296 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



attitude of Utah men in Congress, Senator Smoot, for instance, has 

 doubtless been influenced by the attitude of the Mormon Church; 

 many of the Mormons are farming irrigated lands. The sentiment of 

 the people of the West varies according to the occupation of the 

 people. A grazing section usually presents a different attitude from 

 a section peopled by small settlers, or miners, or "lumberjacks.'"^ 



SAFETY OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS 



The question finally arises — Are the forests safe, or is there still a 

 possibility that they may be turned over to the states, or opened to 

 private exploitation? Prediction of the future is always dangerous, 

 but many signs indicate that the reserves are probably safer than ever 

 before. Even the radical opponents of the forest reserve policy have in 

 recent years apparently realized the hopelessness of their fight. As 

 early as 1910, Mondell declared in Congress: "Forestry and forest 

 reserves have been a fad with the American people for a few years past 

 and it does not seem to matter to them how much it costs. I realize 

 that, and I have exposed myself to all sorts of criticism by being one 

 of the very few people who have had something to say about the 

 extravagance of the service. I have gone into it quite fully in other 

 sessions of Congress. I realize it did not do a particle of good. . . . 

 I realize that the committee proposes to give the Forest Service what- 

 ever it asks and without much question."^^ Senator Heyburn likewise 

 seemed, at least occasionally, to realize that the sentiment in Congress 

 was overwhelmingly against him. "Mr. President," he said at the close 

 of a vigorous attack on the Forest Service in 1911, "I have very little 

 hope of reformation in this hour. This is not the hour of reforms. It is 

 the hour of chaos — political chaos, governmental chaos, and I will 

 wait until conditions settle down and men begin to think."^" Senator 

 Heyburn's "hour of reforms" is probably more distant now than it 

 was in 1911. 



Various lines of reasoning would point to the probable indefinite 



27 Cong. Bee, Feb, 26, 1909, 3231, 3239; Feb. 1, 1910, 1340; Mar. 8, 1910, 2891, 

 2893; June 17, 1913, 2059, 2066; Apr. 18, 1916, 6406: Proceedings, Society of Am. 

 Foresters, Nov., 1905, 70-76: Outlook, Nov. 7, 1908, 553; May 14, 1910, 57: Report, 

 Montana Commission on Conservation, 1911. 



28 Cong. Bee, Feb. 1, 1910, 1338. 



29 Cong. Bee, Mar. 1, 1911, 3774. 



