126 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



In the next session, McRae again brought his proposal before the 

 House, accompanied by a favorable report from the Committee on 

 Public Lands/^ This time, however, the measure was framed so as to 

 allow the Secretary of the Interior to give free timber to settlers, and 

 the vote on the resolution of Outhwaite of Ohio, calling up the bill — 

 117 ayes to 54 nays — indicates that it was generally favored, al- 

 though, no quorum being present, it was not discussed and never 

 came up again during the second session." 



In the thirci session, McRae resumed his efforts to push House bill 

 119 through Congress. This time the bill had been amended to permit 

 mining in the reserves, while the section providing for sale of timber 

 on the general public lands had been eliminated; and these modifica- 

 tions caused a complete reversal in the attitude of the western con- 

 gressmen, who veered around to a favorable attitude, influenced 

 mainly, no doubt, by the provision permitting mining in the reserves.^^ 



The chief opposition to the bill came from Wells of Wisconsin, who 

 opposed "every principle of the bill," 'and predicted that "timber 

 thieves and land sharks" would take all the timber if they were per- 

 mitted to go upon the land. He felt sure that there was a "smell of 

 boodle" behind the bill. "Why, sir," he exclaimed, "it is backed up, as 

 I said here recently upon this floor, by men who have enriched them- 

 selves by plundering the public domain and by men who know nothing 

 of forestry. ... I do not want to stand here a party to the upbuild- 

 ing of, and will not stand sponsor for the creation of another brood of 

 saw-log statesmen, such as have disgraced this floor for thirty years." 

 Pickler opposed the bill because it contained a section limiting the 

 purposes for which reserves might be created, and because it per- 

 mitted lands unnecessarily included in a forest reserve to be restored ; 

 and on the first day of debate, he and Wells, by a determined filibuster, 

 managed to prevent favorable action. Ten days later, however, it was 

 again brought up, an^l passed by a vote of 159 to 53, not an opposing^ 

 vote coming from the states west of Kansas and Nebraska. The bill 

 was thus generally regarded as unfavorable to conservation, although 

 the lines were not drawn with absolute clearness. 



15 H. Report 897; 53 Cong. 2 sess. 



16 House Journal; 53 Cong. 2 sess., 521. 



1' Cong. Rec, Dec. 6, 1894, 85; Dec. 7, 111 et seq.; Dec. 17, 364 et seq. 



