216 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



that the appropriation under the Weeks Bill was regarded by the 

 friends of the bill as a mere beginning, and that ultimately much more 

 should be given, but probably no one contemplated an expenditure of 

 $1,000,000,000.** The Secretary of Agriculture estimated that there 

 were about 2,000,000 acres in the White Mountains and 75,000,000 

 acres in the southern Appalachians which should eventually receive 

 protection, which could probably be bought at an average price of 

 $6 per acre for the White Mountain region and $3.50 for the south- 

 ern Appalachians ; but the secretary recommended the immediate 

 purchase of only 600,000 acres in the White Mountains and 5,000,- 

 000 in the southern Appalachians.*^ 



It was foreseen that there was danger of speculators buying up 

 lands, and Representative Crumpacker of Indiana feared that the 

 government would have to pay high for all that it bought. This was a 

 very reasonable fear, but later developments seem to indicate that the 

 bill was wisely drawn as far as guarding against this was concerned.*" 



While some men opposed the bill on the ground of its great cost, 

 Newlands of Nevada opposed because it was not comprehensive 

 enough. He showed how the bill was closely related to the waterways 

 bill and favored a comprehensive waterways bill to include forest 

 reserves in the East as one of its items. Newlands was, however, later 

 brought to favor the bill.*^ 



A final argument against the proposal embodied in the Weeks Bill 

 was that the states should buy their own forest reserves, as Pennsyl- 

 vania and New York and some of the other states had done.*^ In the 

 case of the White Mountains and Appalachian Mountains this was, 

 however, clearly impossible for two reasons. In the first place, the 

 proposition demanded more resources than any one state could com- 

 mand. It is true that the reserve in the White Mountains would have 

 cost little more than New York State was spending on her forest 

 reserve, but New Hampshire was a poor state, and even had that state 

 been rich enough to handle the proposition, the benefits, as far as 

 they related to streamflow, would have accrued to other states to the 



iiAm. Forestry, Mar., 1911, 168. 



45 S. Doc. 91 ; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 32-37. 



46 Cong. Bee, June 24, 1910, 9017. 



i-rCong. Bee, June 25, 1910, 9049, 9051; Feb. 15, 1911, 2587-94, 2602. 

 iSCong. Bee, June 24, 1910, 9020, 9021, 9025; Feb. 15, 1911, 2583-86. 



