ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY . 167 



Two years later Lacey brought forward another bill, which finally 

 passed Congress in spite of opposition from certain western men.* 



The Lacey bill of 1906, following conservation ideals, left the open- 

 ing of these lands to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. 

 The real merits of the bill were not given much attention in the de- 

 bates, most of the discussion consisting in attacks upon the forest 

 reserves, with an occasional voice raised in their defense. Hogg of 

 Colorado attacked the measure on the ground that it left the Secre- 

 tary of Agriculture too much discretion in regard to the opening of 

 the lands. Mondell had always complained a great deal about the 

 amount of agricultural land locked up in forest reserves, and had tried 

 to get a bill through Congress providing for their elimination;'' biit 

 Lacey's measure he promptly attacked, on the ground that it would 

 lead to undue extension of the reserves. Smith of i\rizona ventured the 

 assertion that there was no longer any room left in the West for more 

 reserves, but Mondell said there were still "patches of sage brush" 

 which might be made the basis of further reservation. French of Idaho 

 considered the bill "a sort of chloroform to the people of the West," 

 while the policy of establishing forest reserves was being carried out. 



Grazing interests were strong in Congress, and Avere to some extent 

 opposed to this measure. Thus, Smith of California secured the exclu-^ 

 sion of his state from the provisions of the bill, on the ground that 

 grazing lands were better left under the control of the Secretary of 

 Agriculture. This may have meant merely that Smith preferred graz- 

 ing under regulations to no grazing at all, for grazing lands were 

 sometimes also fit for cultivation, and land opened to settlers was, of 

 course, eliminated from the stock raiser's domain. Also, California 

 had a "no fence" law, according to which settlers were not required 

 to fence against grazing animals, the duty of keeping the animals off 

 of such claims resting with the stockmen. Thus, the stockmen in that 

 state found scattered settlers a source of considerable trouble and 

 expense, and so they were not particularly anxious to increase the 

 number of them. Martin of South Dakota, on the other hand, favored 

 the bill because he considered that it would protect the interests of the 

 settlers as against the stockmen. Mondell held that it was "no part 



4 Cong. Rec, Apr. 17, 1906, 5392 et seq. 



5 H. R. 14053; 58 Cong. 2 sess. See also Cong. Rec, Apr. 7, 1906, 4918. 



