336 Proce:e:dings o^ th^ 



Instead of talking about national protection by 

 "army and navy," we should talk about national pro- 

 tection by "forest, army, and navy." 



I am in favor of an army commensurate with our 

 needs. I am in favor of this nation having not the 

 second best, but the greatest navy of any nation, but 

 if we can afford to do that, we can afford to spend as 

 much upon the preservation of our forests and the 

 protection of our country from destruction by the 

 desert as we can afford to spend for the protection 

 of our frontiers from a foreign foe, or to carry our 

 flag upon foreign seas. 



This great problem of forestry is not alone a matter 

 of sentiment. It is just as much a cold-blooded ques- 

 tion of business. The speakers who preceded me have 

 spoken upon the importance of forestry to mining. I 

 have listened with much interest to their masterly dis- 

 cussions on the relation of forestry to mining, and it 

 brought more forcibly than ever to my mind the con- 

 viction that the whole country and those engaged in 

 all its industries are fast coming to recognize the 

 importance of forestry. I regret that we cannot in- 

 clude the lower house of Congress. They do not seem 

 to have yet waked up to it. I have read that the 

 Japanese have been throwing 800 shells a day into 

 Port Arthur, which have cost $1,000 apiece. I think 

 we could well afford to go to that expense with shells 

 that were physically harmless to see whether we could 

 not wake Congress up, by exploding that many such 

 shells over the heads of the members of the House of 

 Representatives. 



I am not going to take up your time with any further 

 dissertations upon the importance of forestry. But I 

 want to offer some practical suggestions as to what we 

 should do to get what we want done. I listened with 



