FOREST RESERVES IN THE EAST 215 



been greatly exaggerated by many writers, and was grossly exag- 

 gerated in the debates in Congress.*^ 



Of course those who did not believe in the vital relation of forests 

 to stream navigability did not believe that forest reserves would have 

 any great influence in the prevention of floods. Unquestionably, too, 

 there was much logic in this position. Some of the arguments of the 

 conservationists on this point were not tempered with good judgment. 

 Thus Senator Smith of South Carolina seemed to assume that the 

 only thing necessary to prevent future floods was the preservation of 

 the forests at the headwaters of rivers; and the loss of $18,000,000 

 worth of property in the Piedmont plateau in 1901 and 1902 was 

 often pointed out as loss which would in large part have been avoided 

 had there been good forests in the mountains.*^ Forest destruction 

 was referred to as the cause of the increasing destruction of property 

 by floods along the rivers below; while other factors, such as the 

 breaking up of lands into farms, the crowding of cities down near the 

 water's edge and the development of valuable manufacturing plants 

 along the rivers — factors no doubt more important than forest de- 

 struction — were never mentioned. The opponents of the bill were 

 justified in saying at least that the effect of forests on floods and on 

 navigability was greatly exaggerated. 



An important argument against the bill was the great ultimate 

 cost of the new reserves. While the amount appropriated by the Weeks 

 Bill was only $11,000,000, many feared that it was launching the 

 government on a policy which would ultimately prove very expensive. 

 Of course the danger here was purposely exaggerated by some of the 

 opponents of the bill, for mere rhetorical purposes. Thus Representa- 

 tive Rucker of Missouri spoke repeatedly of the $1,000,000,000 which 

 was eventually to be wasted in this way.*' It was not open to question 



41 S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 123 et seq.: S. Doc. 676; 60 Cong. 2 sess., Vol. 

 II, 95 et seq., 687-710: H. Report 1036; 61 Cong. 2 sess., 6-17: Independent, 68, 

 998: Am. Forestry, Apr., 1910, 209: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc, 1895, 24 

 et seq.; 1897, 139, 165: Scientific American, May 23, 1908, 372; Oct. 29, 1910, 334: 

 Hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, Dec. 9, 1908; 60 Cong. 2 

 sess., 15, 16: Forest Circ. 143, 144: Forest Bui. 85: Agr. Yearbook, 1903, 279. 



*2Cong. Rec, Feb. 15, 1911, 2601: H. Report 1547; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 3: S. 

 Report 459; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 7. 



43 Cong. Rec, Mar. 1, 1909, 3531. 



