Protection in 1920 (Peirce 
and Stahl 1964, Zimmerman 
1976). 
Other conferences on the 
administration of the Weeks 
law were held in 1920 and 
1922, dealing with the 
development of a system of 
allocating funds based on 
the cost of an adequate 
system of fire protection in 
each State. At the 1922 
conference, another 
important precedent was set. 
A proposal that would take 
into consideration in the 
allocation of funds the relative 
financial ability of the State 
to meet its fire-control 
obligations was voted down. 
This eliminated the politically 
and economically infeasible 
task of determining how 
much a State could spend 
on fire control (Zimmerman 
1976). 
When the Weeks law was 
signed on March 1, 1911, no 
Southern State had a 
full-fledged forestry 
organization, and none had 
a system of forest-fire 
protection. Twenty-five other 
States had forestry 
organizations of some kind, 
and 16 had forest-fire 
protection organizations 
headed by a State Forester 
or chief warden. Eleven of 
them entered the program 
immediately, and seven 
others signed up before the 
first Southern States, North 
10 
Carolina and Virginia, entered 
the program in 1915. Other 
Southern States entering the 
Weeks law program before it 
was amended by the 
Clarke-McNary Act of 1924 
were Texas (1916), Louisiana 
(1918), Tennessee (1922), 
and Alabama (1924) (Peirce 
and Stahl 1964, Robbins 
1985, Widner 1968). 
The restrictions of protection 
to watersheds of navigable 
rivers severely limited the 
areas that could be covered 
in many States, but the States 
had very small budgets, and 
protection was planned for 
selected areas only. The 
availability of matching 
Federal funds for fire 
protection encouraged local 
interests to campaign harder 
for State legislatures to enact 
fire laws and appropriate 
funds for fire protection. 
Initially the Federal funds 
were uSed to hire persons 
for lookouts and patrolmen. 
The patrolmen were usually 
local people of good standing 
in their communities. They 
were expected to spend as 
much time as possible on 
fire prevention by talking 
with and educating the local 
people. They were also 
expected to fight fires and 
organize volunteer crews in 
local communities. Though 
these persons were Federal 
employees, they reported to 
the State officials. State 
