an "economy*' session. Knowing full well that the legislators 

 were pledged to rigid economy, the forest service neverthe- 

 less felt justified in asking for an increased appropriation. 

 They knew only too well what penuriousness at this time 

 would mean. They knew that the present appropriation was 

 too small and that it was false economy not to spend more. 



The request for $150,000 per year was referred to the finance 

 committee in the senate and the appropriations committee in 

 the house. 



The finance committee in the senate was the first to take 

 definite action. The state forester and others appeared be- 

 fore the senate committee to state the needs. They said that 

 they would feel that they had not done their duty if they had 

 not asked. for the full amount of $300,000 for the two years. 



Much to the surprise of the friends of forestry, the senate 

 finance committee decided to cut the appropriation down to 

 $40,000 per year. 



Several things seemed to induce the senators to take this 

 adverse action. First, there has been a mistaken impression 

 regarding the expenditure of money on the part of the forest 

 service for the passage of amendment No. 9. Certain indi- 

 viduals have taken upon themselves to spread false doctrine. 

 On the other hand, some of the legislators have themselves 

 formed such impressions and, in all fairness to them, it must 

 be said that they were honest in them. 



The Minnesota Forestry Association takes the credit for the 

 passage of No. 9 and the associaion bore the brunt of the 

 campaign, so far as expenditures and activity are concerned. 



With mistaken impressions, we believe, the senators took 

 their action and the seriousness of the situation first dawned 

 upon the advocates of forestry. 



The house committee had not acted and letters began pour- 

 ing in from all corners of the state. Most of the letters were 

 of the kind that would induce any legislator to think twice 

 before acting. Nevertheless, some of the forest enthusiasts 

 sent letters that served only to anger those who received 

 them. $uch letters were few and far between. It might be 

 pointed out, however, that it is better not to write condemna- 



20 



