(THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 159 



aised the House appropriation for the protection of forest reserves 

 from $325,000 to $400,000 ;" and this amendment was agreed to in 

 the Senate without a comment. In both these bills, the final amount 

 provided represented a compromise between the two houses, with the 

 Senate calling for the larger appropriation. The situation in 1904 

 was similar, and so again in 1905,^" In 1907, on the proposal to give 

 the Forest Service $500,000 for working capital and permanent 

 improvements, it was Mann of Illinois who raised the point of order, 

 while in opposition to this extra appropriation, the western anti-con- 

 servationists. Carter, Heyburn, Fulton, Clark, and Patterson, were 

 assisted by several men from central and eastern states — Tawney of 

 Minnesota, Mann of Illinois, Hemenway of Indiana, and Lodge of 

 Massachusetts.*^^ 



Thus it is clear that the division on the question of these appro- 

 priations was not sectional, as on most conservation questions. Sev- 

 eral reasons may be given for the failure of the western men to put up 

 a stronger fight against the appropriations. In the first place, irri- 

 gation was assuming greater importance, and some of the men saw 

 that forest destruction would involve hardship for the settler depend- 

 ent upon a steady water supply. Also, the Secretary of the Interior 

 was, during these years, giving some free timber to settlers in the 

 vicinity of the reserves, and this made them look more kindly upon 

 the reservation policy, and upon the appropriations for carrying that 

 policy into effect. ^^ As a further reason for the changed attitude of 

 some of the western men, it has been suggested that some of the tim- 

 bermen who had secured land, in some cases at a fairly high price, 

 finally saw that it was to their interest to advocate the reservation 

 of other land which might come into competition with their holdings. 

 This would limit the supply of timber available to other lumbermen, 

 and so enhance the value of their own holdings. Such an attitude as 

 this might be natural enough for those lumbermen who had no inten- 

 tion of securing more lands. 



Some of the stockmen enjoyed free grazing privileges,*^^ and a few 



49 Cong. Rec, Feb. 25, 1903, 2621. 



50 S. Report 811; 58 Cong. 2 sess.: S. Report 3567; 58 Cong. 3 sess. 

 siCon^. Rec, Jan. 29, 1907, 1906-1909; Feb. 19, 1907, 3292-3300. 

 ^2 Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 241: Statistical Abstract, 1907, 113. 

 53 Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 241. 



