DISCUSSION : FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW 503° 
Having reviewed the seven fundamental conclusions deduced from mr. Chitten- 
his original argument, the writer will ask the attention of those who ‘%™ 
have considered his views “extreme” to the conservatism which has 
marked every stage of his reasoning. More than once he has called 
attention to the unwisdom of building positive theories upon any one ° 
of the multitudinous details of this subject, in which definite data are 
still so lacking; and the general result of his argument was summed up 
in the following sentence, which he would here print in italics if the 
rules of the Society would permit: “The difference between past and 
present conditions is not great.” The forest with its bed of humus is 
replaced by the cultivated field which quite equals it in absorptive 
power. The influence of forest growth upon evaporation is offset by 
that of growing crops. The greater parching effect of the direct rays 
.of the sun upon the surface of the ground in the open country is 
relieved to some extent by the deposition of dew. If the forests are 
cooler in summer and possibly induce greater precipitation, they are 
warmer at other seasons and possibly have the contrary effect. And 
so, when we go to the great rivers to gather up the net result of these 
manifold influences, we find things very much as they used to be. 
It should be a matter of profound satisfaction that this is so. It is a 
pleasing picture to turn to after the saturnalia of horrors—“waste,” 
“desolation” and “ruin”—to. which we have been treated during the 
past two years by the forestry propaganda. 
This paper had “particular reference to navigable ,rivers,” and its 
general conclusions must be read with reference to our large streams. 
The writer holds that there is nothing in forestry that can lessen in any 
material degree the cost of works necessary for flood protection and navi- 
gation improvement. An important point in the paper, which has been 
passed over in silence by its critics, is that, even if the claims of for- 
estry advocates in this connection were true, they would still offer no 
hope because they cannot be generally applied. It will never be pos- 
sible to increase our present woodland area. The requirements of cul- 
tivation and occupancy will rather cause it to be reduced. There may 
be a shifting of wooded areas, a clearing-off of present woodland and 
a planting of new, but the grand total cannot be increased. Not only, 
therefore, are forestry advocates filling the public mind with erroneous 
theories on this subject, but they would be unable to apply those 
theories even if they were correct. They would doubtless reply to this, 
however, by saying that it is not expected to restore original condi- 
tions to any marked degree, but only to prevent a further departure 
from them. 
The attitude assumed by some of the writer’s critics is that he is 
hostile to forestry expansion and development. No candid reader of 
his paper can come to any such conclusion. The writer has made it 
very plain that he is not, only friendly to the cause of forestry, but is 
