464 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



Reports of these discussions and papers 

 more fully presenting the case, were 

 published in this magazine in March 

 and April, and it is not necessary to 

 review them at this time. 



Some time elapsed without any fur- 

 ther action being taken by the commit- 

 tee. Finally, a vote was taken and all 

 of the new members voted for the bill, 

 making the standing of the committee 

 eleven for and seven against. It is in- 

 teresting to . note in this connection 

 that the advocates of this measure have 

 never failed to convince a majority of 

 any committee they have appeared be- 

 fore in either house that the measure is 

 a good one and should become a law. 

 Within a few days of the action by 

 the committee, the report of the ma- 

 jority, which had been put in charge of 

 Mr. Lever of South Carolina and Mr. 

 Plumley of Vermont, was ready to sub- 

 mit to the House, but that of the mi- 

 nority was delayed several days. This 

 was in charge of Chairman Scott, and 

 his reason for the delay was pressure of 

 other work, but every day's delay hin- 

 dered the passage of the bill, which 

 Mr. Scott was certainly not anxious to 

 further. 



There are many times in the course 

 of legislation when a minority can be 

 just as effective as a majority, if ob- 

 struction is all that is needed. 



On the 15th of April, the report was 

 made and committed to the committee 

 of the whole house on the state of the 

 Union and ordered to be printed. It 

 was then hoped that an early opportu- 

 nity would come to bring it up on cal- 

 endar Wednesday, when, under the 

 rules, each committee in turn has an 

 opportunity to call up bills for consid- 

 eration. It soon developed, however, 

 that the turn of agriculture on the cal- 

 endar had passed and was not likely to 

 come again, owing to the number of 

 important bills to come from other com- 

 mittees that had the call before it. 



The friends of the bill outside of 

 Congress meanwhile grew anxious, 

 and appeals for action began to pour 

 in upon the members, especially those 

 from the New England states. It had 

 become evident that the only hope for 



action was in a special rule, which must 

 be obtained from the new rules com- 

 mittee of ten. It was no longer a ques- 

 tion of securing the consent of the 

 Speaker, who is not even a member of 

 the new committee. Of the ten mem- 

 bers only one, Mr. Lawrence of Massa 

 chusetts, was in favor of the bill, bui 

 so well was the case urged by Mr. 

 Weeks, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Currier, 

 ]\Ir. Lever, and their supporters, that 

 the committee consented to bring in a 

 rule. 



Even then so much business inter- 

 vened that days passed before the rule 

 was reported, and it was not until the 

 afternoon of June 24 that Mr. Smith 

 of Iowa introduced the rule for the 

 committee and yielded the floor to Mr. 

 Lawrence of Massachusetts, who made 

 an admirable speech, brief, clear, and 

 pointed, in support of the rule and the 

 bill. Concluding, he said : 



It would be interesting to consider at 

 length just what is being done for the pres- 

 ervation and development of forests in 

 Frarce, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Great 

 Britain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Ger- 

 many, and Japan. Such consideration would 

 convince us that America has been very slow 

 to realize the importance of this work. We 

 are much behind other first-class countries. 



But we are waking up, and the passage 

 of this bill will be a long step forward. I 

 wish it might have carried a larger appro- 

 priation and provided for work covering a 

 longer period. Its advocates, however, are 

 sure that the expenditure here provided for 

 will remove all doubt as to the wisdom of 

 the policy and that it will be followed by 

 much larger appropriations, which will per- 

 mit more rapid and thorough development. 

 This is practical conservation. It proposes 

 to save what the people want saved, and the 

 proposition should receive the hearty and 

 unanimous support of the members of this 

 house. 



The rule was adopted on a roll call, 

 154 voting in favor of consideration 

 and ninety-nine against. Twenty-two 

 answered present, and 114 did not vote. 

 Several opponents of the bill were fair 

 enough to vote for its consideration, 

 but others fought the measure even at 

 this point, and Mr. Rucker of Missouri 

 began the dilatory tactics with which 

 he endeavored up to the final passage 

 of the bill to obstruct it and to tire out 



