218 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



facturers, the National Association of State University Presidents, 

 the National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, the National 

 Board of Trade, the National Forest Association (organized at 

 Atlanta, Georgia), the National Federation of Women's Clubs, the 

 National Hardwood Lumber Association, the National Lumber Manu- 

 facturers' Association, the National Slack Cooperage Manufacturers' 

 Association, the National Wholesale Lumber Dealers' Association, the 

 Pennsylvania Lumbermen's Association, the Pennsylvania Water 

 Supply Commission ; and even the United States Hay Fever Associa- 

 tion. Favorable resolutions were also adopted by the Chambers of 

 Commerce of various cities; New York, Boston, Cleveland, Pitts- 

 burgh, and Los Angeles; and by the legislatures of several of the 

 states ; North and South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, and 

 Oregon.^** 



OPPOSITION TO THE BILL 



In the House, perhaps one of the strongest influences against the 

 bill was the attitude of Speaker Cannon and Chairman Scott of the 

 Committee on Agriculture. It had been repeatedly charged that it 

 was only the arbitrary rulings of the speaker that had prevented the 

 passage of some forest reserve bill long before this;^^ and no doubt 

 his known opposition had great influence, especially since Chairman 

 Scott of the committee reporting the bill was in full sympathy with 

 him. In spite of all opposition, however, the bill passed the House on 

 June 24, 1910, by a vote of 130 to 111.'' 



50 Forestry and Irrigation, Jan., 1906, 23, 50; June, 190T, 304; July, 1907, 349; 

 Mar., 1908, 129: Conservation, Dec, 1908, 659; Mar., 1909, 177; July, 1909, 427: 

 American Forestry, Nov., 1910, 677; Mar., 1911, 187: S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 

 172-179: S. Report 2537; 59 Cong. 1 sess., 9: S. Report 826; 61 Cong. 2 sess., 46: 

 Cong. Rec, Jan. 20, 1908, 907; Mar. 28, 1908, 4083; Feb. 11, 1909, 2241. 



51 Forestry and Irrigation, Jan., 1907, 30; Apr., 1908, 178, 179, 190, 191: The 

 Independent, Jan. 3, 1907, 35: Conservation, Oct., 1908, 558; Jan., 1909, 60: Cong. 

 Rec, Jan. 29, 1907, 1910, 1911: Collier's, Apr. 4, 1908, 9. 



52 See large map accompanying. 



Several features of this map are worthy of attention. In the first place, it 

 should be observed that the West cast a fairly solid vote against the bill. Several 

 of the central states — Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, and 

 Indiana — cast strong votes against the measure, largely no doubt because they 

 saw some of the "pork barrel" influences behind it, and perhaps because they felt 

 that legislation of this character could do their section little good. New England 

 cast practically a solid vote for the bill; and the Appalachian sections were gen- 



