EDITORIAL 



425 



to its fullest extent, the maintenance of 

 soil fertility and its improvement wher- 

 ever possible, are essential parts of the 

 conservation doctrine. 



Conservation is not a national policy 

 only. A Michigan paper recently made 

 the remark: "There is not a state, a 

 county, nor a city that isn't saving at 

 the 'spigot and wasting at the bung- 

 hole.' The old idea that any man may 

 do as he pleases with what he calls his 

 own needs revision. Every man's 

 rights are limited and restricted by the 

 rights of all others." Here is the funda- 

 mental principle of the whole conserva- 

 tion movement, and it is something that 

 we must learn. It is irrelevant to make 

 pathetic appeals in behalf of the pioneer. 

 He should have a square deal in every 

 respect, but the American pioneer has 

 always shown himself capable of taking 

 care of his own interests. The ques- 

 tion of society to-day is a complex and 

 difficult one and we must take into 

 consideration the interests of the mil- 

 lions of people for whom these nat- 

 ural resources must be used if they are 

 to continue to live on this earth in 

 peace, happiness, and prosperity. 



The Reply of Professor Glenn 



AT THE hearing on the Weeks bill 

 before the committee on agri- 

 culture this year one of the most im- 

 portant testimonies that has ever been 

 given in behalf of the maintenance of 

 the Southern Appalachian forests for 

 the protection of streamflow was that 

 presented by Prof. L. C. Glenn of Van- 

 derbilt University. Mr. Glenn testified 

 from the standpoint of a geologist, and 

 of one who had wide experience and 

 who had made special field studies in 

 the Southern Appalachians. At the 

 same hearing, by invitation of the com- 

 mittee, certain officers of the army en- 

 gineer corps appeared. Some of their 

 testimony contained admissions very 

 helpful to the cause of the proponents 

 of the bill. Some of it was along lines 

 less favorable, such as have been made 

 familiar through the published argu- 

 ments of Lieutenant Colonel Chitten'len. 



of the same corps. Some of them were 

 irrelevant, because they related to con- 

 ditions far removed from the Appa- 

 lachian area and very dissimilar to the 

 mountain conditions. The last of these 

 officers to testify was Capt. Edward N. 

 Johnston. Captain Johnston was placed 

 in a very difficult position. He was 

 frankly put forward to defend his 

 corps, by citations from their own docu- 

 ments and reports, against assumed 

 criticisms of their river work. 



It seems to us that this voluntarily 

 defensive attitude showed an undue 

 sensitiveness. The claims of the advo- 

 cates of forest preservation that such 

 preservation would go a long way to 

 protect the streams from the sedi- 

 mentation which the engineer corps is 

 constantly called upon to fight, does not 

 imply a criticism of the corps for the 

 excellent work that it has done in its 

 own way. The corps is not a forest 

 service, and its great mistake has been 

 in assuming certain things in regard to 

 the effect of forests which are not in 

 accord with the experience of a large 

 body of civilian engineers and foresters, 

 here and abroad, who have studied the 

 question with more thoroughness than 

 any of our army engineers has ever 

 claimed for himself. However, this was 

 the purpose for which Captain Johnston 

 appeared, and he disclaimed, with en- 

 gaging candor, any desire to attack the 

 proposition before the committee, or to 

 be drawn into any discussion of it. This 

 is where the difficulty and delicacy of 

 his position developed. The question 

 before the committee had become an 

 eminently controversial one, and it was 

 next to impossible for any one to ap- 

 pear while that was under discussion 

 before the committee without being 

 drawn more or less into the contro- 

 versy. 



Thus it happened that Captain Johns- 

 ton's testimony was not simply a docu- 

 mentary defense of the engineer corps, 

 but an attack upon the testimony of 

 some of the witnesses who had ap- 

 peared in behalf of the Weeks bill, and 

 particularly of Professor Glenn. We 

 felt while the hearing was in progress 

 that this criticism of Professor Glenn 

 in his absence involved a measure of 



