510 DISCUSSION : FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW 
Mr. Chitten- worse through deforestation; others, equally high, hold that the his- 
tory of the past, as well as modern records, affords no warrant for any. 
such claim. 
It would, of course, be entirely unjust to ascribe this discord to 
any deficiency of qualifications, knowledge, or industry on the part of 
our scientific bureaus; no one acquainted with their work would ad- 
mit that. It is forced upon them by the exigencies of a “cause.” Of 
late, the prominent feature of this cause has been the White Moun- 
tain-Appalachian project. Every argument that could be devised to 
influence public opinion in favor of this project has been used; and a 
practical necessity has forced the stream-flow function of forests in 
this connection prominently to the front. Legal authorities have held 
that this forest reserve could not be created as a timber reserve, pure 
and simple, because, forsooth, an instrument written a century and a 
quarter ago says it cannot be done unless such reserve will. also pro- 
mote the navigability of the rivers that flow from it. Thus a feature 
of the forestry propaganda, which is a wholly subordinate one, is 
made the chief stone of the corner. Inasmuch as the very foundations 
upon which it is sought to lay it are to a very great extent fictitious 
and non-existent, it is no wonder that discord and confusion have 
resulted in trying to build upon them; and the Engineering Profes- 
sion, at least, will probably feel that the ‘recent work” of the scientific 
bureaus upon this particular subject is not exactly a safe guide. 
Mr. Collingwood, with the perfect simplicity of the typical for- 
estry enthusiast, after citing certain changes in the Chemung River, 
asks: “If the cutting of the timber did not do it, what was it?” 
Again, “after this, therefore on account of this.” Has Mr. Colling- 
wood ever inquired whether there might not be some other cause? 
Has he examined into the nature of Man’s operations along that river, 
the effects of cultivation, etc.? He admits that he has no data of 
value as to the earlier condition of the stream, but only as to its later 
condition. Is it not a fact that much of the havoc he mentions was 
wrought by a single flood, that of 1889, the year of the Johnstown 
flood, when 8 in. of rain fell in 3 days in the hills around Elmira? 
According to his own statement, the rafting of logs, which naturally 
marks the active inroad into the virgin timber, ceased nearly 60 years 
ago, and only the cutting of hardwood has progressed since. Yet the 
great changes which he notes have taken place within 20 years. Does 
Mr. Collingwood consider evidence of this kind very convincing? 
The writer is quite willing to accept what Mr. Le Baron says of 
the precipitation in tropical countries; but it manifestly does not ap- 
ply to our northern climate, which alone is considered in this paper. 
Mr. Le Baron refers to possible development of forests on irri- 
