298 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



No organization of any kind, no com- 

 mittee, legislative or otherwise ; no body 

 of men, legislative or otherwise, has 

 ever acted otherwise than favorably 

 upon the principles involved in this bill. 

 Numerous senate and house committees 

 of this Congress have reported it favor- 

 ably to their respective bodies. Three 

 times it passed the senate and in the 

 last Congress passed the house by a 

 substantial majority. Three Presidents 

 — McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft — 

 have been its outspoken advocates. It 

 has received the endorsement of every 

 President of the country since agita- 

 tion in its behalf was begun. The al- 

 most unanimous sentiment of the pro- 

 gressive citizens of the country de- 

 mands favorable action upon it at our 

 hands. Further delay cannot be justi- 

 fied in view of the facts in possession 

 of your committee. They warrant im- 

 mediate action ; the country expects it. 



iHi iH iH 



The above report has the approval of 

 the following eleven members of the 

 House Committee on Agriculture: 



William W. Cocks, First Neiv York 

 District. 



Ralph D. Cole, Eighth Ohio Dis- 

 trict. 



James C. McLaughlin, A/'inf/i Mich- 

 igan District. 



Charles C. Pratt, Fourteenth Penn- 

 sylvania District. 



L. B. Hanna, North Dakota. 



Frank Plumley, Second Vermont 

 District. 



John Lamb. Third Virginia District. 



AsBURY F. Lever, Seventh South' 

 Carolina District. 



Augustus O. Stanley. Second Ken- 

 tucky District. 



Gordon Lee, Seventh Georgia Dis- 

 trict. 



James T. McDermott, Fourth Illi- 

 nois District. 



The minority report, dissenting from 

 these views, is signed by: 



Charles F. Scott, Second Kansas 

 District. 



Gilbert N. Haugen, Fourth lozva 

 District. 



Willis C. Hawley, First Oregon 

 District. 



Joseph Howell, Utah. 



Pleasant T. Chapman, Tiventy- 

 fourth Illinois District. 



Jack Beall, Fifth Texas District. 



William W. Rucker, Second Mis- 

 souri District. 



In an editorial on another page some 

 comments are made upon the minority's 

 statement of the case which will sug- 

 gest a reason for not printing it in full. 

 The report is so misleading that it needs 

 to be checked by comparison with the 

 records. As our readers would hardly 

 have patience for this task, and there is 

 not space to make the necessary an- 

 notations here, it is necessary to leave 

 it with such comment as is made in the 

 editorial above mentioned. 



One statement made by the minority 

 must be corrected, for it is untrue, and 

 it illustrates well the disregard of facts 

 with which the report was prepared. 

 The statement is made that "when this 

 project was originally proposed, it in- 

 cluded only the Appalachian Mountains, 

 but the bill introduced to carry it into 

 effect even then called for an appropria- 

 tion of $10,000,000. Later the plan was 

 broadened to include the White Moun- 

 tains, and then a bill was introduced 

 asking for $30,000,000." 



No bill has been introduced appropri- 

 ating any such amount as that last 

 named, and the chairman of the com- 

 mittee, who signed the minority report, 

 ought to know it. The largest appro- 

 priation in any of the Appalachian bills 

 was that carried by the Weeks bill as 

 passed by the House last year. That 

 was a continuing appropriation and 

 would have totaled $21,000,000 in ten 

 years. 



It may be added that the supporters 

 of this legislation have contended from 

 the first that every year of delay would 

 increase the ultimate cost to the nation 

 of what would have to be done sooner 

 or later. 



