I 



FOREST RESERVES IN THE EAST 219 



In the upper house, the opposition was led by Senator Burton of 

 Ohio. Senator Burton, like Congressman Scott of the lower house, 

 and indeed like many members of both houses, was undoubtedly 

 actuated by the highest motives in his opposition to what he con- 

 sidered, and with much justice, dangerous "pork barrel" legislation. 

 In the Senate, however, the uselessness of debate seems to have been 

 generally recognized, and after several amendments had been rejected, 

 the bill finally passed on February 15, 1911, by a vote of 57 to 9. 



ANALYSIS OF THE FINAL VOTE 



As might have been expected from the diversity of motives and 

 arguments entering into the consideration of the bill, the final vote 

 was not clearly drawn along any particular line of cleavage, and 

 cannot be explained as a mere division on the question of conservation. 

 That New England should cast a heavy vote for the measure was to 

 be expected, and it was not strange that the South should have fur- 

 nished some favorable votes ; but it seems rather strange that the 

 Senate, always the stronghold of the anti-conservation forces, should 

 have furnished the strongest majority for the bill. Only three years 

 before this, the Senate had taken away the President's power to create- 

 reserves in the Pacific Northwest, and still later had shown a very 

 aggressive hostility to existing reserves. The Senate generally favored 

 the eastern reserves from the very first ; and even the western senators, 

 those from the Rocky Mountain and Pacific states, turned out almost 

 a solid vote in favor of the Weeks Bill. Clark of Wyoming was the 

 only man from this section to vote against the bill, although Heyburn 

 was paired against it. It is hard to explain the attitude of some of 

 the western senators toward this bill. One explanation suggested is 

 that these men thought if they could secure the creation of some 

 reserves in the East, they could make the East sick of the reservation 

 policy, and thus ultimately secure the abolition of the western re- 



erally favorable. This was of course to be expected, since these were the sections 

 to be benefited by this legislation. The favorable vote of some of the prairie 

 states — South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas — was characteristic of the prairie 

 section. The vote of Wisconsin and Michigan may indicate a genuine interest in 

 conservation, or it may indicate that the representatives of these states saw in the 

 passage of the Weeks Bill the inauguration of a policy which might later be ex- 

 tended to the Lake states. Doubtless Wisconsin and Michigan would be glad to 

 have the Federal government step in and reforest some of their waste lands. 



