I 



FOREST RESERVES IN THE EAST 213 



With the prevention of erosion was of course involved the preserva- 

 tion of the soil in the interests of agriculture :*^ while greater regu- 

 larity of streamflow was expected to be of benefit, not only because of 

 its effect on navigation, but because it would lessen damage from 

 floods and would increase the amount of water power available for 

 commercial development.^^ Some rather elaborate figures were given 

 to show the value of even a small increase in the minimum flow of 

 streams used for generating water power.^^ 



The question of forest conservation was given more weight in the 

 debates than was the matter of stream navigability. The need of a 

 future supply of the valuable hardwoods of the southern Alleghanies 

 was pointed out, and some even went so far as to predict that the 

 buying up of these lands would be a paying investment for the 

 government.^* 



The value of the forest lands as summer resorts was urged as an 

 argument for Federal purchase,^^ although the bearing of this argu- 

 ment is not clear. It was, for instance, pointed out that the income 

 from the summer resort business in New Hampshire alone was more 

 than $8,000,000 annually, and complaint was made that many people 

 who had formerly frequented the White Mountains now spent their 

 summers in Canada, because the forests in the White Mountains were 

 being destroyed.^® 



Among other arguments for this bill were some of a distinctly 

 "pork barrel" flavor. Thus Representative Gillett of Massachusetts 

 wanted national forests in the East to balance the river and harbor 

 appropriations which had been going to other sections of the country ; 

 and Gallinger of New Hampshire thought that since the government 

 was spending money on national forests in the West, it should in fair- 

 ness maintain some also in the East.^^ 



31 Cong. Bee, June 24, 1910, 8986; Forest Circ. 1T6. 



s2Cong. Rec, June 24, 1910, 8991, 9007: S. Report 459; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 2-5: 

 U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 72, 1911, 13, 14. 



33 S. Report 2537; 59 Cong. 1 sess., 5, 6: S. Doc. 91; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 13: Forest 

 Circ. 144. 



34 Cong. Rec, June 24, 1910, 8992: S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 162: S. Doc. 91; 

 60 Cong. 1 sess., 9-12. 



35 S. Report 2742; 58 Cong. 3 sess., 2, 3. 



36 S. Report 2537 ; 59 Cong. 1 sess. 



37 Cong. Rec, June 24, 1910, 9014; Feb. 15, 1911, 2578. 



