DISCUSSION : FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW 515 
bered, are known, according to observation and local repute, to rise Mr. Chitten- 
rapidly in times of flood to extreme flood height, to carry excessive 4" 
quantities of mud, sand, and gravel, and to fall quickly. In dry sea- 
sons. they are very low, and the range from lowest to highest stages 
has increased, and has inflicted much damage in very recent years.” 
Note the complete absence of data which would ordinarily be con- 
sidered necessary to base a conclusion upon—nothing as to relative areas 
of cleared and wooded land; nothing as to character and extent of cul- 
tivation; nothing as to slopes and character of water-shed, and the 
location of permanent springs; no records of rainfall and none of 
stream flow; no past records of any kind to compare with the present; 
nothing but “observation and local repute.” The writer will not com- 
ment upon this matter further than to animadvert, perhaps rather 
severely, upon the unscientific character of methods like these, which 
are so largely resorted to in promoting the cause of forestry. The 
scientist who permits his researches to become enlisted in the advocacy 
of a “cause” is treading upon dangerous ground. The moment he 
departs from the narrow path of declaring the truth, no matter where 
it strikes, that moment he ceases to be a scientist and becomes a 
partisan. Less culpable is the use of loose and inaccurate data in one 
whose business is promotion rather than scientific research; but even 
with him common sense should be given some authority. Recently 
the whole country was startled by the news that a distinguished of- 
ficial of the: State of New York had found a place near the source of 
the Hudson River where the water of that stream was only 2 in. 
deep! This was the only fact stated; nothing of where the shallow 
part was found, nor whether it was upon some broad gravel bar where 
the stream spread out in a thin sheet, nor whether the figure was a 
measurement or a guess. Only one other thing was certain, and that was 
that the destruction of forests was the cause of the low water, although 
this was after one of the most prolonged droughts that the country 
had ever seen. Lewis and Clark record that after their long journey 
of many months and several thousand miles up the Missouri River 
they at last came to a point where the stream was so small that a man 
eculd bestride it. Their report contains no hint that this was due to a 
lack of forests. 
The official above referred to also declared that New York City’s 
new water supply would be ruined if certain forests in the Catskills 
were cut off. While it may be undesirable to permit those forests 
to be cut, it would be utterly impossible to prove that, if they were 
cut and replaced by a good turf with grass or shrubbery, the supply 
from the water-shed would suffer in the smallest degree, either in quan- 
tity or quality. Yet this alarmist report was taken up by the press 
quite seriously, and spread all over the country. 
In reference to Mr, Willis’ closing remarks concerning erosion 
