214 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE BILL 



Among the arguments against the bill, the most prominent was that 

 of unconstitutionality.^^ It was argued that the real purpose of the 

 bill was not the conservation of navigable streams, but the conserva- 

 tion of forests, and that there was therefore no basis for Federal 

 action. Without question it is true that the main purpose of the act 

 was not the conservation of navigable streams, and the relation of 

 forests to stream navigability, while it had some slight weight, was 

 a minor consideration and was accented merely to meet the question 

 of constitutionality. In a report made in 1904, on one of the White 

 Mountain bills, the question of conserving navigable rivers had been 

 given a secondary place ; and Senator Gallinger admitted that it was 

 later given prominence merely to meet the question of constitution- 

 ality.^® In 1908, the House Committee on the Judiciary had reported 

 on the matter of constitutionality, and while there was a wide variety 

 of opinions in that committee, the majority thought that if it 

 appeared that forest reserves would aid navigation. Congress had the 

 power to acquire such reserves.*" Of course the South, with its strong 

 states' rights notions, was in a peculiar position in urging such an 

 extension of Federal functions as this. 



The question as to whether forest protection is an aid to navigation 

 cannot be discussed in detail here, for it is still a mooted question. 

 The general consensus of opinion is that a forest cover has some 

 effect, by preventing erosion and thus reducing the deposit of silt in 

 the lower watercourses, and by insuring a more regular streamflow. 



On the first point, regarding the prevention of erosion, there is a 

 fairly general agreement among authorities. There cannot be any 

 doubt that unprotected land will sometimes erode worse than land 

 which has a forest cover. As to the effect of forests in equalizing water- 

 flow, there is no such agreement. Most authorities seem to think that 

 forests have some such effect, but others deny it, and are able to cite 

 respectable evidence in support of this view. It is certain that the 

 influence of forests in this respect, like their influence on climate, has 



38 Con^. Rec, June 24, 1910, 9017, 9018, 9021; Feb. 15, 1911, 2578: H. Res. 365; 

 60 Cong. 1 sess. 



s^lbid., Feb. 15, 1911, 2578: S. Report 2742; 58 Cong. 3 sess. 

 40 H, Report 1514 ; 60 Cong. 1 sess. 



