214 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



dence to support his main conclusions 

 at the end of the paper. These conclu- 

 sions Nos. 7-9, are the only ones which 

 are really germane to the subject. The 

 first and most important reads as fol- 

 lows : 



"No. 7. 'The run-off of our rivers is 

 not inaterially affected by any other fac- 

 tor than, the precipitation.' " A brand 

 new discovery in science ! We are told, 

 practically, that it makes no difference 

 whether the land is level or hilly, 

 whether the slope is steep or gentle, 

 whether it is rough or smooth, whether 

 it is cleared or covered with brush, 

 whether it is gullied or not, all these 

 factors have no "material" influence, 

 the water runs off in just the same way. 

 The fact that it is the mountain stream> 

 which have bothered the people in every 

 part of the world by their turbulence, 

 their floods and droughts is unknown 

 to Mr. Moore. The fact that a prairie 

 river like the Brazos gets on a "ram- 

 page," and becomes a mud torrent dur- 

 ing a three days heavy rain while a 

 river from the forest, like the Wiscon- 

 sin will hardly show a rise or sign of 

 turpitude, all this appears to Mr. Moore 

 mistaken obseri'afion, evidently of the 

 "oldest inhabitant" and the United 

 States Geological Survey. (Which b}- 

 the way has an hydrographic office which 

 is the only reliable scientific bureau 

 dealing with these subjects.) That thi'^ 

 conclusion No. 7 flatly contradicts the 

 statement on page 15 and quoted above, 

 where he admits that slope and soil 

 cover do have something to do with this 

 run-off, does not bother his logic. This 

 conclusion is so extraordinary, so illogi- 

 cal, and devoid of sense, and yet so 

 eminently well fitted to serve the pur- 

 pose of the whole paper that one is 

 forced to believe that the conclusions 

 were specially framed on the assump- 

 tion that our "busy" people and legisla- 

 tors read only conclusions. The other 

 two conclusions, Nos. 8 and 9, assert, on 

 no particular proof, that floods and 

 droughts are no more frequent now 

 than formerly, though he admits on 

 pag" 16 : "All of these problems couhl 

 be definitely v^r/f/rrf beyond the possibility 

 of argument if 7ce had accurate river 



gaugings from day to day and year to 

 year, etc." He evidently knows that we 

 have not accurate river gaugings, but in 

 spite of this is not afraid to assert that 

 he (Mr. Moore) knows whether floods 

 and droughts are more or less frequent. 

 The use of such assertion in a scientific 

 discussion well illustrates the character 

 of the whole paper. 



In dealing with "Run-off and absorp- 

 tion" Mr. ^loore admits it "to be gen- 

 erally held" that forests affect run-off. 

 He prefers not to discuss this matter, 

 however, claims that plowed fields are 

 the best absorbers, and then contents 

 himself with the above quotations con- 

 cerning river .gaugings and adds, p. 16: 

 "We must, therefore, reason empirically 

 from the best information at hand and 

 this insufficiency of data renders less 

 positive the conclusions of all investiga- 

 tors, no matter which side of the ques- 

 tion they may be on." 



This insufficiency of data evidently 

 does not prevent Air. Moore from mak- 

 ing the most extraordinary assertions 

 ever ventured in any discussion of this 

 kind. 



In this very matter of run-off Mr. 

 Moore fails entirely to connect run-off 

 with erosion, the gullying or develop- 

 ment of the innumerable drain lines due 

 to clearing of land, and aggravated by 

 plowing. 



That every furrow, every rod of 

 gully, acts as a drain and hastens run- 

 off and prevents water .storage, does not 

 seem to be of importance to Mr. 

 Moore's position. The average citizen 

 who sees with his own eves and not 

 merely through the reports of rain 

 gauge readers, and who has come to the 

 same conclusions as his neighbors anrl 

 thousands of observing people all over 

 the country will wonder if his "reason- 

 ing empirically" is not perhaps as con- 

 vincing as that of Mr. Moore. 



In dealing with "Effects of Forests 

 on Floods in France" Mr. Moore delib- 

 erately quotes certain authors by extract 

 and is guilty of misleading statements 

 concerning the views of prominent en- 

 gineers, as is indicated by Professor 

 Swain. He also neglects the main fea- 

 ture (if this topic. He does not know or 



