488 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



1. A bill to provide for the acquisition of lands for National Forests, 

 and the reforestation of National Forest areas, the cost to be met by 

 the sale of bonds. (This method of meeting the cost is not mentioned 

 m the Snell Bill.) 



2. A bill to provide for a survey of forest resources, and general co- 

 operation in fire prevention and research. 



3. A bill for the regulation of the cutting, removal, and conserva- 

 tion of our remaining timber, and of other functions of the lumber 

 industry. 



By following this course the failure of one of these bills would not 

 endanger the others. But, if they are all coupled together as at pres- 

 ent, opposition to one of these items may drag all the others d.ov.'n 

 to defeat with it. 



The bill for acquisition and reforestation would probably receive 

 general support, the inertia of Congress being the chief obstacle to 

 overcome. The auestion would arise whether the proposition was of 

 sufficient urgencv and size to justify the sale of bonds for the purpose. 

 It should not b? difficult to prove the gravity of the case; in fact, the 

 Capper Report already has proved it. With Congress in a mood to 

 practice economy, and the taxpayers cry'ng for relief, an opportunity 

 to shift some of this burden to the future citizens would be welcomed. 

 Of course it would have to be shown that it is a proper subject for 

 the sale of bonds and that it is a reasonably safe investment. 



Under the bill for co-operation, survey, fire prevention, and so forth, 

 the provisions mentioned in the Snell Bill might be consolidated and 

 clarified ; the amounts requested for the various activities should be 

 reapportioned ; and the big sum asked for acquisition and reforestation 

 having been eliminated by the bonds from the direct appropriation 

 class, more money if desired could safely be requested for some of 

 these items such as fire prevention. 



Finally, the regulation bill would put that proposition on its own 

 feet. It would no longer be looked upon as a dangerous rider, and 

 whether or not regulation is necessary or desirable at this time would 

 be determined by the facts. If it is necessary, it should be adopted 

 regardless of these other measures. If it is not necessary, the public 

 should not be required to swallow it in order to get what it desires and 

 must have. 



