Chapter XXI: Section VIII: The Congress shall have power (11)

Scientific farming will increase the output per man, per plow, per mule, per acre, and at the same time it will build up the fertility of the soil. Unscientific methods will wear it out. Millions upon millions of acres of land have been wasted by practical farmers in unscientific farming, by abuse and misuse until the land fails to yield enough to pay the labor of cultivating them. There are millions of acres east of Albany that are not worth today one-fourth as much as they were one hundred years ago.

The soil is our greatest natural asset. It is God’s best gift to man outside of Him who came to save us. It is our duty to conserve this gift as a priceless heritage. In a higher sense the man in whose name the title stands is not the real owner of the land; it is his to use during his lifetime and to pass it on to his successor. It is his paramount duty to turn it over to those that follow him as useful as when he received it. The land is not his except to use, it is not his to abuse. The fertile fields were placed here by God Almighty for the use of humanity for all time and no one has the right to rob the soil of its power to produce and thereby imperil or destroy the birthright of succeeding generations.

Let us look at Europe. They produce two or three times as much as we do upon the same area, notwithstanding their lands have been a thousand years longer under the plow than our own. There must be a reason, and it is that Europe, because of its large population, has been compelled to adopt intensive farming or go hungry. With us it has been different up to the present time. A few years ago, some of we older men can remember the time, when the United States invited everybody to come in and possess the land. An old song says, “Uncle Sam is rich enough to give us all a farm.” Since then our population has increased faster than the farming industry. We are now consuming ninety per cent. of our wheat and ninety-eight per cent. of our corn. The population is rapidly overtaking production. In fifty years our population will be doubled. What shall we do about it? I say to you this, we must do better farming or the people will go hungry. A thousand years or so ago Japan and India were at the parting of the ways—about where we stand today. Japan chose the better part and conserved the fertility of her soil and by intensive scientific culture she has fed her people and has demonstrated that a very small patch of ground indeed is sufficient to support an individual. This has been shown in this country—that one or two acres, properly handled, will take care of a small family. Japan acted wisely and is rich and prosperous today. India neglected her duties and her opportunity and today there are millions starving there on account of the lack of foresight of those people who lived thousands of years ago. Shall we follow Japan or India? There can be but one answer. The intelligence of the American people, the spirit of the age demands that we go forward to attain the highest and best and it is our duty to help to this end.

Denmark, a generation or two ago, was in poverty and distress, its people were crowding into the cities. The government saw something must be done to improve conditions. It wisely decided that agriculture must be encouraged, so it commenced to teach agriculture in the schools. It had its agricultural colleges strengthened, it sent men out among the people as traveling schoolmasters, visiting one community after another. Agriculture was taught in the schools. This helped some, but did not solve the problem. Finally they adopted the plan which we propose to follow, of sending a trained farm demonstrator into every community and stay there, study local conditions, meet the farmers right on the soil, and help them to understand and apply the best methods and get the best results for the time and effort expended. In two generations it brought Denmark from poverty to thrift, and today it is the finest agricultural country in the world. This comes about from carrying the knowledge to the farm home in the personality of the farm demonstrator who helps the farmer apply the best methods in practice.

Wherever the plan has been tried it has succeeded. It is the one plan that has made good, and in my judgment it is the only one that ever will. Now, then, what are we going to do about it? The most important question that has been discussed on this platform during this Congress is the one under discussion now. It is vital, it touches every human interest. The question is, shall we build up our soil and insure the food supply for coming generations, or shall we not? It is a tremendously important question and one pressing for answer.

I am glad to say this to you, that the National Soil Fertility League determined upon a plan, and so far we have had greater success in carrying it forward than we had any reason to expect. Its plan has the approval of nearly every agricultural authority in the land. It awakened a tremendous amount of interest. It shows many people were thinking in a general way that something ought to be done and were ready to rally to the support of any definite proposition that commended itself to their judgment. The National Soil Fertility League, together with the agricultural college men, drafted what is known as the Lever bill, the object of which is to provide for the co-operation of the Federal Government and the several States in carrying forward this farm demonstration plan. Under this bill the Federal Government makes an annual appropriation to every State of $10,000 a year, irrespective of condition; then it makes further appropriations conditioned upon the States furnishing an equal sum beginning with $300,000 and increasing to $3,000,000 in ten years. Except for the $10,000 all the appropriations are prorated among the States on the basis of rural population. Indiana under this plan would get $10,000 right off the reel from the fixed appropriation; it would get $9,400 from the conditional appropriation provided Indiana should furnish an equal sum. So Indiana would get from the Federal Government the first year a total of $19,400. This would go to Purdue University. Next year it would be increased to $28,800 and would go on up to $104,000 from the general government to the State College of Agriculture. In order to get this money Indiana would have to raise $94,000, so that the State would have when the maximum was reached approximately $200,000 to expend for carrying to the farmers of Indiana the existing methods of agriculture and carrying to the farmer’s wife the best they can give her. What a wonderful help this would be.

There are three great needs in the open country. One is better schools. The country schools of today are not worthy of their name. They fail to meet the requirements of the day and generation. The next important need is good roads, and the third is scientific agriculture. Bringing these improvements about will revolutionize conditions. It will raise agriculture to the first place and the highest place in the estimation of the people. It will be the strongest possible magnet to hold the girl and the boy to the farm home. It will make agriculture more pleasant, more profitable and in every way a more desirable vocation.

When I was a boy and went away to school, I entered a class of boys and we were lined up before the principal and each was asked his name and his father’s business; one would answer his father was a banker, another a merchant, another a doctor, a manufacturer, and so on. When it came to me, I said a farmer. The boys all laughed and I was obliged to take it. I licked two or three of them afterward to get my standing on the campus.

We used to think that anybody could run a farm. A story is told of a man who had three sons. One was very smart, one was exceedingly good and one was simple-minded. The father said: “Tom is smart as chain lightning; I am going to make a lawyer of Tom. William is about the best boy I ever knew; you can’t get him to go wrong; I am going to make a preacher of him. But Jack don’t seem to know much of anything, and I will make a farmer of Jack.” (Laughter.)

Let me say to you with all possible emphasis that it takes as much ability to run a farm well as it does to run a bank or a factory, and much more than it does to run for office. (Laughter.)

When the Lever bill was introduced in Congress, it passed the committee and was placed on the calendar and was buried there. The question was to get that bill on the floor for a vote. Upon inquiry I found there was only one way to do it in order to get quick action, and that was to get a petition signed by a majority of the members, asking that the bill be taken from its position on the calendar and placed at the head of the list as unfinished business. Mr. Lever secured the required signatures and the bill was thus advanced to the position of unfinished business. The leaders of both parties rallied to its support and the bill finally passed the House by unanimous vote. It is now before the Senate and we want your help to get it enacted into law before the holiday season arrives.

The mind can hardly grasp the benefits that will flow from this legislation. Let me tell you a little of what scientific farming means. Dr. Hopkins, of the University of Illinois, and one of the world’s authorities, just told me that they raised on an average ninety bushels of corn to the acre, covering a period of six years, and twenty-three bushels of wheat, average for six years. The Ohio experiment station on wheat for twenty years showed an average of about thirty-five bushels, while the average for the whole country was less than fifteen bushels. Denmark raises forty bushels average, many fields returning sixty and seventy-five bushels to the acre. We must do better farming.

During the ten years from 1900 to 1910 our population increased twenty-one per cent., our meat supplying animals decreased more than twenty-five per cent. We have an unparalleled high cost of living, due to the fact that population is pressing hard upon production. In short, we have too few producers and too many consumers. Increased production is not the only thing necessary. It is quite as important that the farm production shall reach the ultimate consumer from the farm at less than the present cost. Our marketing system is cumbersome, unwieldy, wasteful and burdensome. (Applause.) The woman who orders her supplies over the telephone pays more money and gets less than the one who goes to market. I had the honor of speaking before the National Federation of Women’s Clubs at San Francisco on the first day of July. It was the greatest and most intelligent audience I ever faced. They were very enthusiastic and were quick to grasp the points as they were made. This great organization affiliated itself with the National Soil Fertility League, and when they did so we felt it brought to us the greatest assistance that could possibly come. I know of no organization of wider influence than the Women’s Clubs of America. I have heard it said, if you want to get anything done to get a woman after it. (Applause.)

We must re-direct our agriculture; we must raise our meat upon the farms. The ranges are gone. The silo, alfalfa and scientific methods make it possible for the farmer to carry at least twice as much stock upon his farm as he thinks he can carry. In the silo the feed is kept practically green and juicy. You get forty per cent. more out of your corn by putting it through the silo than by handling it in the old way. There is no reason why the cost of producing meat may not be reduced practically one-half. The farmer has given and is giving too much thought to how much he can get for what he raises. It is equally important that he raise more. If he wants 2,400 bushels of corn, it is better to raise it on forty acres with a yield of sixty bushels than to raise it on sixty acres with a yield of forty bushels.

Our plan is to bring home to the farmer the best method that has been determined by the agricultural college and experiment station. We want to get the best results from year to year and at the same time build up the soil. This can be done and this is scientific farming. This is what the whole world needs. The colleges of agriculture and experiment stations have gathered a vast fund of knowledge, and if this were put into practical operation it would double the yield of our farms within a few years and give us a large surplus for export and bring money into the country. We would get richer and richer as the years go by. We would largely supply the world with food. Our position in the councils of nations would be paramount. When it comes to the question of peace or war, the country that has the money and the bread basket is ten times more potent than the nation that only has back of it battleships and armies. (Applause.) So I wish to emphasize that the success of this country rests primarily upon the scientific farming of our fields. Let us remember that no country ever became great and remained so that could not furnish its people with an ample food supply at a moderate cost. To that end we are securing legislation that will put the plan in operation. The Lever measure is a simple one, it creates no new administrative machinery; it simply carries to the farmer and puts to work the information and knowledge that the States and Federal Government have been gathering for fifty years. This whole matter may be likened to a great irrigating system. The United States Department of Agriculture is a dam, it has been gathering and has stored up the knowledge—the water. The colleges of agriculture are the main channels for reaching the various parts of the country; but so long as the water is back of the dam it is doing no good; so long as it remains in the main channels it is accomplishing nothing. What is needed is to get the water to the grass roots, or, in other words, our purpose is to get the information to the actual farmer—the man behind the plow.

Fifty years ago Horace Greeley said, “Go West, young man, and grow up with the country.” If he were here today he would say go South and East, for that is the land of opportunity. In my judgment this Congress ought to meet next year somewhere in the South. That part of the land is entitled to recognition, and you will get a welcome such as you never had before.

In conclusion, I wish to urge that you give us every possible support. We need it. It will help you and it will help us. Let us all work together for reviving agriculture. (Applause.)

(A woman in the audience): “Is it true that Congress is investigating this silo business and under the pure food law is it to be condemned? Also, what must we do in Indiana to cultivate alfalfa?”

Mr. GROSS—I have not heard anything about the Federal Government condemning silo, and I do not expect to. Inoculate your soil for alfalfa. You had better take this matter up with your people at Purdue. Ask them what to do. They will send you all the information necessary. They will examine into conditions and tell you just what to do. The most valuable crop today, outside of wheat and corn, is alfalfa. (Applause.)

Chairman WHITE—I have been handed a communication, and I wish to say for the benefit of the gentleman who sent it to the chair that it will be referred to the Executive Committee, which takes up matters of this kind. This is the communication:

“You are requested to make a motion that this organization take steps toward publishing a monthly, or quarterly, magazine, to be known as the National Conservation Magazine. If the society is unable to finance it, there is little doubt that the Carnegie Institute or the Sage Foundation would back it.”

Chairman WHITE—I will now introduce a gentleman who will tell you “The Story of the Air,” Prof. Willis L. Moore, of Washington, Chief of the United States Weather Bureau. (Applause.)

Mr. MOORE—Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: I have been trying to reason out why the management put me at the end of the program, and I have concluded that they had an idea that along about this time in the proceedings they would need to have some one take the platform that had supervision over atmospheric air of abnormal temperature.

Now, why should one wish to conserve the atmosphere? I shall try to show you that that is one of the assets of this continent, and, I am afraid, almost the only one, that cannot be monopolized. (Applause.) And you will be surprised, and probably doubt my statement when I say that, with all due respect to the matter of conservation of our wonderful mineral deposits, the controlling of the flow of our streams, the preservation of our great forests—all of them important—we have in the atmosphere one of our greatest assets, if not the greatest asset of our continent. Humboldt has said that “Man is a product of soil and climate. He is brother to the trees, the rock and the animals.” All true, but still I would slightly modify that and say that man is largely a product of climate. For it is the action of rainfall, flood and temperature changes that makes soil.

I shall try to show you that it is climatic conditions that produce this wonderful, this powerful, this resourceful composite man called the American.

I am to speak on “The Story of the Air,” but before I elucidate any further, let me give you a little picture of this wonderful ocean, on the bottom of which you live.

In the turbulent stratum in which we live we have vortices in the atmosphere which cause weather. Weather is the result of the motions of air; it is the result of the dynamic heating and cooling of ascending and descending currents of air. If it were not for these vortices cooling the air and heating it, you would have precisely the same temperature on any day of one year as you would have on the same day in another year. You would not have one first day of June warmer than the first day of July, or the first day of December colder than the first day of January.

To demonstrate my first proposition that we have a great asset in the climate of the United States, I call your attention to some of the conditions in Europe. Their great mountain ranges trend east and west; ours trend north and south. Cyclonic storms originate largely from conflict of equatorial and polar currents coming together. The currents of air come together in the lower stratum. In Europe the great mountain ranges prevent that conflict; but not so here, with our mountain ranges running north and south. Here is the great meteorological theater of the world, the region of conflict. What is the result? A people powerful physically and resourceful mentally. An actual air is pure and invigorating.

Now, I just have a thought that may not be germane, but it is upon my mind. I remember some years ago I wrote a report that dealt with the relations of forests and floods. Although from the inception of this movement I have been heart and soul with the people back of it, still because I do not agree with some of my friends on forestry, on the effect of forests on the flow of streams, I was classified as an enemy of the cause. I wish to say that it is a mistake to bring a fallacious reasoning to any good doctrine. I believe it is a positive injury to attempt to sustain truth by falsehood. I do not mean that anybody is wilfully untruthful—no, simply mistaken. There are so many reasons why we should conserve and protect, why we should use wisely our great forest areas, that there is no need to bring to the support of that great project anything like a reason that can be successfully attacked and refuted. I am satisfied, and as time goes on and other investigators come along and go over my data, I am thoroughly well convinced that the forests do not exert a great controlling influence over floods. I am satisfied that the percentage of floods has not increased for the past forty years. When we remove one vegetable covering like the forests, if we go on and plant wheat, or corn, or grass, we simply exchange one form of vegetable covering for another. If we cut the forests away and leave them, they will at once begin the process of reforestation, and within a few weeks the ground is shaded. If you grub out the roots and stumps and plow, you change one form of vegetable covering for another, and the history of the United States, as well as of the world, does not bear out the statement that the floods have increased with the disappearing of the forests; nor has it been shown that any part of the world has been materially changed in its climatic conditions as a result of civilization or the coming of man. But that is no reason why the forests should not be protected and a wise use made of them.

Let us get down to facts. Just so long as the Gulf of Mexico lies down there on the south, and the great Atlantic remains on the east, just so long rainfall in the United States will be as voluminous on the great cereal plains as it was when the first white man set foot on the continent, and in its movement back to the sea the permeable, cultivated soil of the unforested acres will doubtless as well conserve and restrict its flow as the forests. We have over-estimated the effect of the little scratchings upon the earth’s surface by the activities of man. The coming civilization of the great West is immaterial in causing an increase in rainfall. When you stop to consider the enormous volume of the atmosphere above the surface, whose vaporous contents must be materially changed and the thermal conditions altered before you can detract from the rainfall, you will realize how absurd are some popular theories. I do not agree. I radically differ from some of my contemporaries in the Department of Agriculture—but people may differ and still be friends. They may differ in regard to the details of a great movement and still not be inimical to its best interests. The man who differs and brings forth the truth is the best friend of the movement, because nothing can stand long that is not predicated on truth.

I am glad to see that in this movement your managers have brought together so many independent lines of human activity. This great movement is only at its inception. I predict that this Conservation Congress will be one of the most potent factors in the Nation for the developing and awakening of the people. You are willing now to have a free forum, to have free discussion by those of differing opinions. And at this time, Mr. President, when there is such great conflict among the forces that make for civilization, we must not only protect ourselves morally and mentally, we must with equal earnestness attempt to conserve and protect the human individual. He is the greatest asset we can have, after all. (Applause.)

A fair wage scale and reasonable hours of labor have done as much to elevate the American citizen and furnish the ties that bind him to home and State as have all the libraries and universities in the land, and I say this without any disparagement of these magnificent institutions for public good. But if you stop to think for a moment, the library can only be used by those who have a reasonable leisure to enjoy it; colleges have closed doors for those who do not receive something more than a living wage. The welfare of this Nation depends not on the accumulation of great wealth in the future; not upon the palaces on Fifth avenue or the villas at Newport. It depends upon the cultivation—upon the high average intelligence and prosperity of those who actually do the Nation’s work, whether they labor with brains or with brawn. (Applause.) And right here let me say to you people who are considering these great problems, that we want brawn developed by working hours that shall not warp and distort the image of God; and we want technical and scientific teaching that shall be as free to the sons and daughters of those who work as to these who have their way paid to college. (Applause.) We must lift from the bottom in any great movement; no movement gets very far that is worked from the top down.

So I am glad to see this movement bringing into its counsels those who are affiliated with the great labor movements of organized labor. My sympathies go out to the man who works with his hands, as well as to the man who works with his brain. I thank you. (Applause.)

Chairman WHITE—Professor Moore stated he did not know why he was put down at the last end of the program. Perhaps it is not necessary to remind him that there is an old saying that the best of the wine is reserved for the last of the feast. (Applause.) But where all is good, and where all is best, as has been the case with the program of this Fourth National Conservation Congress, there can be no choice. And again I am going to remind this audience that this Congress is going to prepare a book containing every bit of the proceedings of this meeting, and it will be one of the best publications of proceedings that has been presented by any congress in the land, and I want to impress upon you, delegates and visitors alike, to leave a dollar for a copy of these proceedings.

While we are waiting for a final word from Governor Hadley, I will call upon Mr. Walter H. Page, Chairman of the Committee on Resolutions, who will present the report of that committee, which I hope will be enthusiastically adopted.

Mr. Page read the resolutions (which will be found in full at the beginning of this volume), and moved their adoption.

The motion was seconded, put and carried.

Mr. JOHN B. HAMMOND (Des Moines, Iowa)—I have a resolution to present. It was referred to the Resolutions Committee, but somehow it was lost in the shuffle.

Mr. PAGE—It was referred to one of the sub-committees, and, presumably, was not accepted by the sub-committee. It was not reported to the full committee.

Chairman WHITE—If there is no objection, it may be presented to this body.

Mr. HAMMOND—

Whereas, The protection of womanhood and childhood is the heart and center of the Conservation of “Vital Resources;” and, whereas, forty states of the Union have prohibited the maintenance of houses of prostitution, the market places of the white slave traffic and the centers for the dissemination of the most dangerous and revolting diseases; and, whereas, the city administrations of many of the larger cities, in defiance of state law, have set apart districts where the crime of prostitution is tolerated and protected;

Therefore, be it resolved that we condemn such policy of segregation by city officials as contrary to sound public policy and indefensible in morals, and recommend the absolute suppression of the social evil in all its phases.

I move the adoption of the resolution, Mr. Chairman.

The motion was seconded, put, and carried.

Chairman WHITE—We will pass to the next order—the presentation of invitations from the cities desiring the next Congress. This is the usual way. These invitations are not acted upon, because the Executive Committee will take three or four months to consider everything and compare the different cities, looking to the welfare of the next Congress. Mr. Don Carlos Ellis, of Knoxville, Tenn., I believe has something to say.

Mr. ELLIS—Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: There is to be held in the city of Knoxville, in September and October of next year, the National Conservation Exposition. Its purpose and nature are precisely parallel with those of this Congress—for the promotion of the development, wise use and conservation of all of the natural resources of this Nation. The Exposition is of national scope, but is to have special reference to the Southern States. There are to be buildings set aside for each one of the five divisions of our natural resources—forests, minerals, soils, waters and vital resources. In these buildings are to be shown, by example, as this Congress has shown by precept, the various results accomplished by Conservation by the Federal Government, the State governments and by private individuals, and the possibilities of Conservation in the future.

The Exposition originated in Washington last February, when a number of the leading spirits of Conservation met in that city and there was formed an Advisory Board composed of the gentlemen whose names I desire to read to you:

Gifford Pinchot, President National Conservation Association, Chairman; Don Carlos Ellis, in charge Educational Co-operation, United States Forest Service, Secretary; Philander P. Claxton, United States Commissioner of Education; Miss Julia C. Lathrop, Chief of the Children’s Bureau, United States Department of Commerce and Labor; Dr. Harvey W. Wiley, Director of the Bureau of Foods, Sanitation, and Health, of Good Housekeeping Magazine; W. J. McGee, Soil Water Expert, United States Department of Agriculture; Senator Duncan U. Fletcher of Florida, President Southern Commercial Congress; Logan W. Page, Director United States Office of Public Roads; Bradford Knapp, in charge Farmers Co-operative Demonstration Work, United States Department of Agriculture; Jos. A. Holmes, Director United Bureau of Mines; Representative Joseph E. Ransdell of Louisiana, President National Rivers and Harbors Congress; Senator Luke Lea of Tennessee; Charles S. Barrett, President Farmers’ Educational and Co-operative Union.

These various members of the Advisory Board are to represent, in the formation of plans for the Exposition, the various departments of Conservation in which they are acknowledged leaders. They have instructed me, as Secretary of this Advisory Board, to read to the delegates the following letters:

September 23, 1912.

To the Delegates of the Fourth National Conservation Congress,
Indianapolis, Indiana:

We, the undersigned members of the Advisory Board of the National Conservation Exposition, take this means of laying before you an outline of the plans and purposes of the Exposition and of respectfully recommending the adoption of the resolutions which will be introduced at this Congress endorsing the National Conservation Exposition.

This Exposition is to be held at Knoxville, Tennessee, in September and October of 1913. It is an outgrowth of the Appalachian Exposition, which has been held at Knoxville for the past two years. Knoxville was chosen as the location of the National Conservation Exposition because the Southern States are in great need of education concerning the proper handling of their great natural wealth; because Knoxville, while in the South, is readily accessible to the entire East; because the State in which it lies is in the transition zone between North and South and has more States bordering upon it than any other State in the Nation, and all the bordering States are southern; because the city is in the center of the region where the National Government is establishing new National Forests and carrying on other lines of work in Conservation to a greater extent than in any other region; and because of the city’s preparedness in being willing to turn over to the National Conservation Exposition Company the excellent buildings and grounds which had been acquired for the Appalachian Exposition Company and to raise sufficient additional capital besides. A bill has been introduced in Congress providing for a government building and exhibit at the Exposition, and the Committee to which it was referred has given assurances of a favorable report for a quarter of a million dollars.

The purpose of the Appalachian Exposition was to aid in the development of the Southern Appalachian Region. The new Exposition is a national, not a local project. Its work is to promote the preservation and development of the different forms of natural wealth of the entire country. Its special field, however, is to be the Southern States. The Exposition comes at a time when these States are in the midst of a great awakening. It is to be devoted in an especial manner to assist in this awakening and in directing the course of this awakening toward genuine, permanent progress and highest efficiency. The purposes are parallel with the magnificent undertakings of the National Conservation Congress. The means only are different. To every part of the Nation the Congress is sending its message. The Exposition invites the people of the Nation to view the tangible results and possibilities of Conservation on display. All fields of the Conservation work will be represented, forests, waters, lands, minerals, fish and game, and human efficiency including health, child welfare, education, home economics, good roads, and country life improvement. The Exposition is to be held at a time when special efforts are to be made by such agencies as the southern railroads and the Southern Commercial Congress to direct the tide of passenger traffic through the South. During the same period the city of Mobile, Alabama, is to entertain the Fifth Annual Convention of the Southern Commercial Congress and to hold its celebration of the opening of the Panama Canal, and plans are being made to direct southern travelers of those two months through both Mobile and Knoxville.

Expositions of the past have been commemorative and historical. They have celebrated and glorified past achievements. The field of the new Exposition is the future. It is to tell the progress which we are to make in the coming years, which we are to enjoy ourselves and to hand down to our children. It will be prophetic of the development which is to come and of the permanent enrichment of the country and its people. In the words of the late and beloved Dr. W. J. McGee, “The change thus wrought in the exposition idea is fundamental; the old exposition looked backward, the new looks forward; the old exposition was solely material, the new is essentially moral; the old was a proud boast of achievement, the new a signpost to progress and an assurance of perpetuity. The expositions of the past were as songs of achievement at the end of a good day’s work, the new may well be as living and tangible promises of a still more glorious tomorrow foreordained by the wise action of today.”

GIFFORD PINCHOT, Chairman.
JOSEPH A. HOLMES.
PHILANDER P. CLAXTON.
JULIA C. LATHROP.
CHARLES S. BARRETT.
DUNCAN U. FLETCHER.
HARVEY W. WILEY.
BRADFORD KNAPP.
LUKE LEA.
JOSEPH E. RANSDELL.
MRS. ABEL.
DON CARLOS ELLIS, Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, Knoxville has empowered me to invite to that city, to the Exposition, the fifth meeting of the National Conservation Congress. The National Conservation Congress belongs to the whole Nation, and the Nation is proud of it. For the past four years, since its birth, it has held its meetings in the North and Northwest. The South needs the Congress, particularly at this time, when it is in a phase of its great industrial awakening, and it earnestly urges that the Congress come within its bounds next year. If it should come South next year, there is certainly no more fitting place for its sessions than in that city which has done so much by its own energies and industries for Conservation as has Knoxville. It will be centering in Knoxville in that year and at that time all the forces working for Conservation throughout the United States. Knoxville is a smaller city than others in the South where the Congress might be held, but it is a city of between seventy and eighty thousand people. It has five excellent hotels. Two main railroads run through, and it has shown its ability to handle large crowds of people by the way it has taken care of the Appalachian Exposition for two years, with an average of twelve thousand visitors a day.

The Exposition is moving along parallel lines with the Congress, and it is in a way an offspring of the efforts of this Congress. It has taken up the ideas that have been promulgated by this Congress, and is going to apply them by showing at Knoxville the tangible, visible results of Conservation. The people in that section of country are in great need of instruction along these lines.

The plant already established for this other exposition is valued at between one-half and one million dollars. Already several buildings have been erected, and all this has been turned over to the new Exposition as a foundation.

I have letters with me from the various commercial bodies of the city, and this has been also heartily endorsed by the Governor of the State.

In conclusion, I wish to offer a resolution made by the Advisory Board:

Whereas, It is the sense of the Fourth National Conservation Congress, assembled at Indianapolis, Indiana, October 1 to 4, 1912, that the National Conservation Exposition, to be held at Knoxville, Tennessee, in September and October, 1913, will be a strong factor in the advancement of the Conservation and wise use of the national resources of this Nation, and particularly of the Southern States; and

Whereas, It is, further, the sense of this Congress that education in the care of natural resources is particularly needed in the Southern States, where the resources are of great value and their development in a period of a great awakening, but their Conservation at a low ebb; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the National Conservation Congress hereby signifies its gratification that the National Conservation Exposition is to take place, and its earnest hope that all persons and institutions interested in the Conversation of any of our natural resources will give to the Exposition their cordial support and co-operation.

I move the adoption of this resolution.

Hon. R. M. AUSTIN, Congressman from Tennessee—I wish to second this as a citizen of that progressive city, and I wish to join in the invitation extended by Mr. Ellis, not only to the delegates to this National Conservation Congress, but also to the citizens of this great capital city of Indiana. I hope this invitation will be accepted and this resolution just read will be passed. We will be happy to see you all when you come to sunny Tennessee, away up in the mountains, and this little city of ours of about eighty thousand people, which nestles at the foot of the Great Smoky Mountain. We will show you the richest mineral and timber section in all the Union. There are ten counties in this Congressional District. Five have coal, six iron, six marble, five zinc, two copper, and the largest amount of hardwood timber now existing on the American continent. It is an ideal location, not only for a Conservation Exposition, but an ideal place for a meeting of this great and useful organization, the National Conservation Congress of America, and we hope you will all come.

Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to open the doors of the Exposition until we know that Captain White, of Kansas City, answers “Present.” (Applause.)

I wish, while I am on my feet, to commend the very excellent report from the Committee on Resolutions submitted by the able editor of “The World’s Work,” Mr. Page, and to say that so long as I am a representative in Congress I shall, by my influence, do all that I can to carry out the principles set forth in these resolutions. (Applause.)

The motion on Mr. Ellis’ resolution was put and carried.

Mr. A. M. LOOMIS (New York)—I wish, very briefly, to read the action of the New York State delegation, adopted possibly before this matter of the Knoxville Exposition had become known.

The New York delegation at this, the Fourth National Conservation Congress, wishes to go on record in favor of asking the delegates to this great body to hold the next annual meeting in the East,—to be more explicit, in New York State. There is an urgent reason why the work of the Congress at a point nearer the great centers of the business and wealth of the country, and in the section of the more crowded population would have wider effectiveness, and greater force along lines of practical understanding of its work, and needed legislation in favor of the great reforms for which it stands.

One point in New York State stands out in particular as the ideal place for this Congress to gather, namely Chautauqua, the home of the great Chautauqua Institution, on the shores of beautiful Chautauqua Lake. At this point, in a little city in the woods, are ample accommodations both for meeting places, exhibits, and housing for a gathering of five thousand people. The Assembly houses more than double that number for ten weeks each summer and has an auditorium hardly excelled in America, seating more than eight thousand people, as well as many other halls and buildings for meeting places and exhibits.

This institution stands for all that the highest aims of this Congress point to, in education, morality, and direction of human effort. Its reputation is world wide, and its home offers an ideal meeting place for the Conservationists, ideal in that for which the two institutions stand, and ideal in location, accommodations, railroad facilities and the economy with which a great meeting of this kind could be conducted there.

The New York delegation unites in inviting the Congress to choose Chautauqua, New York, as the place of its next meeting.

Chairman WHITE—The chair, in behalf of the delegates, wishes to thank the representatives from New York who have invited us to Chautauqua, as well as the representatives from Tennessee for inviting us to Knoxville. This subject will be referred to the Executive Committee, who will, in their wisdom, consider it all as it may relate to the best success of our cause.

Is there anything more to be presented at this convention? If not, the chair will state that the Fourth National Conservation Congress is now about to pass into history. Tomorrow will be the beginning of a new Congress—the Fifth Annual Congress, with the new President and new officers in some respects—but with a great many of the old ones, too—and we hope that all who are here will be present at the next Congress, the Fifth National Conservation Congress, wherever it may be held. And in the meantime the work will go on. It will begin tomorrow and continue throughout the year. Everywhere any delegate has influence, the cause will be heard and will be advanced.

The Chair wishes to thank this Congress and its delegates for the kind consideration given him while he has been presiding, and for the support he has received from every one. We now stand adjourned, subject to the call of the Executive Committee. (Applause.)

SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.

_FORESTRY SECTION._

Delegates specially interested in Forestry held section meetings in the Turkish Room of the Claypool Hotel throughout the sessions of the Fourth National Conservation Congress. The Standing Committee on Forestry consisted of Prof. Henry S. Graves, Chairman; J. B. White, Major E. G. Griggs, George K. Smith, William Irvine and E. T. Allen. Chairman Graves, being unavoidably absent, delegated Mr. Allen to arrange meeting facilities and represent him in an effort to further the progress of forestry at the Congress.

The first session of the Forestry Section was held on the evening of October 1, with about twenty-five foresters and lumbermen present. (At later sessions the attendance increased to forty.)

Mr. Allen, acting as Chairman, announced that Professor Graves had suggested that such preliminary meeting be called to determine, first, if a section meeting on Forestry should be conducted, and if so, the lines it should follow. Mr. Allen suggested the probable advantage of formulating plans for more systematic forestry work at future Congresses, and of utilizing the opportunity thus afforded to exchange experiences and ideas on legislation, forest protection and educational work. The meeting concurred in this suggestion and determined to hold a series of meetings on Forestry at this Congress.

_Second Session—10 a. m., October 2._

Mr. E. T. Allen called the meeting to order, and Mr. D. Page Simons, of California, was chosen secretary. The chair then presented a tentative program for ensuing sessions covering publicity work, co-operation in forest protection, needed forest legislation, and organization for future Congresses. He described the educational work conducted by the Western Forestry and Conservation Association, and read a communication from Professor Graves, United States Forester, emphasizing the need of a propaganda for more adequate and uniform State forest legislation.

Mr. T. B. Wyman, of Michigan, representing the Northern Forest Protective Association, then described the co-operative effort by Michigan lumbermen covering a territory of seven and one-half million acres. He told how they had been enabled to maintain a patrol service and that their association had made a careful study of fire causes. In the campaign of public education, he said, they had utilized modern advertising methods.

Major E. G. Griggs, of Washington, President of the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, pointed out the necessity of united effort in a campaign of education which would bring about a better understanding, on the part of the public, of all phases of forest industry. He emphasized the need of continuous effort throughout the year, and said that he believed there should be some national frame-work or organization which would unite the foresters and lumbermen for such continuous and concerted action. Major Griggs also praised the work of the United States Forest Service.

Mr. Charles Lathrop Pack, of New Jersey, concurred in Major Griggs’ suggestion and said that he believed the Conservation Congress, meeting annually, illustrated the need of a Committee on Forestry, which would be active throughout the year. He said that he believed that other features of the Congress had been much better advertised and organized and that he hoped that before another year the work of the Forestry Committee, particularly, would be on a systematic basis with the necessary funds to carry forward its work.

Chairman Allen pointed out the need of local publicity as was illustrated by the difficulties experienced in obtaining adequate State legislation.

Mr. I. C. Williams, of Pennsylvania, Deputy State Forest Commissioner, said that taxation and not fire protection was the big forestry problem in Pennsylvania. He said that a campaign of publicity for a yield tax measure had been unsuccessful owing to a lack of organization among the friends of the measure to back up the publicity.

Dr. Henry S. Drinker, of Pennsylvania, President of Lehigh University, reported the distribution of a million circulars on forest protection, modeled on those issued by the Western Forestry and Conservation Association. He also endorsed the yield tax principle.

Mr. E. A. Sterling, of Pennsylvania, emphasized the importance of conducting a systematic campaign of publicity which would bring out definite facts. Competent committees, he said, should be in charge of such work so that the publicity would be in effective form and carry weight.

Hon. John M. Woods, Mayor of Somerville, Mass., suggested the danger of relying too much on education and not enough on practical politics. In his judgment, forest legislation could best be furthered by interesting the Governor and the Legislature.

Mr. Henry E. Hardtner, of Louisiana, told of the forest laws of that State and of his effort to secure reforestation.

Prof. F. W. Rane, State Forester of Massachusetts, said that results are a question of enterprising organization and that more system and effective committee work will bring better results.

Col. W. R. Brown, representing the New Hampshire Forestry Commission, said that he believed the American Forestry Association offered facilities for the work under discussion and that means for utilizing them could be devised.

Mr. F. A. Elliott, State Forester of Oregon, then outlined western problems which he showed were peculiarly difficult because of a lack of forest appreciation in a new country. He testified to the efficiency of advertising propaganda to reduce fire carelessness.

Mr. Hugh P. Baker, of New York, said that the Empire State went on the principle that people had to be shown and that, therefore, they were making a feature of demonstration forests and of assisting individual owners.

Mr. P. S. Ridsdale, of Washington, D. C., Secretary of the American Forestry Association, then told of the educational policy of that organization, and said that its magazine was devoting special attention to all practical matters of interest to lumbermen.

After some further discussion along the line of desirable committee action the Chair was instructed, by motion, duly seconded and carried, to appoint two committees, each of which he should be ex officio chairman, as follows: A committee of five on permanent organization, and one of three to represent the Forestry Section in a conference with the American Forestry Association and the officers of the Fifth National Conservation Congress. It was also agreed to appoint a Committee on Resolutions. These committees were appointed, as follows:

Co-operation with Other Agencies—E. T. Allen, chairman; H. S. Graves, and J. B. White.

Permanent Organization—E. T. Allen, Chairman; F. A. Elliott, Don Carlos Ellis, T. B. Wyman, and F. W. Rane.

Resolutions—Dr. Henry S. Drinker, chairman; F. W. Besley, D. P. Simons, P. S. Ridsdale, and H. E. Hardtner.

_Third Session—2:40 p. m., October 2._

Co-operative Forest Protection was announced for the topic for discussion.

Mr. Hardtner told of the success of the Louisiana lumber associations in securing legislation.

Mr. Wyman told of the co-operative patrol of the Northern Forest Protective Association, in Michigan, and described briefly their methods and the fire fighting equipment.

Mr. Brown explained the methods of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners’ Association. There are four district chiefs, each in charge of a patrol system. They utilize all modern devices, such as telephones, lookouts, tool depots, etc. They have reduced the fire damage one-half at a cost of seven-tenths of one per cent. of the values protected. Mr. Brown urged that the adjoining States should co-operate along boundaries.

Mr. Elliott told of the progress being made in Oregon under their new law providing for syndicate co-operative patrol maintained jointly by the Federal and State governments, the counties and lumbermen.

Mr. N. P. Wheeler told of the fight against forest fires by Pennsylvania lumbermen.

Mr. D. P. Simons described the organization of the Washington Forest Fire Association, which maintains over a hundred patrolmen and protects nearly five million acres. This association also has been very successful in publicity and legislative work.

The report of the Committee on Resolutions was then presented, discussed by sections and adopted. (See resolutions of Fourth National Conservation Congress—Forests.)

_Fourth Session—8:25 p. m., October 3._

Chairman Allen reported that the Committee on Resolutions of the Conservation Congress, of which he was Secretary, had endorsed the resolutions presented by the Forestry Section.

Chairman Allen then read the following report from the Section Committee on Permanent Organization:

Your committee believes that the consensus of opinion of the lumbermen and foresters assembled at the invitation of the forestry committee of the Fourth National Conservation Congress is about as follows:

1. That the Congress has not so far included satisfactory facilities for securing for forest matters the attention they deserve at such a meeting.

2. That the facilities to be desired should provide for two main activities:

(a) The general discussion of forest Conservation needed to bring its importance properly before the public.

(b) The meeting for mutual help, in practical constructive detailed work of the men actually engaged in organized forest work.

3. That unless there is early assurance of such facilities hereafter, the Congress’ support from forest interests is in danger.

4. That private, state and federal forest interests are anxious to support the Congress and in turn to receive all benefit to be derived from it.

5. That what is clearly needed is a greater recognition of forestry upon its general program and arrangement for sectional forest work outside the general meeting, both to be carefully planned in advance so as to be practical, effective and without lost time.

6. That probably similar steps should be taken to provide for other branches of Conservation work, so that all may unite in perpetuating the usefulness of the Congress.