196 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



of fact upon which to base a question of that kind" that it was "not 

 worthy of being taken into consideration" ; but most of the members 

 of Congress were evidently considering it, nevertheless. 



Heyburn's bill was vigorously assailed by Beveridge of Indiana, 

 Nelson of Minnesota, and Dolliver of Iowa, and, lacking the united 

 support of the West, it never passed the Senate. Later in the same 

 session of Congress, Heyburn introduced another bill, to prohibit 

 the creation of forest reserves in Idaho, but it was never reported.^* 



THE ANTI-CONSERVATION ATTACK OF 1907 



Attention has now been directed to the difficulties encountered in 

 connection with grazing in the forest reserves, the very rapid increase 

 in the number of reserves, the vigorous and aggressive policy of the 

 Roosevelt administration, the abuses under the Forest Lieu Act, the 

 incompetency of the early forest officers, arid other causes of western 

 hostility. Consideration of these matters opens the way to a better 

 understanding of the anti-conservation attack of 1907. 



In 1907, just as in 1897, and at various other times, the anti- 

 conservation hostility came to a head in connection with the debates 

 on an appropriation bill. The House Committee on Agriculture had 

 inserted an amendment to the Agricultural Appropriation Bill, per- 

 mitting the Secretary of Agriculture to divide up the national forests 

 into such administrative units as might seem wise, but Tawney of 

 Minnesota was opposed to allowing the secretary so much discretion, 

 and he raised the point of order on the amendment.^® Tawney after- 

 ward withdrew his point of order, but Mondell renewed it and was 

 sustained. 



Mondell's opposition was apparently prompted by the fact that 

 the Forest Service followed the policy of selling timber at regular 

 market prices ; although as a matter of fact, the Forest Service was 

 required by law to follow that policy. Mondell claimed that the gov- 

 ernment, with a monopoly of the timber supply in some districts of 

 the West, was raising prices even above those of the Pacific "lumber 

 combines." "Each inspector who visits our reservation boosts the 

 price a little higher," he said, "until we have a monopoly established, 



78 S. 4470. 



79 Cong. Bee, Jan. 29, 1907, pp. 1900, 1901, 



I 



