EDITORIAL 



49 



ing the people's money at the rate of 

 nine dollars for one. 



Examine the subject from another 

 angle. One of the constant demands 

 of the critics in question is that the pub- 

 lic domain shall be "developed." A 

 large percentage of the annual expendi- 

 tures of the Forest Service goes to the 

 building of roads, the putting in of 

 telephone lines, the establishment of 

 nurseries for reforestation purposes, 

 and the like. All this, of course, is 

 "development," pure and simple. Yet 

 the Forest Service gets no credit for it. 

 Instead, public money spent for this 

 purpose, we are expected to infer, is 

 thrown away. 



As to the expensiveness of the Forest 

 Service, let some other facts be noted : 

 our National Forest fire loss amounts 

 annually to about $50,000,000, a sum 

 greater than the Harriman estate, and 

 more than thirteen times the appropria- 

 tion made to the Forest Service for 

 1908. 



Yet the Forest Service is showing the 

 country how to prevent forest fires, and 

 has reduced fire damage on the National 

 Forests to a figure which, compared with 

 the damage to our non-government 

 forests, is petty. Is this service worth 

 anything? 



Flood damage costs the Nation an- 

 nually about $100,000,000, and erosion, 

 about $1,000,000,000. The Forest Serv- 

 ice is demonstrating a principle which, 

 generally applied, will greatly reduce 

 both these losses. Is this worth while? 



Again, the questions of irrigation, 

 waterways, and water-powers are of far- 

 reaching financial importance. The 

 problems raised by them can be solved 

 only with the aid of forestry as 

 preached and practised by the National 

 Forest Service. 



When these larger aspects of the 

 work of the Forest Service are con- 

 sidered it is obvious that, if the pecuni- 

 ary returns from the National Forests 

 were nil, and the present appropriations 

 for National Forest work were doubled. 

 the Service would still constitute an 

 enormous national asset, a paying public 

 investment of the first rank. 



Yet, in the face of these facts some 

 have the hardihood to allege that the 

 people are paying a Federal bureau to 

 collect "nine dollars from the public in 

 order to have one dollar returned for 

 schools and roads !" 



}fe' i^' «? . 



The Weeks Forestry Bill 



"THE Weeks Forestry Bill (H. R. 

 1 1 1 798), "to enable any state to co- 

 operate with any other state or states, 

 or with the United States, for the pro- 

 tection of the watersheds of navigable 

 streams," etc., is again before Congress. 



This bill, in fact, was introduced July 

 23, 1909, though action was impracti- 

 cable during the special session. 



The text of the bill will be found 

 elsewhere in this issue. 



It is encouraging to note that the press 

 has begun the campaign for the enact- 

 ment of this measure. The Boston 

 Journal points out the pressing charac- 

 ter of the need for such legislation, say- 

 ing : 



"Everybody who knows the condi- 

 tions in the eastern and southern forests 

 knows that there is absolute necessity 

 for measures to check their destruction 

 without delay." 



Mr. J. C. Welliver, in the Baltimore 

 News, says : 



"In behalf of the Appalachian project 

 it is urged that time is pressing. Un- 

 less steps are soon taken, there will be 

 no forests left to preserve in the Ap- 

 palachians, because the trees are being 

 cut away about as fast as men and 

 money and skill can make it possible." 



The Boston Globe says : 



"At the present rate of cutting, the 

 forests on the high slopes of the White 

 Mountains will be gone in a few years." 



Again, it is pointed out that the chief 

 opposition to this measure comes from 

 men of the type of Speaker Cannon, 

 Representative Tawney, and Chairman 

 Scott, of the Agricultural Committee, 

 together with a number of western con- 

 gressmen, some of whom are unfamiliar 

 with forest conditions in mountain 

 states, while others are hostile to the 

 National Forest policy where it already 

 operates. 



