144 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



it should be reorganized. He believed 

 that this was a sufficient check upon 

 the expenditure for the purpose of the 

 bill. He offered a homely illustration 

 from his experience as a boy on the 

 farm in northern New Hampshire as 

 a further contribution to the discussion 

 of Mr. Moore's report. He said that 

 on the hillside pasture the snow would 

 be gone in the spring so that one could 

 walk in thin shoes, when the snow was 

 lying a foot and a half deep in the 

 woods just above the pasture. It is a 

 matter of common observation which 

 needs no scientific knowledge, he 

 pointed out, that if the trees were cut 

 off from this land it would be in the 

 same condition as the pasture adjoin- 

 ing. 



Finally, Mr. Week? urged upon the 

 committee that it is not new legislation, 

 and that it would be gross injustice not 

 to report back to the House a bill which 

 has in susbtance passed the Senate 

 twice and the House once. To prevent 

 action on this bill would be resented 

 by Massachusetts and by all New Eng- 

 land. The bill is moderate in character 

 and, in my mind, he said, will start a 

 policy that will be of great benefit to 

 the whole country. He urged prompt 

 action, and said that hundreds of thou- 

 sands of people all over the country 

 were behind this measure, that it had 

 been advocated by President Roosevelt, 

 by President Taft, and is the one prac- 

 tical measure that has been offered in 

 the direction of carrying out the con- 

 servation policy. 



Mr. Currier made no formal speech, 

 but supported his colleague effectively 

 with pertinent suggestions and facts. 



This report necessarily gives a very 

 inadequate impression of the able pres"- 

 entation of the case to the committee. 



The interchange of question and an- 

 swer, the keen and unassailable scien- 

 tific arguments advanced by Professors 

 Swain, (ilrnn. and Roth made the hear- 

 ing a notable one in the history of the 

 campaign in behalf of the Appalachian 

 forests. Chairman Scott, at the out- 

 set of the hearing, requested the mem- 

 bers of the committee to refrain from 

 interrupting the speakers with ques- 

 tions until they had concluded their 

 statements. Within a few minutes after 

 this he himself interrupted the first 

 speaker and he continued this practise 

 of interruption with questions and in- 

 terpolation of his own views, especially 

 in the afternoon, when Professor Roth 

 was speaking. This interfered with 

 the orderly presentation of the argu- 

 ment which Professor Roth had 

 prepared, but perhaps it did not 

 interfere with the effectiveness of the 

 discussion, as Mr. Scott's questions 

 were adequately answered. Mr. Scott's 

 well-known opposition to this measure 

 has not in the least abated and is plainly 

 shown in his conduct of the hearings. 

 Indeed, lie appears at times more anx- 

 ious to bring out his own theories, some 

 of which are well defined, than to hear 

 the uninterrupted statement of the ex- 

 pert witness. 



The general interest of the commit- 

 tee was shown by the good attendance 

 and keen attention to all points brought 

 out in the discussion. 



Mr. Moore's position previously 

 taken before the same committee was 

 so badly riddled by the discussion that 

 the committee considered it necessary 

 to give him an opportunity to take the 

 stand in his own defense, and a special 

 hearing was assigned for that purpose 

 for the ist day of March. 



..,*><<_ 



U. X'v 



" '''-""*.... 



