EDITORIAL 



THE APPALACHIAN BILL 



THE passage by the Senate on Wednesday of the bill commonly known 

 as the ^\'eeks, or Appalachian, bill ends the first stage of a long struggle 

 for national forests in the eastern mountains, a struggle that began in 

 1899. The bill now enacted bears little resemblance to those that preceded it 

 up to the time of the Sixtieth Congress, although its purpose has been well 

 understood to be the same, that is. the perpetuation of forests upon the great 

 watersheds of the Appalachian ridge. It is a general law, providing for no 

 particular locality, but there can hardly be a question raised as to its intent or 

 as to the regions which are in present need of action by the nation. 



Imperfect as it admittedly is, this new forest law marks a distinct step 

 in advance, and may be said in some sense to be the beginning of a new de- 

 parture in that it makes our national forest policy really national, although 

 the application of the principle under the new law is greatly circumscribed. 

 This aspect of the question is discussed in another connection. 



Under its provisions much good may be accomplished in the nature of 

 forest preservation and protection if it is broadly and generously interpreted 

 by its administrators; but it has been frankly admitted by its advocates that 

 it is acceptable only as a beginning and a means of testing the application of 

 a most important economic princii)Ie. 



As passed by the House last June, the bill carried an appropriation for 

 the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, of one million dollars, and for each suc- 

 ceeding year until 1915 of two million dollars annually, making an aggregate 

 of eleven million dollars. Because of legislative conditions, it was necessary 

 to pass the bill in the Senate without amendment and this provision was there- 

 fore unchanged. It is, therefore, probable that the first million dollars which 

 was allotted for 1910 will be lost and that only ten million will be available 

 for the purposes of the act. It is not certain, however, that the intent of the 

 bill may not be considered and the full appropriation made available. 



The passage of the bill is a notable triumph of enlightened public senti- 

 ment over political obstruction. Here was a measure which had the endorse- 

 ment of three successive Presidents of the United States, of intelligent citizen- 

 ship all over the land, as voiced by practically every great national organiza- 

 tion that is working for the public welfare, by commercial and industrial 

 bodies, by the federated women's clubs of America and an almost unanimous 

 periodical and newspaper press. Notwithstanding such support as would 

 seem to have assured its prompt enactment, it met in Congress from year to 

 year a most stubborn opposition, directed by the leaders of the party organiza- 

 tions on both sides of the House. In the Senate there was a bitter sectional 

 hostility from the northwest, which finally melted away leaving Senators 

 Heyburn of Idaho and Clark of Wyoming, as its sole exponents. Notwith- 

 standing its importance to the south, there was from that section a consider- 

 able opposition on the part of adherents of a strict, old fashioned states rights- 

 ism, and the unfavorable influence of party leaders was strong in the middle 



168 



