THE WEEKS BILL IN CONGRESS 



46, 



the House. Conference reports also 

 intervened, and it was late in the after- 

 noon of a very hot day when the bill 

 finally came up in committee of the 

 whole. Mr. Rucker continued his dila- 

 tory tactics, but Mr. Weeks and Mr. 

 Lever held control of the committee 

 and of the House through it all, and to 

 Mr. Weeks, when he was given the 

 floor by Mr. Lever, to speak for the 

 bill which has been known by his name 

 and to which he has given so much 

 patient effort, diplomacy, and parlia- 

 mentary skill, was accorded the rare 

 tribute of genuine applause from all 

 over the house. 



Following his brief and straightfor- 

 ward statement, an attempt was made 

 to put the matter over until the follow- 

 ing day, but the men who had deter- 

 mined to pass that bill could not be 

 shaken, and it was only when an agree- 

 ment to go on in the evening was se- 

 cured that a recess was taken until eight 

 o'clock. 



A large number of members took 

 part in the general debate and in the 

 debate under the five-minute rule. The 

 principal argument against the bill was 

 by Mr. Scott of Kansas, chairman of 

 the committee on agriculture. Mr. 

 Scott based his objections chiefly upon 

 the allegation, which he claimed was 

 supported by the most competent en- 

 gineering testimony, that the forests at 

 the headwaters of streams do not ex- 

 ercise any appreciable effect upon the 

 navigability of the streams. Mr. Scott 

 reached this conclusion by the simple 

 and convenient intellectual process of 

 eliminating all conflicting testimony 

 and accepting only that which fitted his 

 prejudgment. 



Mr. Tawney of Minnesota discovered 

 a peril to the structure of our govern- 

 ment in the make-up of the commission 

 under the bill, in that it included mem- 

 bers of the executive and legislative 

 branches, thus transgressing the com- 

 plete separation decreed by the fathers. 



A point made yiuch of in the House 

 debate and by Senator Burton in his 

 filibuster in the Senate, was the fact 

 that the bill was brought forward in 

 the closing hours of the session and 



an attempt made to rush it tbEough 

 without adequate discussion. This 

 taunt came with bad grace from the 

 men who for years have used every 

 means in their power to prevent the 

 consideration of this or the similar 

 measures that preceded it, and have 

 only yielded when they were fought to 

 a finish by a majority that was the final 

 product of ten years of extraordinarily 

 full discussion in Congress and outside, 

 years in which several official govern- 

 ment investigations have been made by 

 Congress, resulting in reports which 

 have been available in printed form for 

 varying periods of time. 



If there was not sufficient informa- 

 tion, and if there had not been suffi- 

 cient discussion, these opponents of the 

 bill were the responsible parties, and 

 the ignorance which they claim argues 

 their own failure to do their duty in 

 considering a great public measure. 

 There has been no desire on the part 

 of its friends to hold it back. The 

 truth is that the opponents of the bill 

 were driven to the last resort of oppo- 

 sition in fighting a plan which had 

 ample precedent and ample warrant in 

 the history of our governmental activ- 

 ities, and was so strong that it could 

 only be beaten by delay. They had 

 found arguments against it, not by a 

 survey of all the evidence, but by choos- 

 ing their own witnesses and belittling 

 those on the opposite side. The speakers 

 in opposition to the bill were, beside 

 Mr. Scott and Mr. Rucker : Mr. Engle- 

 bright of California, Mr. Howland of 

 Ohio, Mr. Beall of Texas, Mr. Parker 

 of New Jersey, Mr. Sims and Mr. Gar- 

 rett of Tennessee. Mr. Crumpacker and 

 Mr. Cox of Indiana, Mr. Focht of 

 Pennsylvania, Mr. Southwick of New 

 York, and Mr. Tawney of Minnesota. 



The general character of the speeches 

 for the bill was of a higher order. The 

 speeches were more dignified, dealing 

 with facts rather than with abuse of the 

 other side, and always holding steadily 

 to one purpose, to make the strongest 

 possible case for the bill. The closing 

 word for the bill in general debate was 

 a brief, clear, snappy speech by Mr. 

 Lever of South Carolina, who had 



