EDITORIAL 



775 



The statement from Mr. Newell, Di- 

 rector of the Reclamation Service, 

 found in our news columns, would not 

 bear out such a conclusion. Neverthe- 

 less, as eternal vigilance is the price 

 of liberty, so, likewise, is it the price 

 of the proper safeguarding of the peo- 

 ple's interests in general. 



The Reclamation Service has abund- 

 antly demonstrated its right to live and 

 greatly to extend its operations. 



Criticism has been made that it has 

 undertaken too much. A Senator, 

 quoted as favoring private as against 

 public irrigation, says that no blame 

 should attach to the Reclamation Serv- 

 ice because of the number of enter- 

 prises undertaken. 



Local demands voiced in Congress, 

 together with the law itself, seemed to 

 leave the Service no recourse. 



It was forced into work which its 

 present funds do not permit it promptly 

 to complete. The question now is 

 whether Congress will enable it to 

 complete these works and likewise to 

 undertake others. 



This same Senator bears testimony 

 to the widespread popularity of the 

 Reclamation Service in the West and 

 the protest which may be anticipated 

 should any attempt be made to impair 

 its usefulness. 



Let no backward step be taken in 

 the work of Governmental reclamation. 

 Whatever private concerns may do, the 

 Reclamation Service must lead. Its 

 business is to serve the people at cost. 

 It works not for individual profit, but 

 for the general welfare. The people 

 are for it. 



The President recommends, as does 

 the Secretary of the Interior, that bonds 

 should be issued to enlarge its funds. 

 Let Congress act upon this recom- 

 mendation. 



Rally for the Appalachian Bill 



THE session of Congress is almost 

 here. The fight for the Appalachian 

 bill must be renewed. 



We need not repeat the history of 

 this legislation. 



Note that the work began in the 

 South. Now it includes New England, 

 and its friends are scattered from sea 

 to sea. 



Again, it began in esthetics ; now it 

 is rooted in economics. 



It was instituted to save the magnifi- 

 cent scenery of the Southern Ap- 

 palachians. Now it is sought primarily 

 to save the forests and streams of New 

 England and the South, with the tre- 

 mendous interests dependent upon wood 

 and water. 



As to wood : It is well known that 

 our chief hardwood supply is in the 

 Southern Appalachians. But, with the 

 slaughter now on, these hardwoods, in 

 another twelve or fifteen years, will be 

 practically gone. 



As a writer suggests, hardwood prod- 

 ucts may soon be expected to bear the 

 label, "Made in Germany." 



But important as is the question of 

 wood, the question of water is more so. 

 To blink the connection between for- 

 est and stream is futile and fatal. For 

 waterways men to do it is for them to 

 follow the example of the ostrich which, 

 to ensure its safety, hides its head in 

 the sand. 



Yet some waterways men are doing 

 this very thing. Waterways men of 

 prominence are denying all connection 

 between wood and water ; between for- 

 ests and floods ; between timber-clad 

 slopes and the control of streams. 



One of the waterways leaders in the 

 House voted against the Weeks bill ; an- 

 other has recently denied categorically 

 all faith in forests as a protection to 

 streams, and has demanded that the 

 forest and waterways propositions be 

 kept absolutely separate and distinct. 



This man pins his faith to the teach- 

 ings of the army engineers. 



The chief of these is Colonel Chit- 

 tenden. As CONSERVATION readers 

 know, his paper was riddled by Prof. 

 George F. Swain in this magazine for 

 August and September. 



Military men are models of courtesy; 

 they are delightful friends and com- 

 panions ; but, as a class, they have one 

 weakness. 



The bane of militarism is conven- 

 tionalism, conservatism, adherence to 



