EDITORIAL 485 



after the enactment. Unquestionably this was primarily a Forest Service 

 problem. 



But there were two other agencies involved besides the Forest Service, 

 which was the active representative of the Secretary of Agriculture. These 

 were the National Forest Keservation Commission, created by the act to be 

 the final authority in laud purchases, and the Geological Survey, which because 

 of its staff of scientific experts and its fund of toi)ographical, geological, and 

 hydrographical data was relied upon to be especially qualified to report upon 

 the relation of forests to the flow of the navigable streams, whose watersheds 

 might be recoinniended for purchase by the Secretary of Agriculture. 



The Commission took up its work with commendable interest, even the 

 one commissioner, Representative Hawley, who had been an opponent of the 

 bill in the House, putting aside his prejudices and giving himself with 

 interest and intelligence to the task assigned him. We are glad to be able to 

 say this because we criticised, and not unreasonably, Speaker Cannon's 

 appointment of Mr, Hawley on the Commission. 



It became known, however, within a very few days that the Geological 

 Survey was doing nothing. Interviews with the Director by various persons 

 developed the fact that he took very seriously the responsibility of his bureau 

 under the law and proposed to act with great deliberation and thoroughness. 

 His first statement to the public when criticism of his known or supposed 

 attitude became vigorous and insistent, was published in American Forestry 

 in June. However impatient of delay the friends of the law might be, the 

 expressed intention of the Director to use proper care and scientific thorough- 

 ness in carrying out the part assigned to the Survey would certainly not be 

 fairly open to criticism. 



It was felt, however, and justly, that inaction was not justifiable. If the 

 Survey felt so strongly its responsibility under the law, it should have been 

 ready to act promptly ui)on its passage for the life of the law is limited and 

 time is an essential factor in the contract with the people. 



It must be said frankly that the Survey has been slow in getting into 

 action. Much was said at first of the need of topographical maps of the 

 regions involved. As these have all been mapped by the Survey, new mapping 

 is certainly not needed for the purposes of this law. In the water supply 

 records of the hydrographic division the Survey has more data in regard to 

 stream flow than it can assemble during the life of this act, and it is conceded 

 that such observations require a long term of years to be of real scientific 

 value. To experts accustomed to judging geological conditions, the soil 

 examination in districts so well known and so amply reported upon as the 

 White Mountains and Southern Appalachians should be a comparatively 

 simple matter. Nor does it seem that the practical purposes of this law 

 call for nice technicalities or elaborate and involved research. The question 

 is one of trained judgment applied to visible conditions. 



With the question of navigability of streams we cannot see that the Survey 

 has anything to do. That is largely a matter of legal interpretation and rests 

 entirely with the Secretary of Agriculture and the National Forest Reserva- 

 tion Commission, 



On the 22nd of June in reply to numerous newspaper criticisms, Secre- 

 tary Fisher of the Interior Department issued a brief statement endorsing 

 the course of the Director of the Survey, the substance of this being that the 

 action of the Survey could not be perfunctory. June 23rd the Director of 

 the Survey gave out a second statement to the Boston newspapers, explaining 

 his i>osition at length. This statement was an eminently temperate one, in 

 view of the criticism to which its author had been subjected, but it was chiefly 



