the single exception of Minnesota, which shows that it is very much
interested in the movement of Conservation. North Dakota has more coal
conserved than any other State in the Union. We have thousands of acres
of coal, in seams varying in thickness from 5 to 32 feet of solid coal.
All of our resources, with the exception of coal, are in private hands.
Our great coal fields, during the last Administration, were put in the
hands of the Government, and hereafter no settler can get anything more
than a surface right to those coal fields. The coal belongs to the
Government. Of course we haven't very much use for coal up there, but we
are keeping it. Whenever you get chilly, just raise your hand and we
will send down all kinds of coal for all of the hundreds and thousands
of our people.
Our chief resource is our soil, which, when properly conserved and
developed, can produce one-tenth of the food for this entire Nation with
the present population (applause). We have a larger area perhaps of
fertile soil than any other State. This is all in the hands of private
owners. There is simply one way to conserve our natural resources, and
that is to educate the farmer (applause). There is nothing so cheap as
education, and nothing so costly as ignorance. If our State will put
half a million dollars into the Agricultural College at the next session
of the Legislature, and extend its aid among the different educational
institutions of the State, this money will come back in a hundredfold.
It is in this direction that we must expect to conserve our resources.
The interests of this Nation that lie in private hands are enormously
greater than those controlled either by the State or by the Federal
Government, and it does not seem to me right that we should spend so
much time talking about the rather meager resources of the State and
Nation and neglecting the manifestly greater resources that are in the
hands of private citizens, because, in the last analysis, this matter of
Conservation will be carried out on each and every man's farm. You talk
about establishing a National Forest in North Dakota, and already the
Government has planted a few acres in the Bad Lands; but forests in
North Dakota mean the planting of 10 or 20 acres of quick-growing timber
on each man's farm (applause). In that way North Dakota and similar
States will carry out their part of the movement for Conservation.
Mr GEORGE W. LATTIMORE (of Ohio)--Ohio, with characteristic modesty, has
nothing to say.[5] (Applause)
Mr BENJ. MARTIN (of Oklahoma)--Mr Chairman: I appeared for Oklahoma and
reported this morning to the Chairman, and I ask that the report be
printed in the record.
Mr A. W. KRUEGER (of South Dakota)--Mr Chairman: All of our members who
are speakers have left, and there is no one here from South Dakota
except myself. I am not an orator, so I will not attempt to make a
speech; but when I heard from other States I could not help feeling that
I come from a State that has the richest resources in the world. Our
greatest resources lie in our inexhaustible soil and its fertility. We
have people from most of the States in the Union, and when I have asked
our citizens from several of the eastern States, and other rich States
like Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois, "Why are you here?"
they said, "Because we have bettered our condition through the State of
South Dakota." So I have come to the conclusion that we must have about
the best State in the Union (laughter). They tell us that we have more
money per capita for our schools than any other State in the Union--but
I do not want to make a speech, for I can't do it (laughter), only to
say that I have had the pleasure and great honor to talk Conservation in
our State, and the longer I am here the more I am convinced that South
Dakota is in hearty accord with the doings of this Congress (applause).
I have not been instructed to say this, but from what our State is
doing, I cannot see how any true and patriotic American citizen who
loves his country, home, and fireside, and who wants to leave them to
his descendants none the worse because he lived in the world, can help
most heartily endorsing the Conservation of our natural resources, such
as forests, natural waterways, water-powers, minerals, coal, oil, and
phosphates by the Federal Government. (Applause)
Mr GEORGE H. EMERSON (of Washington)--Ladies and Gentlemen: I come as
the calm Pacific instead of the cyclone that at times has swept over
this audience. I came prepared with a paper that it was proposed to have
placed before you, but it is not propitious at this late hour, neither
is the temper of the audience such as to receive it, nor is the time
that is allowed me sufficient. I ask, therefore, your permission to file
the same.
The CHAIRMAN--Permission will be given. Washington was called this
morning but the representative was not present, and Ex-President Baker
tells me it was also called again this afternoon.
Two DELEGATES--Mr Chairman--
Chairman WHITE--The Gentleman who addressed the Chair first is
recognized. This Gentleman from Washington (indicating).
Mr WILLIAM DOUGLAS JOHNS (of Washington)--Mr Chairman: I would ask of
the Delegates here three minutes.
The CHAIRMAN--There are just three minutes left, and you can have them.
Mr JOHNS--Mr Chairman: I wish to tell the Delegates here, for the
purpose of showing the necessity of Federal control, how the water-power
sites of the State of Washington--the greatest of them--have passed from
the hands of the State within a few months, under the administration of
Land Commissioner Ross, who has made himself so prominent here this
evening. Two corporations have filed on the lower waters of the mighty
Columbia, a railroad and water corporation with steamboats plying 100
miles above and carrying freight and passengers, and an irrigation
corporation below, using half of the waters of Columbia River, and all
the State of Washington got was filing fees; and Governor Hay wants us
to give the balance to him in the same way--the other half of those
great waters of the mighty Columbia. The lands secured by the railroad
corporation within a few months on the shore--lands worth millions of
dollars--were sold by Governor Hay and Land Commissioner Ross for
$10,000, and Governor Hay wants us to turn over more to him for the same
purpose. The waters of Chelan River in the Cascades James J. Hill
secured (125,000 horsepower) by paying filing fees to the State. No
wonder, in his speech, he favored State control! (Applause)
A few days before I left Washington a dispatch came from Port Townsend
to the Seattle papers--making a glorious spread--saying that the
water-power company, capitalized at a million or two, was going to put
in a 6,000 horsepower plant to supply Port Townsend and the neighboring
country--and then boasted of the country to show what a good thing it
was to invest in. They said the company had secured every water-power
site on the river, right up to its eternal glaciers, and that they had
been twenty years in securing those sites. Were they doing it for
development? Never! They were going to take one lower fall and develop
it, and sell the power at a high price. They had secured all the other
sites along that river--and for what purpose? To prevent competition
until the country grew up by paying taxes simply, holding a water-power
site that amounted to nothing until the people were prepared to pay an
immense revenue to them. So much for their plea of Governor Hay that he
wanted the State developed. The Olympia National Forest, reserved by
President Cleveland, was opened in response to a similar complaint as
that made by Governor Hay, "You are driving settlers to British
Columbia." It contains some of the richest timber lands in the State of
Washington and on the Pacific coast. What was done with it? Part of it
was covered by scrip, a few quarters were taken by war settlers, the
balance by speculators. They sold at from $600 to $800 per quarter, a
few holding on until within the last few years; and the result was that
it has passed into the hands of the corporations. Since the Milwaukee
built out there, they burned up much of it; and today you can go into
great tracts of that land (I have been through it) and you would never
know that a human foot had stepped there--it is as wild as it was before
Vancouver sailed along the coast on his voyage of discovery. If the
National Forests of the State of Washington were turned over by the
United States Government to the State of Washington and its officials,
and the tender mercies of Land Commissioner Ross, they probably would go
just exactly as the Olympia Forest went--into the hands of speculators,
not to be settled up, not to bring wealth and people and glory to the
State, but to be held until timber is valuable, to be kept in primeval
wilderness. Gentlemen, I thank you. (Great applause)
A DELEGATE--Mr Chairman: I wish to correct the Chair in his remark that
no one was here this morning to present the report from Washington. I
happen to be chairman of the Delegation. I know all about the meeting
behind closed doors in the Saint Paul Hotel; I am sorry I couldn't tell
about it here; but I filed my report this morning at 8 oclock, and
explained that Mr Emerson would speak for our State.
Mr ROSS--The State of Washington has been exhausted--
The CHAIRMAN--It has not been exhausted. We will give you a few minutes.
Mr ROSS--Under the heading of personal privilege. I am not going to take
your time to rehash any controversies referred to in the eloquence from
the State of Washington. I will take sufficient time, however, to tell
you one or two things. The Gentleman, so far as the Delegation from the
State of Washington is concerned, speaks for himself and for no one
else.
Mr JOHNS--Thank God, I do not speak for you! (Applause)
Mr ROSS--The Gentleman who has just spoken sounded the only discordant
note in a meeting of 500 citizens of Seattle where, to a man, they
endorsed Richard Ballinger! (Hisses from the house)
He is the only man in the city of Seattle--
Mr JOHNS--The only thing done in Seattle was what Mr Ross did.
Mr ROSS (turning toward Mr Johns)--I quit and allowed you your three
minutes, although you were not entitled to appear here at all. Now that
you have aroused me to some extent, and since they have kindly consented
that I may be heard for a few moments. I wish to tell this vast audience
that the State of Washington--and I speak solely in my official
capacity, and I am not ashamed of any act I have ever performed--I wish
to say that I served the State of Washington as Assistant
Attorney-General for four years, from 1901 to 1905, all the time dealing
with our State lands. The people of the State of Washington, on my
record there, elected me Commissioner of Public Lands two years ago, and
during the four years that I was Commissioner of Public Lands, I made
the same fight for the State of Washington that I am making now. I made
it in the Navigation Congress, in the Forestry Association--and God
knows how many things there are going on that a busy man cannot keep
track of--and the people of the State of Washington, every man, woman
and child, knew E. W. Ross; they knew his record; they knew his fight;
and in spite of all opposition from everybody in the State, like the
Gentleman who has just spoken, they nominated me by a popular vote two
years ago, and I was--(Commotion in the house, many Delegates leaving).
He says we have given away the water-powers. The State of Washington
commenced her Conservation policy prior to November 11, 1889, when we
were admitted into the Union. We have one provision in our Constitution
relative to water-power that I would rather have in the interests of the
common people than all the discretionary powers you vested in all the
presidents and all the public officers of the National and State
governments. We have a provision in our Constitution like this: the use
of water for irrigation and the like shall forever be a public utility.
You heard Theodore Roosevelt say that it was the intention of the
National Government, upon easy terms, to let the water-power out to
private corporations so that the people of the States could have cheap
electricity and cheap power furnished by these corporate institutions.
And let me say to you, you heard the statements made by Governor Hay, of
my State, as to the accomplishments of the Railway Commission in regard
to the railway companies. In my State, the State Railroad Commission
fixes the proper rate, and that ends it (applause). Our objection to the
movement is this: We are not fanatics; we have conserved beyond the
possibility of any human agency, State and National governments; we have
conserved the people's rights, so that when they need protection of the
law it is vested in our Constitution, and all the people have to do is
to rise up and enforce it (renewed commotion). That is why we do not
wish to surrender those powers to the National Government, or to the
discretion of any man.
Take the power proposition which has been mentioned by the Gentleman:
Neither the State of Washington, the Board of State Land Commissioners
(of which Board I have the honor to be chairman), nor the members of the
State Tax Commission had anything to do with the taking of a site by the
Hanford Irrigation and Power Company--not a thing. Let me tell you what
it was. On Columbia River, some 40 to 60 miles above Kennewick, is what
is known as Priest Rapids. The War Department of the United States
Government is supposed to control Columbia River. It is navigable for
all sorts of crafts both below and above Priest Rapids. By virtue of an
act of the Legislature of 1905, the State of Washington conferred upon
the Reclamation Service of the United States express authority to
appropriate, for its own purposes and the purpose of irrigation, all the
waters of Columbia River and every other stream in the State. The
Reclamation Service, in compliance with that act, filed upon the waters
of Columbia River at Priest Rapids, and, in one particular year, filed
an express relinquishment and abandonment of that project. They stated,
in cold type, that they would never undertake it. And what next? They
consented, in writing, that the Hanford Irrigation Company might have
and enjoy it. The Hanford Company went to the War Department of the
United States, and obtained a permit to build a concrete dam in Columbia
River at Priest Rapids to assist irrigation, and the War Department
consented; and outside of that the Hanford Irrigation and Power Company
has acquired nothing whatever from the State of Washington. But
supposing that the Hanford Irrigation and Power Company is using the
waters of the State of Washington for irrigation and power
purposes--whenever the people of the State of Washington are convinced
that the Hanford Irrigation and Power Company is charging an unjust or
unreasonable price for power, or for water for irrigation, or for the
annual maintenance fee, thank God we have it vested in the Constitution
of the State of Washington that the people can fix the price. That is
our style of Conservation, and that is why we object to Federal control.
I represent the people of the State of Washington (laughter), and I
don't care who says to the contrary, and I am proud to oppose the
surrendering of absolute control by the people in favor of the
discretion of any man.
Mr E. H. FOURT (of Wyoming)--Mr Chairman, it is now very late. I was not
able to attend this morning and submit a report or an address. I will
present this report, and move the Congress that it be printed in the
record as a report from Wyoming.
The CHAIRMAN--The paper will be received, if there is no objection. (The
paper was handed to the Secretary.)
Mr B. A. FOWLER (of Arizona)--In answer to the call for Arizona, I want
to say that at present Arizona is a Territory. One year from now, at the
next Conservation Congress, we hope that Arizona will be a State
(applause), and that at that time we will make a State report of which
you will not be ashamed. (Applause)
Mr G. M. HUNT (of the District of Columbia)--Mr Chairman: I simply want
to announce the fact that the District of Columbia is on the map
(applause). Lots and lots of folks are under the impression that the
District of Columbia only exists from the second Tuesday after the first
Monday in December until Congress adjourns (laughter); but, on the
contrary, the District of Columbia is on the map 365 days in the year.
Further than that, we have a Chamber of Commerce that is working 24
hours a day during that 365 days. Still further, this Chamber of
Commerce has authorized and directed me to present an invitation to this
National Conservation Congress to hold its next annual session in the
District of Columbia. Washington, D. C., is the capital of the Nation;
it is your home; it is _your_ capital; you have helped to make it what
it is, and it is time that you should get there and see how we have
spent your money. The Far West has been converted to Conservation, and
with the setting of tomorrow's sun the Middle West will have been
converted; and we feel that we of the East need conversion, and we want
you to come to Washington in 1911 and convert us. I thank you.
(Applause)
Mr HENRY A. BARKER (of Rhode Island)--I think, at this late hour, it is
not right to take very much time of the Congress. I take pleasure in
filing the report of the Conservation Commission of the State of Rhode
Island.
About three weeks ago the Legislature of Rhode Island established the
Conservation Commission on a new and more efficient basis than that
which previously existed. Of course I might spend a great deal of time
in telling you that Rhode Island, like every other State that we have
heard from so far, is by far the grandest and most splendid of all the
States of the Nation (laughter and applause); but I think, under the
circumstances, I will confine myself to reading the last paragraph of
the report, I will file in order to show you the position Rhode Island
occupies in certain matters. "Rhode Island has awakened to vital things,
but even if it had only an indirect interest in Conservation it would
still feel that it owed its moral influence to the country as a whole,
and that it is not a selfish little 2-cent Republic all by its lonesome,
but a part of a great Nation that prefers to be governed from
Washington"--I mean Washington, D. C. (laughter)--"rather than from Wall
Street. It prefers to belong to a Nation whose prosperity and power and
glory need the cooperation and loyalty of every one of its citizens." I
thank you. (Applause)
The CHAIRMAN: It has just been called to my attention that several
Delegates who have spoken for their States have not handed in their
names; they will be privileged to hand their names and addresses, with
the remarks that they have made, to the Secretary.
Professor L. C. WHITE (of West Virginia)--West Virginia has been
overlooked; it is on the map. I will not take much of your time,
Gentlemen; only enough to say that West Virginia has so far fought a
losing game on the question of Conservation with reference to our oil
and gas resources. The great corporations have wasted natural gas in
West Virginia to the value of from $200,000,000 to $300,000,000, and
this is still going on at the rate of a quarter of million of cubic feet
daily. Our late Governor Dawson appointed a Commission on Conservation,
and it made an able report; but the legislators, who are largely
controlled by the corporations, have taken no notice of it whatever. The
only thing actually done in the way of Conservation was the
establishment of a State game and fire warden, who has some power in the
way of stopping the forest fires--thanks to one great Conservationist,
Mr Gifford Pinchot (applause), through whose great influence we have
made some advance in the preservation of our natural resources. And the
State of West Virginia also owes a debt of gratitude to Dr Joseph A.
Holmes, whom the President recently appointed Director of the Bureau of
Mines; at his instance an expert was sent from the great laboratory at
Pittsburg to the mines of West Virginia to investigate the causes of
mine explosions--through whom we learned that the dust of the mines
would explode,--and that expert sacrificed his life in a West Virginia
mine. The former method of mining has now been entirely abolished, and
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, out of the sixty or seventy
thousand miners of West Virginia not a single human life has been lost
as the result of dust explosion (applause). And now that Dr Holmes is at
the head of that great bureau (placed there against the wishes of some
of the members of the cabinet of President Taft), we are sure that other
discoveries in certain lines will be made in West Virginia for the
conservation of human life. (Applause)
Mr E. L. WORSHAM (of Georgia)--Mr Chairman, I want to report that
Georgia, too, is on the map. I am not going to take your time in an
attempt to make a speech or even a report. There are a number of
problems I wanted to discuss, but in view of the fact that I know all of
you have had more Conservation than you can digest in one evening, I
forbear. I do want to say, however, that the West and the Northwest are
not the only sections of the country which are interested in
Conservation. Coming from one of the oldest States of the Union (one of
the original thirteen) I can say that there is a greater demand for
systematic Conservation in our section of the country than there is in
any other. We can appreciate the value of Conservation. Nature has been
exceedingly kind to this section of the country in the distribution of
natural resources. Georgia was originally the chief gold-producing State
of the Union. She still has rich mineral resources. She has water-power
enough to run all the mills in the Southern States and then have some to
spare. I can appreciate thoroughly what the water-power proposition
means, because we are up against that same proposition now, wherein the
large corporations are trying to gobble up the water-power sites: and
that is one of the main problems of Conservation which confronts the
people of Georgia today and will be fought before the State Legislature;
and I want to assure you, right now, that we are going to depend upon
the National Government for aid in propositions of this kind. (Applause)
We are interested in Conservation, but our time is too valuable to be
wasted in the discussion of States' rights, because our people fought
out that question forty-five years ago (applause). My father spent four
long years fighting on that problem, and we consider that it has been
solved to the satisfaction of the great majority (applause).
I want to endorse what Mr Pinchot said this morning in behalf of the
work which the women have done for Conservation. I don't know how it is
in the North; but with us the women are the moulders of sentiment, and
they have been fighting in this movement for a number of years
(applause). We are going to hold a Southern Conservation Congress in
Atlanta on October 7 and 8 (applause). That movement is backed by 25,000
women in the State of Georgia, by the various women's clubs, by the
press, and by all the leading citizens. If there are any factions, they
have not made their appearance as yet. We are going to make that
Congress a success. We plead for your cooperation, because we need all
the help we can get. (Applause)
A number of telegrams were read.
The CHAIRMAN--If there is nothing further before us--
Mr BENJAMIN MARTIN, JR.--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: The hour is
growing late, and it is my pleasure to rise for the purpose of offering
a motion to adjourn; but before making that motion, as a Delegate from
Oklahoma, and speaking for the other Delegates, I wish to thank the good
people of Minnesota, and more especially the people of the Twin Cities,
for the delightful manner in which they have entertained us. As we
return to our homes, we do so with the most pleasant memories of our
visit to this great metropolis. One great inspiration to me, and to most
of the Delegates, has been the attendance of ladies at the various
sessions. Now, without further comment, I move that this Congress
adjourn _sine die_.
Chairman WHITE--Without objection, the Congress will stand adjourned: it
is adjourned.
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
LAWS THAT SHOULD BE PASSED
FRANCIS G. NEWLANDS
_Senior Senator From Nevada_
Regretting my inability to address the Conservation Congress personally
on the subject assigned to me, I submit my views briefly by telegraph.
Conservation legislation necessarily involves harmonious action by
forty-seven sovereigns, the Nation and the States, each acting within
its jurisdiction. As the legislative bodies cannot confer together, it
is necessary that there should be some intermediate organization which
will bring about team work. There should be a National Commission and
State commissions which can act together, as well as separately, in
recommending needed legislation. A reactionary Congress disregarded
Roosevelt's recommendations on this subject, but the progressive
sentiment of the country will not brook further resistance; and the bill
for the appointment by the President of a National Conservation
Commission composed of publicists and experts in civil, hydraulic, and
electric engineering, in arid and swamp land reclamation, in
transportation, and in mining and lumbering, reported by the Senate
Conservation Committee at the last session, should surely pass. With
Roosevelt as chairman, and Garfield, Pinchot, Newell, and the Chief of
Engineers of the Army as members of this Commission, we would have the
men who in practical administration have become more thoroughly informed
regarding the natural resources of this country than any others.
As to the land laws: It is evident that for years large portions of the
public domain have been gradually drifting into private and monopolistic
ownership under antiquated and misfit land laws utterly unadapted to
existing economic conditions, and therefore stimulating fraud in their
evasion and perversion. Legislators outside of the public land States
have taken little interest in the subject, relying mainly upon the
States involved to suggest legislation. Had the Senators and
Representatives from the public land States counseled together
continuously, patiently, and tolerantly regarding the land laws, as they
did regarding the Reclamation Act, the confusion and scandal and the
prosecutions of the past six years would have been lessened, and a wise
solution of needed legislation would have been evolved and accepted by
the country. At the next session of Congress such a council of western
Senators and Representatives should be held, and the present deadlock of
conflicting views ended. In shaping laws regarding the public lands the
central idea should be a rational development, without monopoly or
waste; the establishment of individual homes upon the agricultural
lands; the utilization of the forests and the coal, iron, and oil
deposits under conditions that will enlist the aid of needed capital
without monopolistic exaction or excessive prices; and the improvement
of our waterways, regardless of State lines, so as to promote every use
to which civilization can put them, and in that connection secure team
work on the part of the various services, National and State, engaged
upon them, as well as the cooperation of the Nation and the States, each
within its appropriate jurisdiction in the work to be done and the
expenditures to be made.
Until comprehensive plans are developed, the Nation should not part
permanently with the title to any lands suited for the development of
water-power, the promotion of navigation, or the establishment of
transfer facilities and sites, but should hold the National properties
in such shape that they may be utilized in the working out of
comprehensive plans involving the union of National and State powers. In
forming these plans it should be borne in mind that the Nation holds the
public domain, not for National profit, but in trust for the population,
present and future, of the public land States which welcome immigration
from other States whose surplus population there finds a resting place.
The money realized either from sale or rentals should therefore be
applied to the schools, roads, reclamation projects, and other public
development of the States in which the lands are located.
The ultimate purpose of the laws should be to gradually substitute State
sovereignty for National sovereignty in the direction and control of
this great public trust; but great care should be taken not to
prematurely turn over the trust to States too weak to resist powerful
combinations and monopolies, or until the organization of adequate
public regulation and control is effected.
CONSERVATION OF THE NATION'S RESOURCES
J. B. WHITE
_Chairman of the Executive Committee of the National Conservation
Congress_
In the division of the program set apart for discussion there are many
ideas and inquiries crowded upon our minds for expression; and while
much will be made clearer to us, there will be many questions that will
remain to us unanswered.
Perhaps we may first ask ourselves: Why are we here? What came we here
to do? What is Conservation? To whom does it apply? Who are
Conservationists? And who are enemies of Conservation? Are there any,
and why? What special principles must we subscribe to in order to be
known as sufficiently orthodox in creed that we will be received as
worthy disciples in this cause? And who but ourselves (and each for one
another) shall pass upon our credentials as to our honesty of purpose in
this great work? To whom are we answerable but to ourselves, the people?
And why should a great congress of thousands of American people meet
here, as we are doing this week, on this occasion, when we have a legal
Congress in Washington representing every district in this broad land,
whose members we have elected to make such laws as are necessary for our
present and future welfare?
The answer seems to be that this assemblage represents a popular
upheaval of public sentiment, animated and encouraged by those who have
thought along advanced lines and are pioneers in this cause in the press
and on the rostrum; some of whom have been right, and others of whom
were almost wholly wrong. We are here to discuss these features, to
winnow the chaff from the golden grain in this agitation of thought
which we trust will be the beginning of wisdom, to be crystallized as
far as practicable into proper National and State laws for the
regulation of Conservation of public resources, and that the people may
become awakened to that greater saving principle of personal and private
Conservation. It is we, the people, instead of we, the politicians, who
are and should be most in evidence at this Congress.
It has been said that knowledge is power. It is perhaps a better truism
to say that action, with knowledge, is power. Knowledge without action
would avail little; and action without knowledge would be groping in the
dark. But with knowledge and action we can accomplish noble results.
All great reforms and improved conditions spring from the wants, needs,
and consciences of a dissatisfied people. Sometimes the needed relief
comes through an armed and sometimes through a peaceful revolution. Some
man looms up above his fellows from the sea of unrest and his greatness
is proven by his devotion to the cause, free from the selfish thought of
personal aggrandizement; and by his wisdom and tact he creates
confidence in his judgment, in his sagacity, in his fitness for
leadership. So few there are who are willing to bear the cross from this
high sense of duty and offer themselves a mark for calumny and
vituperation, and often in many ways to become a sacrifice to a people's
cause! And when one is found, it frequently happens that the public are
slow in showing their gratitude and appreciation for what his
discernment and discretion saved to a nation; the reward of proper
recognition is often withheld until long after he is dead, because he
lived in advance of his time.
But there are fictitious and exaggerated issues which are created and
developed to huge proportions for the dear people by the sleek
politician (and his name is Legion) who sets up his scarecrow of
impending woe that he may rush valiantly in and save his constituents
and the citizens of a nation from dire calamity, and generations unborn
from distress and want. It is not my purpose to attempt to lull to sleep
in fancied security those who have been influenced by those suspected of
being unnecessarily active in fighting windmills. Always there is need
of sound, conservative consideration before taking hasty action, and the
people are becoming better informed and more critical in their
discriminations, and are learning to know the loud-mouthed pretender
from the thoughtful, loyal, public-spirited citizen. People now are
doing their own thinking. Time was not long ago when the greatest
newspapers of largest circulation manufactured public opinion so
successfully that they were the great thinking machines for the country.
It was so much easier for the people than doing the actual thinking and
logical reasoning for themselves. People read the editorials of their
respective journals in order to get ideas to use in their arguments
with each other. I think that as an educator the newspapers then, as
now, served a most valuable purpose, but it is infinitely of more help
to the thinking man, who criticizes and analyzes what he reads before he
accepts and assimilates it as his own. The pen has been mightier than
the sword, and the "power of the press" has matured and developed
conditions that had to be arbitrated by the sword.
_The People Deceived_
Much harm has been done by wrong thinking in regard to Conservation, and
the people have been deceived and prejudiced; and like a strong man
awakening from a sleep they have reached out in alarm to search for and
punish, in advance of ascertaining what, if anything, was really the
matter. Innocent people and innocent industries were maligned and
injured. The public are now finding that they have been deceived by the
scheming politicians, and by highly colored newspaper comments, and that
"Conservation" has been used as a trick word and is not what they
thought it was. They had been led to believe that it was something that
someone else ought to do, or should be forced to do, and that they were
being robbed because Conservation was not practiced; and that if
Conservation laws should be passed as recommended by these ignorant
agitators they would be greatly benefited; that everything would be
cheaper than they had to pay, and that they could get more for what they
had to sell. They never stopped to reason that Conservation without use
means holding back from development the natural resources of the country
and producing stagnation in business, and that if each succeeding
generation should follow the same policy there never would be any
improvement.
Those whose education never has extended beyond the three Rs can
understand the principles of Conservation in reforestation, reclamation,
and restoration--reforestation where it will pay to reforest;
reclamation where it will pay to reclaim; and restoration where it will
pay to restore to the soil the elements needed, and where forestry will
not pay better.
The great American leader of Conservation always has maintained, and
especially in his speech at the first Conservation Congress a year ago,
that the first principles of Conservation is development of resources
for the benefit of the people who live here now; he stated that there
might be just as much waste in neglecting the development and use of
natural resources as there is in their destruction by wasteful methods.
In the second place, Conservation stands for the prevention of waste;
and in the third place, Conservation stands for the preservation and
perpetuation of our resources through wise economy and thrift. And its
principles apply alike to individuals and to nations. If a policy in any
department of Conservation requires great outlay of money in order to
develop and conserve for this and future generations, then the
Government, the whole people, and succeeding generations may be
rightfully asked to bear part of the expense, which could be done by the
selling of bonds, and by exemption from taxation some products of
growth, like the forests, which are now taxed every year, making the
owners pay taxes for a hundred years to get for the market only one
crop. No other crop is taxed like this. The owners of any one resource
should not bear all the burdens for growing it for future generations;
and, if it does not pay, the soil will be used for other crops which
will pay better.
_True Leaders Misunderstood_
As a matter of fact, the true leaders in intelligent Conservation have
been misunderstood by press and people. The principle has been attacked
as if it meant the non-use of our natural resources by the present
generation. Even in Alaska the best known teachers of Conservation urge
the development of all the resources for the benefit of all the people.
They wish to encourage pioneering on both a small and on a large scale.
It is not the purpose of Conservation to preserve from exploration and
discovery unknown resources if there can be found for new fields men
brave and fearless enough to take the risks of life and of capital. For
instance, when in the prospecting of a country's possibilities, and in
the risks of life and capital incident thereto, there is called into
action every bit of physical or mental energy to meet conditions that
seem insurmountable, it is not our purpose to hamper or retard, and say
that this risk and cost shall be left entirely to future generations. We
are willing to encourage the cutting out of the way, and doing all we
can in this generation, believing that the next generation will find new
duties suited to its advanced condition and change of needful
requirements.
Wise Conservation with use means the maximum of efficiency and profit
with the minimum of waste and cost. We do not wish the few to have
unfair advantage. We desire each and all to have opportunity according
to their talents and their physical or financial abilities, that the
known and unknown resources of a country shall not be gobbled up by a
few without an equal opportunity to others who can furnish the same
needed measure of requirements to insure success. We realize that
corporations are necessary to develop a country; that aggregations of
capital, made up from large and small stockholders of the people, can
accomplish more with less waste than can individuals. They can put in
expensive and saving devices and can operate at a far smaller percentage
of profit.
For example, in gold mining the individual works his placer claim with
simple equipment; he will leave 50 percent as waste. Then the dredging
companies will follow, and get half as much more. Then come the big
hydraulic companies, reaching benches and levels that men with small
capital could not attain. These companies require millions of capital,
and they save the waste and are satisfied with a net profit of a few
cents per ton. Just so with Alaska's coal; Alaska needs the coal, and
all we ask is that some fair method shall be adopted which will best
subserve the requirements and will encourage development.
Conservation and economy must enter into our very life, and every effort
should be made to get the most out of little; to find a use for what now
we are in various ways wasting. In European countries the hard struggles
of the masses have produced the saving habit--a virtue we have got to
learn and practice individually and as a people before Conservation will
become a National success. Unless we halt in our mad extravagances,
perhaps there will come to us in some degree those sad experiences of
suffering that have put the saving principle into the very fiber of the
old world peoples; and we will learn our lesson as they long ago learned
theirs. We must each share the burdens of Conservation, and we all
likewise will share in its blessings.
Conservation is not any one man's opportunity, prerogative, or
privilege. It is for the use and benefit of each and all, and can be
practiced in any business or occupation as an important aid to success.
It is for peasant and prince, rich and poor, and for the Nation as well
as for the individuals. We must discover some effectual means to prevent
disastrous forest fires. We must restore the fertility of our soils.
_The Question of Ownership_
Whether Conservation is best promoted by individual ownership of certain
natural resources is a disputed question, depending on the nature of the
public utilities, the location, and other conditions. Government
ownership does not mean that the Government is going into business
competition with private capital. It means reasonable royalty and
fairness and protection to the lessee, to enable him to compete under
prescribed conditions favorable and just alike to all parties.
In most cases ownership causes a man to see the need of conservation and
economy. The idea of protecting natural resources against waste is not
so strong with some, if they do not have possession; while with others
it is true that possession gives them the desire and opportunity to see
the actual dollars, and they make haste, manufacturing more than the
market demands so that only the prime and best qualities find a market,
which causes a grievous waste. Especially is this true in the lumber
business, but it is not so true in the meat business. The packers of
meat products have studied the science of saving and conservation, so
that the entire carcass is utilized in some useful manner absolutely
without waste. And on the farm the man who is financially able to study
and practice conservation of the soil prevents its exhaustion, while his
poorer neighbor, lacking the funds for the initial expenses, sells the
life of the soil with the crop that he markets, and his farm is soon
impoverished. We, or some of us, believe that there should be some way
of extending State aid at a low rate of interest to the poor farmer to
enable him properly to fertilize his soil; and that the chemistry of
soils and scientific agriculture should be taught in the common schools.
Thus would the entire country be benefited, and National efficiency
strengthened.
_Practical Application_
The science of Conservation, as a philosophy, is wholly independent of
who owns the property; but its successful practical application often
depends very much on ownership. Combinations of capital have the
advantage, and this needed capital gives greater possibilities for
Conservation. Compare the country butcher and his 50-percent waste with
the million-dollar packing house which has no waste. It is not the fault
of Conservation that there are extremes in combinations, resulting in
trusts or monopolies. They are practicing Conservation in the extreme,
in saving of raw material by greater utilization, and by the discovery
of new uses for by-products. The Standard Oil Company is another example
of the very fineness of division and subdivision of by-products, which
finds a place in therapeutics and in the arts, and appear in vaseline,
paints, dyes, and a hundred other valuable chemical products. This is
Conservation. But there are hundreds of ways where Conservation can be
practiced to a profit in every occupation of life, to the physical,
intellectual, and moral betterment of mankind. As corporations are made
up of many individuals to do certain things that are necessary to be
done, which it would be impracticable or impossible for any individual
to do alone, is it not best to recognize them as artificial individuals,
subject to the control as well as to the protection of wise laws, which
permit no individual to prosper at the expense, discomfort or injury of
another individual?
Conservation, as a living, vital principle stands out beyond and above
selfish partisan politics; and no man or combination of men will ever be
able to make a political issue of it any more than you can make the
gospel of spiritual salvation a political issue. But, like the gospel of
spiritual and physical health, it demands the homage and acceptance of
all. There will be many men of many minds, crystallizing by their
combinations into different sentiments, and advocating different
methods. It is so with churches. But their central doctrine of salvation
will continue to be the basis of creed. And ours is Conservation, that
the country and its people may continue to prosper and progress, and
that the principle and practice of love and charity, which make up the
Golden Rule, shall not cease to influence the hearts of men. The great
question to each one should be: Where and how does Conservation apply to
me?
We are here to build the temple, and to bring men up to the standard
which we now unfurl to the world.
The sower goeth forth to sow; some sow to discord and strife, and some
to peace and harmony; some sow to love and some to hate; some sow to
adversity, and some to prosperity; some sow to selfish greed, and some
to philanthropy and public good; some sow to prudence and Conservation,
and some sow to extravagance and waste.
"There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that
witholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty."
"Be ye not deceived. For whatsoever ye sow, that shall ye also reap."
PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF CONSERVATION
A. B. FARQUHAR
_Executive Committeeman National Conservation Congress_
In the forum of argument the Cause of Conservation, as a general
principle and in every detailed application, has already won. When taken
on its own merits, hardly a voice is now raised in opposition. Yet it
has still its enemies, none the less pertinacious or dangerous that
their antagonism is based not on public but on private interest--enemies
who are carrying on a bitter contest by indirect methods, and clouding
the issue by starting side questions. We have all heard of the medical
practitioner who covered his general ignorance of pathology by the
device of inducing fits, which were his specialty. So, when anybody
finds the Conservation policy an obstacle to his pecuniary interest, it
is an easy expedient to cover his inability to overthrow or confute that
policy on point of principle by a display of his skill in exposing real
or fancied weaknesses on irrelevant points.
Instances of this effort to secure an advantage by an adroit befogging
of the question will occur to everyone who has followed the discussion
of our subject. Some of these have been so often exposed that it would
be only wearisome to allude again to them, were it not for the
importance of being on guard at all times on all points against the
crafty contrivings of the enemy.
Let us first consider the confusion of Conservation with hostility to
corporations; of encouragement to enterprise, with license to
destruction of natural resources. It is true that we have heard and read
some vigorous protests recently against grants of timber and
water-rights to certain business corporations, whose profits would be
sharply curtailed by preventing or limiting their free use of the
country's forest and river wealth. Perhaps those protests were stronger
because a combination was to profit by the grants than they would have
been had the beneficiaries been dissociated individuals; what is certain
is that they were decidedly stronger because of a belief that the
concessions were to be granted without exacting for them their full
money value. Yet, even allowing that objections founded on the
principles of Conservation may have been mixed in this case with
objections on other grounds, it is contrary to common-sense to apply to
the former the invalidity or the validity that may be discovered in the
latter. Arguments for Conservation are no more or less sound because
aggregations of capital in large industrial undertakings are dangerous
or useful to the public. As Conservationists, we are not concerned
either to palliate the frequent dangers or to depreciate the frequent
valuable services to the public from such aggregations. But we are
concerned to see that the National resources are not squandered for
private gain, if our best efforts can prevent it.
Another example of a confusion of the question, or raising a false
question, is when a saving of natural resources is identified with
locking them up; as though energy conserved were to be understood as
energy neutralized. Quite the contrary: Conservation means so treating
our resources as to get the most we can from them. In the case of our
forest wealth, as of any other in which there is growth and decay, a
judicious degree of consumption of the product is a necessity. After the
period of most rapid development has been succeeded by a slower rate of
increase, approaching that when losses by accident and by interior
degeneration are barely made up by the growing season, there is
obviously a gain in removing the tree and leaving its place to be filled
by something that will continue to grow. In a properly conserved forest
no tree is left standing until attacked by decay, but each is cut when
its value is greatest, so that the best management is recognized not so
much by the largest amount of standing timber as by the largest yearly
gross increase in growth of timber. It is somewhat similar with
water-power. "The mill never grind with water that is past," so the
power has to be used when it is within our grasp, or be lost.
Conservation of water-power is maintenance of the amount of such power
that so appears, and disappears. It is for use; Conservation for disuse,
in this case, becomes an absurdity. Even as to mineral resources, which
cannot be replaced when once withdrawn, Conservation calls only for
economical use, not for neglect or insufficient use. The argument is
that we have quite as good a right to the enjoyment of the gifts of
Nature as our successors have, but not a right so much better than
theirs as to render a wanton waste of our patrimony justifiable, or even
pardonable.
In connection with this same identification of forest Conservation with
neglect of the forests, we should consider the hasty tendency shown in
some quarters to regard the terrible forest fires of the last few weeks
as proof that we are safer without a woodland than with it, and that
therefore our policy is at fault. But our policy is care, and not
neglect. We would avoid such calamities by preventing them. The recent
fires appear to have been due very largely to carelessness, from
meal-preparation or from smoking in presence of dry combustible
material; and in some instances to actual incendiarism, which was, where
it occurred, a crime no less serious than wilful murder. These forests
might have been safeguarded by an expenditure of one-tenth the loss by
fire, and at no danger to life. Fires from locomotive sparks--a far too
frequent nuisance--should no longer be classed with unavoidable
accidents; for the masses of dried grasses, etc., that make the sparks
dangerous could and should be removed from the track vicinity; or the
locomotives provided with efficient spark-arresters, or oil used instead
of coal. From strictly non-preventable accidents such as lightning,
general conflagrations must be exceedingly rare; and thus the cure for
the entire evil is within the reach of capable caretakers. Where an
efficient forest guard is provided, as experience in European countries
and some American States has demonstrated, these disastrous visitations
are no longer dreaded. To look on a universal removal of our Nation's
tree-wealth as the only remedy, is like the old proposition to drive
rats from the granary by burning the barn.
One more illustration will be enough. It is a great advantage to any
cause when the opposing advocate can be found in error on any point, no
matter how trivial or how far aloof from the essential issue; for then
the convenient presumption of "false in one thing, false in all," can be
raised, and the weakness of the said cause most effectively disguised.
This expedient is at least as good as the famous rule in pleading: "When
you have no case, then abuse the plaintiff's attorney." It is readily
possible, I dare say, to show that some of our Conservationist champions
may have in a few cases underestimated the life yet remaining to our
National resources. Estimate in these matters is necessarily uncertain,
few or none of the elements of the calculation being well ascertained.
This is particularly true of our mineral supply. The time when our
coal, for example, may be expected to become practically exhausted
cannot be set within a hundred years, for we cannot gauge the stock in
veins out of sight, nor foresee the rate at which the use of coal will
be accelerated. But it would seem sufficient to know that, at the
present rate of extraction (the amount mined in 1906, as the figures
show, excelled all previous records, and yet the increase in 1907 over
1906 was more than the total annual supply 10 years earlier), no finite
quantity could indefinitely survive; hence more attention must be paid
to avoiding the present lavish waste in mining, as well as applying
water-power and wind-power wherever adapted to do the work now done by
burning coal. These economies should be introduced now from choice, not
left till the disappearance of our fuel-supply drives us to them by
force. It is a wretched business to allow our boast that "The country's
coal supply is good for many hundreds of years yet" to uphold us in the
reckless waste we now make of it.
But I attempted to cover the whole field of Conservation in an address
at our first Congress, and will not repeat but, in conclusion, will
touch upon that form of Conservation which all will concede to be of
supreme importance--the Conservation of the most precious asset of the
State: its men, women, and children. If the life and health of citizens
is sacrificed, by vicious measures or by simple neglect, no saving of
any other of our possessions will at all avail us. The importance of
efforts, on a National scale, for the maintenance of public health has
been proved by ample experience, and we should see to the continuance,
and especially to the proper organization, of such efforts. An important
step in that direction is the proposed formation of a Department of
Health under the Federal Government, as contemplated in the bill so ably
championed by Senator Owen at the last session of Congress. Our race is
a prey to epidemics which extend far beyond State boundaries, arising
from causes that often require long-continued and expensive
investigations for their determination and their counteraction; and it
is obvious that any effectual work against them must be under charge of
the General Government. The clear and cogent reasons for this view have
again and again been given by sanitary experts, and it is needless to
repeat them. The matter is of sufficient importance to call for action
from our Congress, and a resolution favoring a Department of Health, at
the National Capital ought surely to meet with no opposition. I would
propose the following resolutions:
_Resolved_, That this Congress declares its hearty approval of
the opinion made public last week by our honored Chief
Executive, President Taft, that his party and his
Administration are pledged "to make better provisions for
securing the health of the Nation. The most tangible and useful
form that this can take would be the establishment of a
National Bureau of Health, to include all the health agencies
of the Government now distributed in different departments."
_Resolved_, That we accept, in principle, the "Health
Department" bill of Senator Owen now pending, and strongly
recommend that that measure, suitably amended where necessary,
be enacted into law.
_Resolved_, That our Secretary be directed to communicate a
resolution advocating a Department of Health to the members of
the National Senate and House of Representatives, and that our
own membership be urged to use all their individual influence
to aid the passage of the measure hereby recommended.
REPORT FROM ARKANSAS
SID B. REDDING
_Secretary Arkansas Conservation Commission_
Progress has been made in the Conservation movement in Arkansas through
the recent organization of the Arkansas Conservation Commission. Up to
this time we have had no legislation along Conservation lines, and our
Conservation Commission is one whose members serve without compensation.
The Commission was appointed by our present Governor, and its officers
are George W. Donaghey, _Chairman_, and Sid B. Redding, _Secretary_. The
Commission has effected a permanent organization, and its membership
includes some of the leading business and professional men of our State.
The Arkansas Legislature will convene in January, 1911, and at that time
Governor Donaghey will perhaps recommend legislation covering a fixed
Conservation policy for our State.
REPORT FROM COLORADO
FRANK C. GOUDY
_President Colorado Conservation Commission_
The Colorado Conservation Commission is composed of thirty-six members
appointed by the Governor of the State February 17, 1909, with Mr Frank
C. Goudy designated as Chairman. The Commission met on call to organize
March 11, 1909, at which time Mr Goudy, the Chairman, was elected
President of the Commission for the ensuing year, and the following
subjects were fixed upon as embracing the general scope of Conservation
in Colorado, viz: Lands, Waters, Minerals, Forestry, and Natural
History. Standing Committees were appointed and put in charge of these
five divisions of labor.
The organization is composed of men holding all shades of opinion
concerning Conservation. Some think the Federal Government should turn
over to the State all the public domain within its borders, together
with its natural resources of every kind; that the State should own and
control the public land and all it contains. Others hold that these
transfers from the Federal Government to the State should be made, but
that they should be subject to conditions to be named in the grant,
providing adequate protection against monopoly and other objectionable
control. Still others believe there should be cooperation with the
General Government, at least until such laws are enacted as will assist
in the work of Conservation and until the State is better prepared,
financially, to meet the expense necessarily attending such a work.
There are many others who believe in the continued Federal control of
the public domain and its resources.
Including the first meeting, five sessions have been held, each
occupying two days. In connection with the several sessions already
held, considerable labor has been performed. Many papers have been read,
numerous addresses have been delivered, and the Standing Committees have
made sundry carefully prepared reports. Of the papers read, more than
half have been given by persons not members of the Commission, not for
lack of readiness on the part of our own people, but to divide this
feature of the work with the public at large. It has never been
difficult to secure speakers either inside or outside of the Commission.
The Commission itself is composed of a body of more than ordinary
intelligence. The Annual Meeting was marked with a banquet to emphasize
the passing of the year. The last meeting, April 18-19, 1910, was
devoted entirely to the subject of the water-power resources of the
State. Numerous letters from men prominent at Washington were received
and read, and five papers were given by persons interested in the
subject. All phases of the question were presented, and the most mature
thought of the present time was elicited.
One of the duties of the Secretary of the Commission is to take notice
of any unlawful waste or destruction of natural resources and report the
same to the proper authorities. This work has been sufficiently pursued
to disclose a field calling for special attention--one that calls for
legislative recognition, authority, and assistance.
It may be of interest to the Congress to know something of the
resolutions that have been adopted by this Commission. A brief abstract
of the elements of a few will suffice to show how the body stands on the
subject of Conservation.
1--A hearty endorsement of the general policy of the Government in
control and conservation of the resources of the Nation.
2--Hearty cooperation between the State and Nation in Conservation.
3--That all plans of Conservation should safeguard against monopoly.
4--That in disposing of water-power sites, all franchises should be
limited to a reasonable period to prevent monopoly and regulate charges.
5--That in taxing forested lands, no account should be taken of the
timber until it is cut and sold.
6--That all afforested lands over one acre and not over ten acres on a
tract of 160 acres should be exempt from taxation for a period of ten
years.
7--That the State, by proper laws and reasonable appropriations, should
cooperate with the General Government in the protection of the forests
within the State from fire and lawless depredations of every kind.
Among other things, a committee has been appointed to prepare and submit
to the next meeting a brief and clear statement, for general
circulation, as to what Conservation is and what it is not; what it
stands for, and what it seeks to do. The purpose is to clear away the
haze of misunderstanding and misapprehension in the public mind
concerning it.
The Commission is about to publish a full report of its proceedings,
covering the five sessions already held.
In closing this statement, it may not be out of place to say that
nature has been lavish of resources in our State--they are many and
abundant, but in a certain measure undeveloped, and, so far, we have had
no leisure to take up matters not directly and specifically local to
Colorado, except in cases where they are necessarily general.
REPORT FROM FLORIDA
CROMWELL GIBBONS
_Florida Conservation Commission_
The spirit of Conservation prevaileth everywhere in these modern times,
and for the reason that during the past several years vicious attacks
have been made upon the National resources throughout the length and
breadth of our land, and to such a marvelous extent that our whole
people have awakened to the fact that something must be done and at once
if we wish to preserve our general resources sufficiently to care for
those we expect to come after us, and who are dependent on our country
for an honest and successful living. We have been greedy and selfish in
the past, and now is the time for us to curb this vicious appetite and
think of those who are to come hereafter. Modern times have come to
stay, but the spirit of Conservation will grow until we have
accomplished the grand results of providing proper protection to our
forests, mineral wealth, lands, water-power and waterways, and last but
not the least our various climates that God Almighty has given us to
conserve the health of our people.
Much is said as to the methods to be adopted and what necessary
legislation should take place to obtain actual results of Conservation.
The idea of giving absolute control over the forests, the inland
waterways, and the public lands confined within the States to the
National Government is repugnant to me and I believe to all of the
people of my State. It has too much the tinge of centralization of power
in the Federal Government, and we have had enough of this already. The
notion that giving the States power and control is in favor of the
special interests is ridiculous when we look back and know what has
already been done by the Federal Government giving away some of its most
valuable resources to the trust-monopoly corporations of the country,
and we view in comparison what the States have done where they have
controlled many of these resources. I have but to call your attention to
what we are doing in Florida and have done the past several years in the
way of Conservation. We realized some years ago that our public lands
were fast being absorbed by the railways operating in our State, and
that the time would soon be at hand when our people would be unable to
secure homesteads, and immigration to our great State would be unable to
place that energy with the soil of our State and bring about the
development of resources we were entitled to through the natural course
of developments. We had within our borders a vast empire of land, over
4,000,000 acres of fertile land known as the Everglades, all of which
was looked upon by the land grabbers as not worth 15 cents an acre; but
greatly to his credit, to Governor Napoleon B. Broward, now our nominee
for United States Senator, is due the reclamation of this property and a
saving to the State of lands now valued at over $35,000,000. Against
great political odds and vigorous contests, the policies of Governor
Broward were endorsed; and after much litigation through the State and
Federal courts we have been able to conserve this vast area of land by
drainage under State supervision and at the expense of the State. The
policy was greatly doubted, but it has proven a grand success in that
the State, securing title to these lands, successfully sold half of the
same at a price sufficient to build the necessary dredges and pay for
the work of the draining of the entire tract of property by carrying the
surplus waters from Lake Okeechobee through the trunk canals to the
waters of the Gulf and to Atlantic Ocean. The work that is now going on
has accomplished over 100 miles of main canals with locks to preserve
sufficient water for the purpose of irrigation in dry spells. When the
work is completed, which will be inside of three years, the State will
have provided over 275 miles of canals with the lateral canals
approaching the properties of the various owners, all of which will not
only result in giving the necessary drainage and irrigation but will
also furnish water transportation to the Gulf and to the inland water
route from Key West to Jacksonville (a distance of about 500 miles), as
well as deep-sea connections at the various ports along this route. By
this State Conservation we are giving to the people one of the richest
bodies of fertile lands in the United States, a territory greater than
the States of Rhode Island and Connecticut combined, every inch of which
will grow either sugar-cane or truck of all kinds through winter and
summer. These lands will produce at least three crops a year, and to the
industrious citizen who desires to live in a country that will give
renewed youth and a climate unexcelled and a living independent of the
world. I know of none that can be found better located to give the
results than this vast empire known as the Everglades, so promptly
conserved by our State Government and our people.
We are also interested in another line of Conservation, and that is the
preservation of our pine forests and the prohibiting of the destruction
of our sapling trees which have been attacked by those who are greedy
for wealth and have no regard for the future. Much will be accomplished
in this direction, as our people are absolutely opposed to the complete
destruction of the forests, as it will provide no future for our timber
markets; and destruction of our pine forests would undoubtedly affect
our climate, which by all means should be conserved as well as the
timber for the building of our homes of the future.
It may be as well for me to call your special attention to the fact
that, in addition to this great work of Conservation I have related in
reference to the saving of public land and our efforts in the direction
of saving the forests, our State has for several years aided in a public
way in the building of the great inland waterway along the Atlantic
coast within the State of Florida. These canals have been made during
the past 15 years, until now we have a thorough water route from Saint
John's River southward connecting streams and inlets until there has
been dug over 300 miles of canal, giving this great waterway and
enabling the people along the eastern coast sections a cheap means of
transportation to the railway center of the State at Jacksonville.
I think that we have done our part toward Conservation, and all under
the jurisdiction and authority of our State. There has been no effort at
graft, but all have worked in harmony in the interests of the public
welfare, thus demonstrating (so far as Florida is concerned) that she is
able to control her own affairs; and all she asks of the National
Government is its aid and assistance.
REPORT FROM IDAHO
JEROME J. DAY
We believe that, in the interest of the United States and the State of
Idaho, the agricultural land within the forest reserves of Idaho should
be opened to settlement and made available for home building; and that
the decision as to whether land is good agricultural land or not should
be referred to those who are primarily agriculturists, rather than to
those who are primarily arboriculturists, and to those who are familiar
with farming in Idaho rather than to those who are familiar only with
farming in general.
We believe that the protection of the forests of Idaho and the safety of
life and property in Idaho require that good roads be built along the
lines of streams leading into the heart of the forest reserves; and that
the land along these roads, whether valuable for agriculture, timber, or
mineral, should be open to entry, with such provisions in relation to
habitation and improvement as will secure the presence, between the
months of June and September, of a local fire-fighting force, consisting
of men who know the country, have a financial interest in the locality,
and are skilled in the use of the axe and in methods of fighting a
forest fire.
We believe in the separate classification of coal lands, oil lands,
phosphate and mineral lands; and we believe in the administration of
those lands in such a way as to prevent waste, promote safety in mining,
and defeat monopoly. We do not believe in a policy for revenue in
relation to these lands. The revenues to be derived should be
incidental, and belong of right to the State of Idaho.
We believe in the cooperation of the State and the National Government
in the conservation and utilization of the water-power within the State
of Idaho.
We will recommend that the Governor of Idaho call a convention or
congress to consider questions relating to home Conservation in Idaho,
and to recommend policies and legislation and a system of administration
for all forms of public wealth that lie within the borders of the State.
REPORT FROM INDIANA
A. E. METZGER
_Indiana Conservation Commission_
The Indiana Conservation Commission was appointed by former Governor
Frank P. Hawley shortly before he left the gubernatorial chair. The
Commission as appointed by Governor Thomas R. Marshall, his successor,
consists of nine members with Mr Henry Riesenberg as chairman. The
Commission, through its chairman, made an effort to get a bill through
the Legislature, making an appropriation for the use of the Commission,
but it failed to pass. Governor Marshall was repeatedly urged to set
aside a small sum out of the contingent fund so that an investigation
could be made and published, but this the Governor has repeatedly
declined to do, and it is thought he is not very favorably disposed
toward the cause of Conservation. Having no means the Commission could
do absolutely nothing, and hence may be said to be in a state of
"innocuous desuetude."
Mr Riesenberg, the chairman, has, however, lectured on the subject
throughout the State, visiting many points, giving his time freely and
defraying the expenses out of his own pocket. He has also written
innumerable articles for the papers of Indiana, and these, together with
his lectures, have served to keep the subject alive; and Indianians are
probably as well informed and as fully alive to the subject as people in
any other State.
REPORT FROM IOWA
A. C. MILLER
_Chairman Iowa State Drainage, Waterways and Conservation Commission_
I have been asked to prepare for your consideration and information a
history of the Conservation movement in Iowa, reviewing briefly the work
done by the State Drainage, Waterways and Conservation Commission.
The sentiment toward the Conservation of our natural resources has been
developing gradually for a number of years, keeping pace with the
development that has been aroused throughout the country. So far as Iowa
is concerned, it was augmented greatly through the efforts of the
commercial bodies throughout the State, and especially of those of the
city of Des Moines, when during the year 1907 they inaugurated a
movement which had for its object the securing of an appropriation by
Congress to be used in surveying three of our principal streams in order
that we might determine whether or not they were subject to improvement
for navigation, and for the further purpose of ascertaining the value of
the water-power which might be developed if the rivers were improved for
navigation.
Great interest was manifested by our people, and we were finally
successful in securing an appropriation by Congress for a survey of the
larger of the three rivers, the Des Moines; and the United States
Government has at this time a corps of some 30 engineers at work. They
expect to finish their work early in 1911.
The Thirty-third General Assembly of Iowa convened in December, 1908,
and remained in session until the following spring. The sentiment had
been aroused to such an extent at this time that there seemed to be a
general demand for the creation of some kind of a Commission to take
these matters up and work them out intelligently for the good of our
people and report with recommendations to the next General Assembly. It
seemed hard, however, for all to unite on a general plan. Portions of
our State demanded a Commission for dealing with the question of
drainage only, leaving it to other Commissions to handle the question of
water transportations, forestry, and water-power. A compromise was
finally made, and this Commission was created. It is composed of seven
members appointed by the Governor: A. C. Miller, _Chairman_, L. W.
Anderson, E. A. Burgess, A. F. Frudden, T. W. Keerl, Thomas H. McBride,
and W. H. Stevenson.
_Duties Defined_
_First_--To investigate the present condition of public drainage in Iowa
and the benefits which can be derived from the best drainage engineering
practice, the most economical administration of drainage projects, and a
more economical best method of procedure to bring about the development
of the water-power of those benefits may be secured.
_Second_--To investigate the present condition of all overflow of
flood-plain lands of Iowa, showing losses due to floods in the
destruction of farm crops, the losses due to the destruction of property
in the cities and towns and built-up districts, the losses due to the
withdrawal from crop cultivation of such flooded lands, and recommending
the proper methods of preventing such flood conditions.
_Third_--To investigate and survey at least one representative Iowa
river to ascertain the available dam sites and the potential water-power
and report the best method of procedure to bring about the development
of the water-powers of the State, at the same time retaining the
ultimate control of the water supply as a property of the State.
_Fourth_--To cooperate with the United States survey provided by act of
Congress and investigate the possibilities of navigation upon the rivers
or upon adjoining lands by canal, and to secure the aid of the
Government experts when practicable in the several matters investigated
by this Commission.
_Fifth_--To investigate the questions of forests and their preservation
and culture in the State, especially with reference to the influence of
forests on the flood conditions of the rivers and the erosion and waste
of the soils.
_Sixth_--It is the clear intent and purpose of the act providing for the
Commission that the close interrelation of the several phases of river
development shall be shown, and the necessity for a broad, comprehensive
treatment of our rivers shall be studied and reported upon.
_Seventh_--The general question of the relation of the State to the
preservation of the fertility of the Iowa soils.
_Eighth_--The general question of the wise and conservative development
and use of the mineral resources of the State, especially with reference
to the mining of coal.
_Ninth_--The general question of the nature and condition of such lakes
in Iowa as now belong to the State, and the relation of lakes and
streams to the preservation of such varieties of fish, birds, and native
animals as are desirable which now belong to the State.
_Members Serve Without Pay_
We have but $5,000 to carry on the expenses of our two years' work. Out
of this must be paid our secretary and office expenses, and the cost of
printing our reports and whatever field work is done by the engineers.
It would seem that the great State of Iowa, producing annually more than
$600,000,000 of wealth could well afford to have been more liberal in
appropriating for this work. The task assigned surely is no small one.
_Work of the Commission_
We have begun to compile our report for the printers, and expect to
present a report that will be valuable for future reference and we hope
of much interest to our people.
We have investigated the drainage conditions over the State quite
extensively, and undertaken to ascertain the number of acres of land not
available for agriculture through lack of drainage. We will have
recommendations to make pertaining to this question, but have not yet
worked out any plan for financing cost at reduced rates. This will be
considered later, but the Iowa farmer has money and is not so much
interested in having the interest rates for carrying his debt reduced,
as he is in getting the first cost reduced.
_Water-Power_
We have investigated and surveyed a number of water-power sites and are
more and more impressed with the importance of the State looking after
them and seeing that the control does not slip away. No estimate has yet
been made as to the value of the undeveloped water-power of the State,
but I will venture that it will be shown to be several millions of
dollars. If not looked after, it will be but a short time until it will
be under the control of individuals or private corporations. Almost
invariably wherever our engineers have gone, they either find the
engineer for some crowd of individuals--for some corporation--on the
job, or find that he has preceded them. I will cite one example in our
State: On Cedar River, at Moscow, individuals are planning the
construction of a great dam which will store an immense body of water.
They have 7,500 acres of land already acquired, adding greatly to the
power developed by the natural flow of the river itself. When this dam
is completed, it will turn from the channel into a canal practically the
entire discharge of the river at low stage, carrying it around the
country to the city of Muscatine, with an average fall of about ninety
feet, developing 25,000 horse-power, and finally discharging the water
into the Mississippi, never returning to the original channel from which
it was taken. A syndicate plans to finance this proposition on a basis
of $3,000,000, and if unmolested the probability is that it will be
carried out successfully. The Commission, however, is powerless, being a
temporary creation with its duties defined. We, therefore, can only call
attention in our report and urge upon our Legislature that it take some
action toward protecting our people in their rights in these matters.
We are working in perfect harmony with the United States Government
engineers who are on the Des Moines River work at this time. We expect
much from them in the way of information that we can use in our report.
Iowa is interested in some 900 miles of navigable streams, either
touched by her borders or within her territory, and we hope some day to
again reap the benefit of being able to load and unload freight at docks
within the corporate limits of our beautiful capital city, as we did for
many years in its early history; and not only Des Moines but all the
cities bordering on the great Mississippi or the equally great Missouri.
Iowa occupies a proud position among the States today, rich in fertile
soil, rich in minerals, coals, and shales, blessed with a happy and
contented people; if given the benefit of improved waterways like the
Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Missouri, making them great highways; and
if at the same time permitted to improve our tributary rivers and the
water-powers of this great Central West, it will make a mighty empire of
itself--and Iowa, magnificent State that she is, will be in the center
of it all.
We are not yet so far advanced with our work that I am able to tell you
what the Commission will or will not recommend to the next Legislature.
I am firm in the belief that a permanent Commission should be created,
with a liberal appropriation for carrying forward the work. Possibly the
field now covered by our Commission should be divided. It would seem
that the drainage interests of the State would be of sufficient
importance to justify the employment of a State engineer, and possibly
the question of drainage would receive the entire attention of some
State board. There is a great work that can be done by our Commission in
the future if the State should see fit to make it permanent and
appropriate the money to carry forward the work. The beautifying of our
meandered lakes is something that is attracting the attention of our
people, and would prove a popular move if started. They are also
becoming much interested in the treatment and handling of soils, and
much good would ultimately result to our farmers if this phase of
Conservation was handled intelligently and carefully. Professor
Stevenson, of the Iowa State Agricultural College, a member of this
Commission, is recognized as an expert in this line of Conservation
work, and I believe that his part of the report when published will be
instructive and interesting. I can only hope that enough interest will
be aroused throughout our State to influence the next Legislature to put
the Commission on a permanent basis, furnishing the means to carry on
the great work.
REPORT FROM LOUISIANA
HENRY E. HARDTNER
_Chairman Louisiana Conservation Commission_
Louisiana was the first State to create a commission for the
Conservation of Natural Resources by legislative enactment, and enjoys
the proud distinction of being the first to enact sane and comprehensive
laws tending to conserve, protect, and perpetuate the natural resources
of the State. In 1908 the Legislature created a Conservation Commission,
whose duty it was to report to the Legislature in 1910 as to the
conditions of the various resources and to recommend necessary laws for
their use and preservation.
The Commission went to work with a will, holding meetings all over the
State for the purpose of arousing the people and educating them in the
great work. The lumbermen were our friends from the beginning; so were
the owners of timber lands, and operators in the production of oil, gas,
sulphur, and salt; the farmers dependent on the streams for irrigation
purposes soon saw the benefit to be derived from a policy that would
protect and perpetuate our natural resources, and also gave us their
hearty cooperation. This great work accomplished, the people as a whole
soon realized that 80 percent of the proceeds of the forests and rivers
was expended for labor and supplies, and joined heartily in the
movement; and thus we were prepared to ask the Legislature that certain
laws be enacted.
Honorable Harry Gamble, our efficient Secretary (and a member of the
Commission) prepared the various acts, and with such care that they will
stand the test of any court. It was my pleasure as a member of the
Legislature from the newly created parish of Lasalle to introduce and
handle a number of the Conservation measures. Governor Sanders, one of
the greatest men in the United States, who recently resigned a United
States senatorship to which he had been unanimously elected because the
people needed him at the helm of the State Government, gave his hearty
support to every measure bearing on Conservation. But with all the
serious obstacles removed, and the advantage of a friendly
administration, our bills could not be made effective without a
constitutional amendment; and so we faced a real crisis.
In order to raise a sufficient fund to protect our forests from fires
and for reforestation purposes, and to prevent the gas and oil fields
from being recklessly exploited and wasted, it was necessary to levy a
license-tax on timber and minerals severed from the soil. Our resources
being in the hands of individuals and corporations, it was just and
proper that they contribute to the cost of the work for preserving their
properties, and the people through the State would enact and carry such
laws into effect as would benefit all. To pass a constitutional
amendment is not any easy matter; and thus the real work began. The
Constitution of the State, which provided for a license-tax on nearly
every profession or business, had left out lumber and minerals, probably
because it has only been in recent years that there was any development
along such lines. That part of the amendment referring to natural
resources was as follows: "Those engaged in severing natural resources,
as timber or minerals, from the soil or water, whether they thereafter
convert them by manufacturing or not, may also be rendered liable to a
license-tax, but in this case the amount to be collected may either be
graduated or fixed according to the quantity or value of the product at
the place where it is severed."
When the amendment came up for final passage I spoke in part as follows:
"The whole Conservation program as recommended by the Conservation
Commission, of which I had the honor to be chairman, is dependent on
this amendment of Article 229 of the Constitution. In carrying out the
idea of Conservation, as in carrying out any other governmental policy,
it is necessary to raise money. In order to introduce a forestry system
and to protect your forests from fires, it is necessary to have money to
employ persons informed along these lines whose special duty it will be
to look after that kind of business. Now in order to do this, it seems
no more than fair that the persons who are profiting by the depletion of
our natural resources should contribute to the payment of these bills;
but before that can be done, it is necessary to change the Constitution.
"Article 229, as originally made, exempts manufacturers. Notwithstanding
this fact, in 1902 a general license act was passed in which the
Legislature, in their wisdom, saw fit to levy a license-tax on the
manufacture of lumber. When it was attempted to collect this tax, it was
carried to the Supreme Court which held that a license-tax levied on the
manufacture of lumber could not be collected for the reason that
manufacturers were exempt under Article 229, and the sawing of lumber
was a manufacturing business. The court did not say that the attempt of
the Legislature to levy a license-tax on the manufacture of lumber was
inequitable or unjust, but merely that it was unconstitutional according
to Article 229. This bill, from and including lines 12 to 24, attempts
to change the Constitution so that the tax may be levied on the severing
of trees from the soil. It is to be noticed that there is no attempt to
levy a license-tax on the manufacture of lumber, but it is proposed to
change the Constitution so that the license-tax may be levied on the
cutting down of trees in forests.
"As stated before, the Conservation Commission, after having
investigated this question for two years and examined the laws not only
of the United States but of foreign countries, has reached the
conclusion that those persons who are engaged in the exhaustion of the
natural resources of the State, in justice to the State which permits
them to do business under this law, in justice to the people, and in
justice to future generations of the State, should bear a slight
additional tax in order to restore and protect those resources.
"This, Gentlemen, is the reason why you are asked to change Article 229
of the Constitution. You are already acquainted with the facts connected
with the natural resource depletion of this State, and I will not now
discuss that question. I am simply explaining to you, to the best of my
ability, the necessity of changing the Constitution as proposed in this
bill in order that we may have the proper source to raise a revenue in
order to carry out Conservation policies."
We succeeded in passing the amendment, and then passed the License-tax
or Revenue Act which provides the following taxes: 3/4 cent per 1,000
feet log scale on fine and hardwoods severed from the soil; 1 cent per
100 stave bolts; 3/10 cent for each telegraph and telephone pole; 1 cent
each for piles; 1/8 cent per cup per year for extracting turpentine from
growing trees; for production of oil, 2/5 cent per barrel; for natural
gas, 1/5 cent per 10,000 cubic feet; for mining sulphur, 2 cents per
ton; for mining salt, 1/5 cent per ton. The license-tax on timber will
yield about $20,000 annually, and the same amount will accrue from mines
and mining. The Conservation Commission will use these funds for the
protection and perpetuation of the State's natural resources.
The Forestry bill, which we consider a good one, was then passed. There
are no restrictions as to size-limit in cutting timber. Ample provisions
are made for a complete fire patrol system and methods for preventing
loss by fires. In Louisiana and all southern States, denuded lands will
reforest naturally if fires are prevented, and a good crop can be grown
in from 25 to 40 years. For any one who will engage in the business of
growing timber, especial inducements are held out. The assessment on the
land is fixed at $1.00 per acre for 30 or 40 years, and the growing
timber is not taxed during that period. The Deputy Forester must be a
man practically and theoretically educated in silviculture, and under
the State Forester has supervision of forestry work. Consent is also
given to the United States to acquire by gift or purchase not exceeding
100,000 acres for a National forest reserve; the State may also acquire
by gift or purchase lands for forest reserves.
Act 254 provides for the establishment of a department of mining and
minerals, including oil and gas production, authorizing the prohibition
of unsafe and wasteful mining and the appointment of a supervisor of
minerals on recommendation of the Conservation Commission.
Act 265 to "establish a Board of Commissioners for the protection of
Birds, Game, and Fish," empowers them to employ wardens, officers, and
assistants, and to provide means to carry the Act into effect; gives
them complete control and management of all the waters of the State,
such as the Gulf of Mexico (within the jurisdiction of the State), all
lakes, bays, sounds, rivers, streams, passes, bayous, creeks, lagoons,
and ponds by granting management and control of all fish, shell-fish,
oysters, diamond-back terrapin, turtles, shrimp, crabs, and alligators;
and provides for oyster, game, and fish reserves by granting them
control of birds, game, and fur-bearing animals, etc. Birds, game, and
fish are among the greatest natural resources of the State, yielding an
enormous food supply and a large revenue.
Act 57 declares that waters found in the bayous, lagoons, lakes, bays,
and rivers to be the property of the State. The idea is that the State
will not permit any one to create a monopoly of this resource, which
belongs to the people.