FIGHT FOR APPALACHIAN FORESTS 



253 



New Hampshire. This broadened the 

 issue. It was charged at the time by 

 ardent advocates of the southern proj- 

 ect that the White Mountain movement 

 was a sentimental one and had no eco- 

 nomic basis. This was an error of mis- 

 information for which the northern 

 men were ])artly responsible. They 

 had not reached the economic stage in 

 their consideration of the subject. 

 These first appeals were a cry for help 

 from those who saw the summer land 

 of promise of tens of thousands of peo- 

 ple being laid waste and who wanted 

 something done about it. Like the 

 southerners who were earliest in that 

 efifort they had in mind a national park, 

 rather than an economic reserve. As 

 a matter of fact the conditions were the 

 same as in the South, except for cer- 

 tain differences of local topography. 

 Both regions are mountain forest dis- 

 tricts, containing very small areas of 

 agricultural land. Both are interstate 

 watersheds of the same Appalachian 

 Mountain "system. The water flow of 

 the southern rivers is less regulated by 

 lake storage, but in one respect the 

 White Mountains were in the worse 

 case. The timber tracts in the north- 

 ern country were controlled by a few 

 large operators who, impelled by indus- 

 trial conditions, were cutting heavily 

 and making big sweeps up the higher 

 slopes, where the soil is only retained 

 in place by the protective forest growth. 

 The New Hampshire hills have never 

 been protected by inaccessibility, and 

 the wholesale cutting of the last few 

 years is the climax of a long-sustained 

 attack. 



A bill for the southern reserve was 

 again introduced in the Senate by Sena- 

 tor Burton, and the first White Moun- 

 tain bill was ofifered by Senator Gal- 

 linger. Both were reported favorably 

 by the committee on forest reserva- 

 tions. The report on the latter by Sena- 

 tor Burnham, of New Hampshire, was 

 the first official notice of the White 

 Mountain project. Mr. Currier, of 

 New Hampshire, had introduced a 



White Mountain bill in the House. This 

 was as far as either project traveled 

 ofiicially in that Congress. 



As the movement went on its import- 

 ance became more manifest. Strong 

 su]j])ort was constantly being gathered 

 to it but it was evidently necessary to 

 conduct a broad campaign to overcome 

 popular ignorance of the questions in- 

 volved and congressional indifiference. 

 The North and South must be brought 

 together, made to understand each 

 other's needs and to realize that they 

 stood on common ground, that the issue 

 was an essentially national one. The 

 American Forest Congress of 1905 pro- 

 moted this larger knowledge and better 

 understanding. That congress, the 

 most important and representative for- 

 estry convention ever held in America, 

 unreservedly endorsed ' the establish- 

 ment of National Forest reserves in 

 the southern Appalachian Mountains 

 and the White Mountains of New 

 Hampshire," and urged the passage of 

 the pending bills for these purposes. 



In December, 1905, bills for the two 

 reserves were introduced in the House 

 by Mr. Currier and Mr. Brownlow, and 

 in the Senate by Senators Gallinger 

 and Overman. At its annual meeting 

 in January, 1906, the American For- 

 estry Association appointed a commit- 

 tee to prepare a bill uniting the two 

 projects, and to offer it as a substitute 

 for these four measures. This union 

 bill was accepted by all interests. On 

 January 20, 1906, it was laid before the 

 Senate committee on forest reservations 

 and the protection of game, of which 

 Senator Brandegee, of Connecticut, was 

 chairman, and was reported by that 

 committee, in lieu of the Gallinger and 

 Overman bills. This bill called for an 

 initial appropriation of $3,000,000. 

 though its advocates frankly stated that 

 this was but a beginning, and that the 

 completion of the two projects would 

 involve an ultimate expenditure of not 

 less than fifteen millions. They also 

 declared that every year of delay w^ould 

 increase the cost, on account of condi- 



