212 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



at considerable length. Gallinger's bill was finally postponed in favor 

 of the "Weeks" bill, which was destined to mark a new epoch in the 

 history of the United States forestry policy. 



THE WEEKS BILL 



On July 23, 1909, Representative Weeks introduced a bill, "to 

 enable any state to cooperate with any other state or states or with 

 the United States, for the protection of the watersheds of navigable 

 streams, and to appoint a commission for the acquisition of lands for 

 the purpose of conserving the navigability of navigable rivers." This 

 bill appropriated $1,000,000 for the current year and $2,000,000 

 each year until 1916, for the purchase of forest lands in the southern 

 Appalachian and White mountains. 



The House Committee on Agriculture, after exhaustive hearings 

 covering a period of nine months, reported the bill favorably; al- 

 though with a strong minority report signed by seven members of the 

 committee, including the chairman, Charles F. Scott of Kansas.^* 



Once before Congress, the bill aroused more spirited debate than 

 had been stirred up by any conservation measure in several years. 

 Conservation measures had usually had two or three active advocates, 

 almost never more than a half dozen, and perhaps as many bitter 

 opponents from the western states; but the Weeks Bill was debated 

 with great energy by men from every part of the country.^^ 



ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE BILL 

 A great number and variety of arguments were brought forward 

 in support of the bill, in the debates or in the reports. The assumed 

 purpose, as expressed in the title, was to conserve the navigability of 

 navigable rivers. The protection of forests on the watersheds was 

 assumed to conserve navigability in two ways: first, by preventing 

 the erosion incident to deforestation and thus preventing the deposit 

 of silt along the lower watercourses ; and second, by insuring a more 

 regular waterflow, thus rendering the rivers navigable for a greater 

 period during times of drouth.^" 



28 H. Report 1036; 61 Cong. 2 sess. 



2&Cong. Bee, June 24, 1910, 8974-902T; June 25, 9045-9051; Feb. 15, 1911, 

 2575-2602. 



30 S. Report 459; 60 Cong. 1 sess., pt. 2, pp. 2-4. See also U. S. Geological 

 Survey, Professional Paper 72, 1911; and Forest Circ. 143. 



