THE WEEKS BILL IN CONGRESS 



The Story of Its Passage in the House of the Slxty^first Congress, and of the 



Senate Filibuster 



IN THIS magazine (then known as 

 Conservation) for May, 1909, there 

 was published a brief history of 

 "The Fight for the Appalachian For- 

 ests," bringing the story up to that 

 time, and closing with this statement : 

 "The issui is now clearly before Con- 

 gress and the country. It rests on the 

 vital principle of conservation of nat- 

 ural resources, and will not down. The 

 ]:)eople have unmistakably asked for 

 legislation on this subject. They will 

 demand it of the Sixty-first Congress." 



The first session of the Sixty-first 

 Congress has closed, and it is possible 

 now to write another chapter of this 

 history — unfortunately, not the final 

 one. 



Mr. Weeks took his bill which had 

 been before the last Congress and elim- 

 inated one or two features which, while 

 they seemed wise to him, were unim- 

 portant and made enemies for the bill — 

 especially the provision designating the 

 income from the national forests as the 

 source of the funds for purchasing the 

 new forests. This modified bill, agreed 

 to by the best friends of the proposed 

 legislation in both houses, was intro- 

 duced during the extra session in the 

 House by Mr. Weeks, and in the Senate 

 by Senator Gallinger. In both bodies it 

 was referred to the committees on agri- 

 culture, but the Senate reference was 

 later changed to the committee on for- 

 est reservations, the committee which 

 had previously had charge of it, and of 

 which Senator Brandegee of Connecti- 

 cut is chairman. The Connecticut sen- 

 ator had been subjected to some criti- 

 cism at home for lack of interest in this 

 bill and was quite ready to take it into 

 his committee and assume charge of it, 



The policy of the senators was, how- 

 ever, to await the action of the House — 

 a policy that proved to be a tactical 

 mistake, however good the reasons may 

 have been for it. It produced a feeling 

 in the country outside, where interest 

 in the bill was keen, that the Senate's 

 interest in it was perfunctory. The 

 senators who were most actively en- 

 listed for the bill, however, gave as- 

 surance that the bill could be reported 

 and passed in that body at any time. 

 The statement was repeatedly made, up 

 to the last hours of the session, "We 

 have the votes." The policy of delay 

 was encouraged by the President, who 

 wished the bill to wait until what he 

 regarded as the more urgent admin- 

 istration measures were disposed of. 



Meanwhile, action dragged in the 

 House. The members of the commit- 

 tee on Agriculture were known to be 

 divided eight to seven, with three new 

 members whose position was unknown. 

 Of the seven one was Chairman Scott, 

 an uncompromising enemy of the bill, 

 who would do everything within the 

 limit of the law to defeat it. The com- 

 mittee did not find time for the hear- 

 ing that had been asked for on the bill 

 until February 23. This resolved itself 

 largely into a discussion by experts, 

 chiefly Professors Swain, Roth, and 

 Glenn, of the pronouncements of Willis 

 L. Moore, chief of the Weather Bu- 

 reau, and certain officers of the En- 

 gineer Corps, in regard to the influ- 

 ence of forests upon streamflow. So 

 efifective were the attacks upon the 

 views of these officials 'that they were 

 given an opportunity to appear before 

 the committee on the ist and 2d of 

 March to defend their own position. 



463 



