ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 195 



Early in Roosevelt's second administration, Heyburn brought 

 forward a bill to reimburse the states and territories for school lands 

 included in forest reserves ;''* but, as he frankly admitted, his purpose 

 was not so much to get cash for the school lands as to make an oppor- 

 tunity for an attack upon the reserves/^ The debates on this bill, 

 while not fruitful of immediate results, are of considerable interest 

 because they show a conservation attitude, even on the part of some 

 of the western men. Teller of course took the usual stand, but Hey- 

 burn's colleague Dubois stoutly defended the reserves. "In regard to 

 this proposition I differ radically and totally with my colleague," 

 said Dubois. "Vi^e want to preserve these forest lands for the present 

 population of Idaho and for future generations. . . . The present 

 administration may, and doubtless does, make some mistakes in the 

 numerous details of carrying on this great work, but they are so few 

 and insignificant as compared with the great benefit which the policy 

 confers on our whole people, that they are entitled to the support of 

 our western representatives at least.'"® 



Other western men — Smoot of Utah, Newlands of Nevada, and 

 Warren of Wyoming — showed at least a lack of sympathy with Hey- 

 burn's attack.^^ After Heyburn had berated the Forest Service at 

 some length, Newlands begged permission to "ask the senator, in view 

 of the fact that Idaho's present population is 300,000 and that she 

 some da}' before very long will probably have a population of a million 

 and a half, whether he regards the present reservation of one fifth of 

 the entire area for purposes of the future as unwise." In a somewhat 

 similar vein, Smoot asked if it were not true that "many times miners, 

 or alleged miners have gone upon forest reserves in Idaho and other 

 states and simply located upon a piece of land, calling it a mineral 

 claim, when there was no other object on earth than to get the timber 

 within the claim, and when there was no mineral whatever there." 

 Heyburn pompously declared that there was "so small a percentage 



74 s. 1661. 



75 Cong. Bee, Jan. 29, 1906, 1689. 



76 Ibid., 1691-1693. For a careful discussion of the attitude of Heyburn and of 

 Dubois, see Forest Bui. 67, 1905, pp. 40 et seq. As indicated there, Dubois some- 

 times criticised Heyburn most severely for his "disregard of facts," in his attacks 

 on the reserves. 



I 77 Cong. Bee, Jan. 29, 1906, 1677-1695. 



Ill 



