DISCUSSION: FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW 537 
writer is as firm a believer in, and as ardent a friend of, legitimate for- mr. Chitten- 
estry as Mr. Pinchot himself. He has spoken against a spurious forestry °™ 
only—a forestry which promises where it cannot make good. Fifteen 
years ago, he accepted without question the current theories, although 
then urged in a comparatively mild form. It was only by learning 
through practical experience the erroneous character of some of these 
theories that he was led to question the general claim in regard to the 
beneficial effects of forests upon stream flow, and to find upon investi- 
gation that it was indeed not well founded. For several years he has 
had it in mind to present a paper on the subject to this Society, 
but has desisted for the sole reason that he did not wish, even in 
appearance, to roll a stone in the pathway of the movement for the 
preservation of our forests. He should not have prepared the present 
paper but for the turn which things have taken in the past two years, 
in which conservatism has been thrown to the winds, the most 
exaggerated and erroneous notions have been seriously forced upon 
the public belief, and the drift was unmistakably in the direction of 
making forestry an adjunct of the improvement of our navigable 
rivers. In this situation he determined that at least one voice should 
be raised in protest—one plea made for sanity in dealing with this 
important subject. As stated at the close of his paper, this decision 
was taken solely upon his own initiative, and, right or wrong, he alone 
is responsible for it. If any one supposes that the work was under- 
taken as a mere holiday recreation, he is mistaken. It is easier to 
swim with the current than against it, particularly when that current 
is a veritable Niagara. Nothing but a sense of profound conviction 
could justify the writer’s course, and two circumstances attending the 
reception of his paper have confirmed his estimate of its timeliness and 
importance. One is the commendatory references in this discussion 
and the numerous letters he has received from prominent engineers 
and others, showing a deep undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the 
extreme course which our forestry friends are pursuing. The other is 
the attitude of a few ultra-forestry advocates who have co-operated in 
this discussion to demolish the writer’s argument. It is probably true 
that no paper has been presented to the Society during its existence 
that has been denounced in such unmeasured terms from beginning 
to end as has this paper by the small group of gentlemen referred to. 
They have found nothing but “fundamental” misconceptions and 
errors, “unfortunate” illustrations, “curious” doctrines, failure to 
grasp “elementary principles,” “vitiated” reasoning, and finally mis- 
takes so many that Mr. Pinchot plaintively remarks that he is unable 
to “exhaust” them. The literary form is indeed irreproachable, but a 
grave peril lurks in this very fact, for the unwary may thereby be 
“beguiled into acceptance of the author’s precepts!” In the words of 
a gentleman who attended the Louisville Convention of the Ohio 
