ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 



201 



report of all receipts from the Forest Service, and a classified and 



letailed estimate of all expenditures. This was a proper enough re- 



luirement in itself, but the debates show that one of the motives behind 



was hostility to the Forest Service, rather than a desire for more 



ireful government accounting. 



ANTI-CONSERVATION ATTACKS SINCE 1907 



The anti-conservation attack of 1907, although in a measure suc- 

 cessful, did not end the hostility to the "national forests," as they 

 rere called after 1907. Almost every year since then, some phase of 

 the reservation policy has been attacked in Congress. In 1909, Sena- 



)r Teller of Colorado, now grown old in the service of "poor set- 

 ters," led a determined attack on the reserves ; and he was supported 

 )y Borah of Idaho, Bailey of Texas, Carter of Wyoming, and Hale 

 »f Maine.'* 



In the debates on the appropriation bill of the next year, Mondell 

 entered a strong protest in the House against the "scandalous ex- 

 travagance" of the Forest Service ; while the Idaho delegation — Hey- 

 )urn and Borah, and Englebright of California — led a similar fight 

 the Senate. In 1911, Mondell again led the fight on the Forest 

 Jervice, backed by two of the Colorado representatives, Martin and 

 lucker, and by Floyd of Arkansas and Booher of Missouri, and in 

 the Senate by Heyburn and by Clark of Wyoming.®^ 



The debates on the Agricultural Appropriation Bill of 1912 were 



the occasion of a determined attack by Representative Hawley of 



Oregon, who spoke at length of the hardships imposed on the settlers, 



id the consequent unfortunate migration to Canada. Hawley was 

 )acked not only by the Idaho delegation and by some western men, 

 )ut by a few from other sections of the country. A determined but un- 



iccessful attempt to open up agricultural lands in the forest reserves 

 rill be treated in a later connection.'® 



THE BALLINGER-PINCHOT CONTROVERSY 



In 1913, Representative Humphrey of Washington, one of the new 

 ipirits in the opposition, launched a campaign against the national 



94 H. R. 27053; 61 Cong. 1 sess., 3222 et seq. 



95 H. R. 18162; 61 Cong. 2 sess.: H. R. 31596; 61 Cong, 3 sess. 



96 H. R. 18960; 62 Cong. 2 sess. Cross Reference, p. 257, 



