1900. 



AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION. 



261 



When it finally reported the session had 

 progressed pretty far and the Claims Com- 

 mittee had become a little scared at its own 

 liberality. So when the forestry bill, 

 with its call for an annual expenditure of 

 $15,000, came before it they refused to re- 

 commend the appropriation. Thereupon 

 the bill was amended so as to devolve a 

 portion of the work on the Land Depart- 

 ment and cut the appropriation down to 

 $^,ooo a year. In this shape the Claims 

 Committee recommended it for passage 

 and the Senate adopted it without a dis- 

 senting vote. 



Up to this time, the only opposition the 

 bill had encountered, aside from the re- 

 luctance of the Claims Committee to pass 

 further appropriations, had come from 

 friends of the old Land Department. This 

 opposition had not shown itself upon the 

 surface, but in secret certain individuals 

 busied themselves by telling members that 

 the proposed forest department "would 

 be an elephant on the hands of the State, 

 and would eat up millions of dollars." 

 The amended bill, by giving work to the 

 Land Department, and therefore furnishing 

 plausible reasons for retaining most of its 

 employees, was well calculated to pacify 

 this kind of opposition. But by the time 

 the bill, after adoption in the Senate, 

 reached the Assembly, the closing days of 

 the session had come. Then came a mes- 

 sage from the governor, calling attention 

 to the fact that the appropriations already 

 passed by the Legislature were in excess of 

 the estimated income of .the State. This 

 made the passage of the forestry bill highly 

 improbable. Still its friends did not give 

 up the fight. During two hours, on the 

 last day of the session, they fought for it 

 on the floor of the Assembly, but at the 

 final vote the nays had it by "a small 

 majority. 



Among the lessons to be learned from 

 the history of the forestry bill of 1899, 

 one of the most important is this : that there 

 is no longer much danger of opposition to 

 the principle that it is the duty of the 

 State to provide for the permanency of 

 forests by appropriate legislation, even to 

 the extent of going into the business of 

 conservative lumbering. Ten years ago, 



such a proposition would have met with 

 not a little hostility and ridicule. It would 

 have been called impracticable, socialistic, 

 and un-American. In 1899, not a single 

 member of the Legislature but admitted the 

 desirability of such legislation, with the 

 exception of one gentlemen who thought 

 that forest fires were a good thing because 

 they made it easier to clear the ground 

 for farming. It is said that this statesman 

 is engaged in selling sand hills to innocent 

 foreigners and laborers from the cities, on 

 the pretense that they are agricultural 

 lands. Even those who voted against the 

 bill did so avowedly on the ground of ex- 

 pediency for the time being. 



Even less opposition than within the 

 Legislature is to be met with among the 

 people of the State. Of course there is a 

 great deal of indifference, and not a little 

 misunderstanding of the aims and objects 

 of forestry reform. In a state situated like 

 Wisconsin, where the question of main- 

 taining a water supply and preventing 

 over-erosion is of subordinate importance, 

 the great body of people cannot be ex- 

 pected to feel the same direct interest in 

 forest preservation as for instance in 

 Southern California, where the existence 

 of agriculture is dependent on the main- 

 tenance of the mountain forests. In Wis- 

 consin, the class most directly interested are 

 those engaged in forest industries, and 

 manufacturing enterprises deriving their 

 raw material from the woods. It is very 

 gratifying to state that as a general rule 

 men of this class are staunch friends of im- 

 proved forestry, and some of the most en- 

 ergetic promoters of this cause are among 

 the great lumbermen. 



Of course it cannot be expected that en- 

 tire unanimity should exist as to the best 

 means of reaching the desired end. In 

 particular, the policy of placing consider- 

 able areas of forest land under the man- 

 agement of the State is apt to encounter 

 objections from the residents of the coun- 

 ties in which these forests will be neces- 

 sarily located. They tear on the one hand 

 that the reservation of these tracts will 

 hinder the progress of settlement, and on 

 the other hand they desire to see all (In- 

 land in private hands, so that it may be 



