Chapter IX: Front Matter (9)

They speak of four great water-power companies in California, and two water-power trusts. I thoroughly investigated that subject, spending over six months on it three years ago, and I found that water was king in California, yet the water is owned by these four imperial companies. One-half of my life and of my most valuable treasure is my son and his family, now in the San Joaquin valley; and every crevice and canon, in the mountains, almost, has been pre-empted by these great water-power combinations, and it costs fifty dollars per horsepower per annum for the use of it for pumping or for any other purpose. If the State of California had been alert, and had had proper regulation, it would have seen to it that these monopolies could not take possession of all these canons and control the water-power against the interests of the people. A board of most distinguished army engineers reported two or three years ago that the cost of generating one electrical horsepower at the falls of Saint Anthony--within ten miles of where I stand--was less than $6 per annum, and that in the city of Minneapolis to generate one horsepower by steam costs $42. Is there any reason why these great monopolies that can generate horsepower by water at an expense of from five to six dollars--and I think in California at less--should put it to the people at fifty dollars per horsepower? I hope that one of the results of this Congress will be earnest cooperation between the States and the Federal Government. Let each one be alert.

When the Civil War broke out and President Lincoln called for 75,000 men, the Governors of the different States in the North did not hesitate, nor the Governors in the different States in the South; they immediately began calling for volunteers, making all arrangements to take care of the soldiers, and not an hour was lost. Governor Alexander Ramsey, of Minnesota, tendered a regiment to President Lincoln within an hour after the firing upon Fort Sumter (applause). It was a day for the earnest cooperation of all the States with the Federal Government. And we are confronting a condition of that kind, commercially and legally, today; and it needs cooperation, without bickering and without lack of confidence, in the most earnest manner, to pass such State laws as are proper and right, and to pass such laws of Congress as will (so far as the General Government has not parted with its rights) control the streams, the lakes, the waters, and the various natural resources in the West. (Applause)

* * * * *

Chairman CONDRA--It is now long after six oclock; and the Congress is adjourned, to reassemble tomorrow morning at 9.30.

_FIFTH SESSION_

The Congress was called to order in the Auditorium, Saint Paul, on Wednesday, September 7, 1910, at 9.30 a.m.

President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: The State Delegations are requested to hand the Secretary, soon as possible, the names of their nominees for Vice-Presidents of the Congress.

The Committee on Resolutions are anxious to have all resolutions submitted to them at the earliest possible moment in order that they may receive full consideration.

It has been arranged to renew the Call of the States tomorrow afternoon. The first Call of the States was made on Governors' Day (the Second Session), when preference was given to the Governors. Delegations are requested to have a speaker from their State prepared to respond to the call at the Thursday afternoon session.

* * * * *

Now that Delegations are assembled, the Right Reverend Samuel Cook Edsall, Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church for Minnesota, will ask the blessing of our Heavenly Father.

INVOCATION

_O, Almighty and everlasting God, Who art the giver of every good and perfect gift, we render unto Thee our most humble and hearty thanks for all the blessings which Thou hast vouchsafed unto our country, for our resources of soil, forest, mine, and stream, which Thou hast given into our hands; and we humbly beseech Thee that Thou wilt give unto the President of the United States, the Governors of our States, our legislators in National Congress and in State Legislatures, and unto all those who are in authority, as well as unto all the people whether in public or in private station, the graces of unselfishness and wisdom; that they may rightly use these bounties to Thy honor and glory and for the good of all mankind; and that Thou wilt so bless and guide the deliberations of this Congress that by all that may be here said and done our minds may be illumined and our hearts stirred to righteousness and obedience to Thy law--through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen._

* * * * *

President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: We have with us today a truly representative man of our Southland, Mr W. W. Finley, President of the Southern Railway Company, who will address us on "The Interest of the Railways of the South in Conservation." (Applause)

* * * * *

Mr FINLEY--Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: The interest of the Railways of the South in Conservation and the interest of the people of the South in Conservation are identical. I will go farther, and state my unqualified conviction that any economic or governmental policy that is, in the last analysis, to the best interest of the people of any community is to the best interest of the railways by which that community is served. Conversely, my conviction is equally strong that any economic or governmental policy that is harmful to the railways is harmful to the communities served by them.

Therefore, Mr President, in all that I say on the topic assigned to me--"The Interest of the Railways of the South in Conservation"--I must be understood as presenting what I believe to be the interest of the southern people.

I am not sure that the expression "Conservation of natural resources" is everywhere understood in its broadest sense. I think that to some minds it conveys only the narrow idea of the withdrawal from present use of some part of those resources. However important that kind of Conservation may be in some localities and under some circumstances, I do not believe there is much occasion for its application in the part of the United States for which I am expected to speak--the States south of the Ohio and Potomac rivers and east of the Mississippi. I would define the type of "Conservation of natural resources" that should be applied in that section as being the wise use of those resources. In some cases it may involve a measure of present self-denial, as when, in the case of an owner of forest lands, it impels him to cut only the matured timber and leave standing immature trees that have a present market value; but, in that case, it leaves him with an asset which increases in value with each year's growth of the standing timber. In some cases Conservation may mean the use of resources so as to obtain the maximum present profit, as in the case of soils; for I believe that I am supported by the best scientific and practical authority in saying that soils not only preserve, but increase, their productivity when so handled, in the application of fertilizers, the rotation of crops, and the growing of live stock, as to yield the maximum present profit.

The South is interested in the application of Conservation to the wise use to its soils, its minerals, its timber, and its streams. Notwithstanding the wonderful industrial development of the South since 1880, it is still pre-eminently an agricultural section. It is a section, therefore, in which the conservation of the soil is of the highest importance. There is a prevalent belief that the productivity of the soils in those parts of the United States that have been longest under cultivation has been seriously impaired. Statistics do not confirm this belief. Estimates of productions of staple crops per acre have been compiled in the United States only since 1867, and, as there are often wide fluctuations between successive seasons--due to differences in rainfall and temperature--the period covered has not been long enough to afford a basis for definite conclusions. There is also the fact that all available figures are estimates, and consequently are not exact. On their face, however, they do not prove a decline in productivity. This may be illustrated by comparing the production of wheat per acre for ten-year periods since 1867. In the decade from 1867 to 1876 the average for the United States was estimated at 12 bushels; from 1877 to 1886, 12.5 bushels; from 1887 to 1896, 12.7 bushels; from 1897 to 1906, 13.8 bushels, and for the three years since 1906, 14.6 bushels. So far, then, as these figures can be relied upon, they tend to show an increase in productivity, especially as an analysis by groups of States shows the larger and more uniform increases to have been in some of the older sections of the country.

Similar figures for corn do not show an increase for the United States as a whole, but they show very little decrease. From 1867 to 1876 the average production of corn per acre was estimated at 26.2 bushels; from 1877 to 1886, 25.1 bushels; from 1887 to 1896, 24.1 bushels; from 1897 to 1906, 25.4 bushels, and for the three years since 1906, 25.8 bushels. It is proper to note, in connection with the apparent decline in the fourth decade as compared with the first, that the poorest yield in the entire period was in 1901, when abnormal weather conditions brought the estimated average for the United States down to 16.7 bushels, thus pulling down the average for the entire decade. It is also proper to note that Dr Whitney, Chief of the Bureau of Soils in the United States Department of Agriculture, in discussing these figures, expresses the opinion that, on account of a readjustment of the basis of the Department's estimates in 1881 as a result of the reports of the census of 1880, the figures before that year, both for wheat and corn, were relatively too high.

Estimates of cotton yield per acre have been made by the United States Agricultural Department since 1866. Ten-year averages for the full decades up to 1905 are as follows: 1866 to 1875, 176.4 pounds of lint cotton per acre; 1876 to 1885, 171.4 pounds; 1886 to 1895, 175.9 pounds; 1896 to 1905, 182.6 pounds, and for the four years since 1905, 183.1 pounds. These figures are subject to the same question as to their accuracy that apply to the estimates of wheat and corn production, but, on their face, they do not indicate any impairment of the productivity of the cotton soils of the South. It is noteworthy that the larger and more uniform increases in yield per acre shown by the Department's figures are in the older cotton States.

While statistics of crop yields in the United States do not cover a sufficient period to be of great value in determining the effect of long use on soil productivity, some light is thrown on the subject by comparing yields per acre in the United States with those in other countries where lands have been under cultivation for centuries. Thus, for the ten-year period from 1897 to 1906, inclusive, the average yield of wheat per acre in the United States was 13.8 bushels, in France 19.8 bushels, in Germany 28 bushels, and in the United Kingdom 32.2 bushels. In Germany, statistics are available from 1883 to 1906, inclusive, showing increases in the average yields of wheat from 18.2 to 30.3 bushels, of rye from 15.4 to 25.1 bushels, and of oats from 27.6 to 55.7 bushels. Similar figures might be cited for other European countries, but perhaps the most conclusive statistics are those collected by Kellerman, a German student of this question, who gives the yield per acre for a large number of German estates, covering long periods of time. I shall cite but one of these--a Schmatzfeld estate with records extending back to 1552. In the period between 1552 and 1557 the annual yields reduced to bushels per acre, were, wheat 12.5, rye 13.2, barley 14.2, and oats 14.8. In the period from 1897 to 1904 these yields were, wheat 45.1, rye 34, barley 50.4, and oats 69.1.

Taking all these figures together, I believe the conclusion is inevitable that, while abuse of soils may impair their productivity, their wise use increases it, and the longer they are properly used the more productive they become. Proper use, such as conserves and increases soil productivity, involves the most approved cultural methods, the application of such fertilizers as may be required for varying soil conditions, the raising of live stock, and, above all, the scientific rotation of crops. There can be little question that the most unwise use to which a soil can be subjected is the raising of the same crop for a long series of years. Some very interesting experiments in continuous cropping and crop rotation, covering a period of sixty-five years, have been carried on at Rothamsted, England. On one plot potatoes were grown for fifteen years. At the end of that period the soil was in such condition that it would not grow potatoes at all. It was then planted in barley, and produced an excellent yield. Another crop followed the barley, and the soil was then in condition to grow potatoes again. On this same experimental farm wheat has been sown for fifty years on the same land without fertilizers, and the yield has gone down from 30 bushels to 12 bushels. On another tract wheat has been grown continuously for fifty years with the use of a complete fertilizer, and an average yield of about 30 bushels has been maintained. On another tract wheat has been grown for fifty years in rotation with other crops and an average yield of 30 bushels has been maintained, showing that, for growing wheat on that particular soil, rotation was equivalent to fertilization. As might be expected, the Rothamsted experiments show the best results where fertilizers are used in connection with rotation, and justify the conclusion that under continuous use, with proper rotation and an intelligent use of fertilizers, soil productivity can be largely increased.

This is a matter of particular interest to the South, because with our advantages of soils and climate we have an ideal region for soil conservation through crop rotation and intensive farming. There is a quite general impression throughout the North that, except for a few localities in which early fruits and vegetables, tobacco, and sugar cane are grown, the South is a one-crop region devoted exclusively to cotton. This is entirely erroneous. There are many localities in the southeastern States where cotton is not grown at all, and every acre of land in the cotton belt is suited for growing other crops as well. Cotton will continue to be the great staple crop of the South, and with the ever-increasing demand for cotton goods of all kinds, its cultivation will become increasingly profitable, but the southern cotton planter is learning the value of crop rotation; diversified farming and live-stock raising are becoming more general, and the increased supply of cotton demanded by the world will be produced by increasing the average productiveness of each acre as well as by increasing the acreage.

Other things being equal, the conservative use of a raw material, whatever it may be, consists in its manufacture, in the locality of production, through all the stages of preparation for the final consumer. Manufacturing in the South has reached its present growth and is being still further developed on the basis of this kind of conservation of raw material. Industrial development in the South on a large scale may be said to date from about 1880, prior to which time only relatively a small proportion of the raw materials available in that section were advanced through even the first stages of manufacture before being shipped to other localities. It is natural that, at first, only the coarser, and what may be termed the preliminary, processes should have been undertaken. This was the first step in the conservation of raw materials by their manufacture near the source of supply. The South has gone far in that direction, and has already started on the second step, which is the use of the products of primary manufacturing as the raw materials for secondary industries. But a large proportion of southern cotton mill products, lumber, pig-iron, and other commodities, advanced through the first stages of manufacture, are still shipped out of the South to serve as the raw materials of industries in other localities which convert them into articles ready for the final consumer; and southern coal is shipped to serve as the raw material for power and heat in other parts of the United States and, to some extent, in foreign countries. This is a waste of energy which, under ideal conditions of Conservation would be avoided; and I am glad to be able to say that the present tendency of industrial development in our section is in the direction of its elimination. Substantial progress has already been made in the building up of secondary manufacturing along some lines, and I believe that the most noteworthy progress of southern industrial development in the immediate future will be in this direction, carrying with it an increase in the volume of primary manufacturing through broadening the market for its products.

One of the most valuable of the natural resources of the South is its timber. It is also a resource of which the intelligent conservation will benefit, directly and indirectly, the largest number of people. We have in the southeastern States large and growing industries which use wood alone, or wood in combination with iron, steel, and other materials, as their raw materials. Some of these industries, such as the manufacture of furniture, have enjoyed a phenomenal growth in the past 30 years. There is every reason to expect that this growth will continue and that the variety of wood-working industries will be increased, with the result that they will require an increasing supply of raw materials. As the timber consumption of the United States is now in excess of the annual growth, and as other sections are drawing on our southern forests, it is obvious that if these southern wood-working industries are to survive and are to be handed down to future generations, immediate and effective steps should be taken for the conservation of southern forests. This is the more important for the reason that the same steps taken to insure a perpetual supply of raw material for our wood-workers will tend to stream and soil conservation by increasing stream-flow in periods of drought and by lessening the destructiveness of floods which erode the soil of the upper watersheds and deposit gravel and silt on overflowed lands and in the beds of the navigable parts of the streams.

If we were thinking only of the present time, there would be no occasion for us to concern ourselves with the conservation of our timber supplies. We have ample for the present generation. It is because timber is a crop of slow growth, requiring more than a lifetime to mature most of the species, that timber conservation, if it is to be effective and is to provide for the needs of those who come after us, must be handled along exceptional lines. It is not the duty of a private owner of forest lands to conserve them unless it is at least as profitable for him to do so as to clear all the timber off of them; but it _is_ the duty of the Government to consider the welfare of future generations as well as of that now living.

The conservation of southern timber supplies is a matter that concerns not only the people of our own section, but those of the entire United States as well. It is a matter of National concern, as, owing to the depletion of their forest resources, the people of other parts of the country must look to the South for an increasing proportion of their timber supplies. It is a recognition of this National interest in the southern forests that has strengthened the support of the proposition for the acquisition by the Federal Government of large tracts of lands in the Appalachian region to be converted into National forests (applause) from which the timber shall be marketed under a system that will result in the perpetuation of the forests. It may be that our Federal Government has no power, under the Constitution, to acquire lands for the purpose of forest conservation; but it is charged with the supervision, improvement, and conservation of our navigable streams (applause), and the evidence as to the effect of forests on stream flow was so conclusive as to lead the House of Representatives, during the last session of Congress, to pass a bill providing the establishment of National forests for the protection of the watersheds of navigable streams. This bill is to be voted on in the Senate on the fifteenth of next February. Whether this plan or some other may be adopted, I think it is of the utmost importance that the campaign of education as to the necessity for the speedy and general adoption of the most approved methods of scientific forestry, which is being so ably carried on by the National Forest Service, should be continued (applause). This is quite important, if the best results are to be attained, because, whatever may be done by the Federal Government, much will remain for the States and for private owners of forests and woodlots to do. If the States and private owners are to do their share, the owners of forest lands, the users of forest products, State legislators, and the people generally should be educated as to the dependence of our future supplies of timber on wise conservation.

The private investor in forest lands buys them with the expectation of making a profit on his investment. He naturally wants to make the largest possible profit, and to do it as soon as possible. Heretofore, partly as a result of prevailing systems of taxation and the lack of efficient fire protection, self-interest has impelled the investor in timber lands to clean up his holdings to the last dollar's worth of merchantable timber, and to get off the denuded land as quickly as possible, selling it for whatever it might bring. In the early years of our history, when, except in the prairie regions, lands for cultivation could be obtained only by clearing them of timber, this wholesale cutting was more justifiable, and, in some cases now, in locations where the value of the land for agricultural purposes is greater than its value for timber production, it may be the proper method. We have reached the point, however, when, especially with reference to our mountain forests, it may seriously be questioned whether, as a matter of dollars and cents, this method is the most profitable to the forest owner. In view of the present prices of lumber and the practical certainty of advancing prices in the future, I am disposed to believe that we have now reached the point where it will pay the private owner of any considerable body of timber on land having relatively a low agricultural value to adopt conservative methods of forestry (applause). A case in point is that of the University of the South, at Sewanee, Tennessee, which owns 7,000 acres of forest land. In 1899 it was proposed to sell all the marketable timber on this tract, and an offer of $3,000.00 was obtained. This was rejected, and the University undertook to manage the forest conservatively and market the mature timber from time to time. The result is that, at the end of nine years, instead of having realized only $3,000.00 from this tract, the University has received from it net profits amounting to over $18,000.00 above all expenses (applause), including the cost of fire patrol; and instead of having 7,000 acres of cut-over land of relatively little value, it has a continuously productive forest. (Applause)

Whatever may be the decision of our National Legislature as to the proposition for the conversion of our Appalachian woodlands into National forests, I believe it would be a wise and patriotic policy for our State lawmakers to encourage conservative forestry by private owners in every reasonable and proper way. One of the reasons assigned for the failure of private owners to adopt conservative forestry is that in some localities the rate of taxation on timber land is so high as practically to compel every owner to cut the timber as quickly as possible. Another reason assigned is the general lack of an efficient fire patrol, and the danger that, even if an owner goes to the expense of preventing fire on his own property, his timber may be destroyed by a fire starting on the property of some neighbor who has taken no such precautions. These are matters that come within the province of our State legislators, and I would suggest their consideration of whether it might not be possible to devise a system of taxation that would differentiate between timber lands so managed as to insure the perpetuation of a great National resource and those so managed as to hasten its exhaustion (applause). I would also suggest consideration of the enactment of proper fire laws and the establishment of an efficient patrol, possibly with the expense apportioned among owners of timber lands, as I understand is done in some western localities at a very low annual cost per acre. I would further suggest consideration of the practicability of encouraging the planting of trees on lands of little or no agricultural value. Even under the most encouraging conditions, however, planting of forests by private land owners must, almost necessarily, be on relatively a small scale. As a general rule, therefore, private planting will be limited to the establishment of woodlots on the waste lands of farms; and if reforestation is to be undertaken on a larger scale, it must be done by some Governmental agency. (Applause)

The problem of stream conservation in the southeastern States is very closely connected with both timber conservation and soil conservation. The ends to be sought are a diminution of the volume of water carried by the streams in their flood stages, and an increase in their volume during their low stages. Everything, therefore, which tends to retard the flow of the rainfall into the streams is a conservative agency. Undoubtedly the most effective of these is the natural forest with its soil, composed of porous humus, covered by a blanket of decaying leaves, branches, and fallen trees, and often with a dense mat of underbrush growing among the trees. Such a forest will absorb a large amount of water during a rain-storm, and allow it to seep down gradually into the streams instead of running off in torrents, overflowing the banks of the streams, destroying growing crops and other property, and scouring the soil from the watersheds to be deposited in the lower levels of the streams or at their mouths, shoaling channels or forming bars in harbors. Generally speaking, therefore, every step taken in the conservation of forests is of value in stream conservation; but, if the best results in the regulation of stream flow are to be attained, other things may be done to advantage. The growth of underbrush having no marketable value is of no benefit to a forest, in fact it may choke out or retard the growth of young trees of valuable species. Such a growth is of great value, however, in retarding water flow, and preventing soil erosion, and, unless cut-over mountain sides are to be reforested, I believe that the growth on them of such species as laurel and rhododendron should be encouraged. (Applause)

Each farmer, especially along the headwaters of the streams, can contribute to a greater or less extent to stream conservation. He can do this by establishing permanent woodlots on those waste lands that are to be found on almost every farm in rolling or mountainous country, and especially on those lands that are liable to erosion. He should, of course, take every precaution to prevent the washing of gullies in his cultivated fields, and where such gullies have already been formed he should so manage as to prevent further erosion. The farmer on the headwaters of a stream cannot be expected to do these things in order to aid in the prevention of flood damages below him. He should be educated to an appreciation of their benefit to himself individually. He will not only be lessening, in some degree, the amount of silt carried down by flood waters, but will be conserving his own soil; and his woodlots will, in a few years, become increasingly valuable as stores of fire-wood and fence-posts, and, eventually, of larger timber. The effect of but a single farmer on an extensive watershed adopting these methods would, of course, be inappreciable, but if thousands of farmers could be led to do so as a matter of self-interest the good results would soon become apparent.

Another method of stream conservation that I believe may be practiced to advantage in some locations in the Appalachian region is the impounding of flood waters in artificial ponds or lakes, to be let out gradually during periods of low water. This is not everywhere practicable, and, I believe, should only be practiced where the benefit will be greater than the damage that will result from overflowing the land included in the reservoir. It would manifestly be unwise to locate such a reservoir at a point where it would submerge a fertile agricultural valley, or where it would render inaccessible a valuable deposit of coal or ore.

One of the great economic advantages of the South is the abundance of its opportunities for the development of hydro-electric power for the operation of its factories, the propulsion of its trolley cars, and the lighting of its cities and towns. If this cheap and efficient power is to be used most advantageously, it is important that the stream-flow by which it is generated should be, as nearly as possible, uniform at all seasons of the year. It is in this connection that reservoirs for impounding flood waters would be of great value. Some of the sites where these reservoirs might be located are so situated that a great and powerful fall of water may be attained. The power plants would often have to be situated at points not suited for the location of industrial establishments, but the power can be carried by wire to factories many miles distant. Where such reservoirs are established the primary purpose will be the generation of power, but they would also serve a highly useful purpose in diminishing the flood level of the streams which they feed.

Your invitation to address this Congress was very gratifying to me, Mr President, not simply because of the high honor which it conferred upon me, but chiefly because the invitation and the suggestion of my topic conveyed a recognition of the interest of the railways of the United States in the Conservation of our natural resources and in all that concerns our national welfare. (Applause) They are interested in soil conservation, because it means prosperity to the farmer and an increase in the volume of farm products to be carried, and also an increase in their tonnage of agricultural machinery and implements and of all kinds of merchandise which a prosperous farmer will buy. They are interested in the conservation of forests and mines, because it means the perpetuation of sources of supply of raw materials which, either in their crude or manufactured state, must be carried to market, and which, in their production and manufacture, bring prosperity to many thousands whose consumption of commodities produced in other localities calls for transportation. They are interested in the conservation of water powers and navigable streams, because cheap power means the development of industrial communities and, while economically efficient waterways mean a loss to the railways of some kinds of traffic, they also mean an increase in general prosperity in which the railways have a share. (Applause)

Conversely, Mr President, the people are interested in the conservation and development of their transportation systems. We have seen that one of the elements of conservation is the manufacture of finished products at or near the sources of supply of raw materials. It is this that enables the people of a community to devote their energies chiefly to those industries for which their locality is best suited and to exchange their surplus production for commodities that can be produced more advantageously in other localities. Transportation makes this specialization of industries possible. Without efficient transportation facilities each community would have to be, to a larger extent, self-supporting, and many of its people would have to engage in the production of commodities which, with our existing facilities for transportation, they can buy more profitably elsewhere. The scale of living would be much more restricted, and many things which are now looked upon as being almost necessaries of life would either be unattainable or would be luxuries which only the wealthy could enjoy.

I am glad of the opportunity, Mr President, to speak of the South and for the South before this representative national assembly (applause). Our section is a region of unsurpassed economic strength. Our climate and our soils invite to diversified agriculture, in which there can be produced profitably all the products of the temperate zone and many of those of the tropics. Beneath our soil are stores of coal, iron and other ores, marble and stone for the builder, and clay for the potter and brickmaker. Our forests are sources of great present profit and, under wise conservation, can be perpetuated as sources of wealth for future generations. Our streams flowing from the wooded mountains of the Appalachian region carry the force of millions of horsepower capable of being utilized along their banks or carried in the shape of electrical energy to wherever it can be used to best advantage. The intelligence, energy, and enterprise of our people are attested by the splendid social, agricultural, and industrial structure they have erected on the ruins left by the Civil War. The progress that has been made is but the promise of what will be. The South is a land of present-day opportunity, and its people invite the man seeking an opportunity to work with hand or brain, or the man with money to invest to come to this favored land of busy factories and thriving towns--a land of fertile valleys, forest-clad mountains, and storehouses of mineral wealth. (Applause)

* * * * *

President BAKER--Ladies and Gentlemen: You will no doubt gladly permit interruption of the formal program for a few moments now and then by reports of committees. Professor Condra, Chairman of the Credentials Committee, is now ready to report.

Professor CONDRA--Mr President and Delegates: We have examined the credentials of all Delegates to the Second National Conservation Congress, and find that the duly accredited Delegates entitled to vote in accordance with the Constitution of the Congress number thirteen hundred fifty-one (1351), and that the number of duly accredited Delegates from each State are as follows:

Alabama 1, Arizona 3, Arkansas 4, California 13, Colorado 7, Columbia (District of) 10, Connecticut 5, Delaware 1, Florida 4, Georgia 6, Idaho 10, Illinois 67, Indiana 15, Iowa 78, Kansas 13, Kentucky 4, Louisiana 17, Maine 1, Maryland 8, Massachusetts 3, Michigan 19, Minnesota 631, Mississippi 8, Missouri 25, Montana 20, Nebraska 22, New Hampshire 1, New Jersey 4, New Mexico 1, New York 27, North Carolina 1, North Dakota 77, Ohio 17, Oklahoma 2, Oregon 15, Pennsylvania 16, Rhode Island 1, South Carolina 3, South Dakota 53, Texas 12, Utah 2, Vermont 2, Virginia 3, Washington 26, West Virginia 5, Wisconsin 84, Wyoming 5; total, 1351. Foreign: Canada 2, Mexico 1.

Respectfully submitted to the Congress:

[Signed] G. E. CONDRA, _Chairman_
LYNN R. MEEKINS
GEO. K. SMITH
EDWARD HINES
R. W. DOUGLAS

A DELEGATE--Mr Chairman: I move that the report be adopted and the committee be dismissed.

The motion was put, and was carried without dissenting voice.

President BAKER--Professor Condra will report an action by the Committee on Resolutions.

Professor CONDRA (_reading_)--A motion was made and carried by the Resolutions Committee that resolutions presented to the Congress or to the Committee cannot be received after 5 oclock p.m. Wednesday. All resolutions should be headed with the subject of the resolution and should be signed by the person offering same.

The Resolutions Committee has not yet received the names of the members from Alabama, Delaware, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia; and the Committee urge that the Delegations from those States act at once. The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 5 p.m. today, Room 534, Saint Paul Hotel.

* * * * *

Mr GEORGE B. LOGAN (_Secretary of the Resolutions Committee_)--Mr Chairman: The Resolutions Committee suggest that resolutions should be grouped under the heads of Land, Water, Forests, Minerals, and Vital Resources; and if those who submit resolutions will simply place the proper heading on each, it will greatly aid the Committee.

President BAKER--Professor Condra will make another announcement.

Professor CONDRA--Ladies and Gentlemen: There is a strong demand for practical consideration of Conservation problems in various States, and for the purpose of discussing these subjects a meeting will be held this evening at 8 oclock in the Saint Paul Hotel. All members of State Conservation Commissions and State Conservation Associations are invited to attend this meeting.

President BAKER--Here is another announcement just handed in: Technical men in attendance are requested to meet in the lobby of the Saint Paul Hotel on the adjournment of the morning session of this Congress. The call includes civil, electrical, mining, mechanical and hydraulic engineers, architects, educators in these sciences, and also geologists and chemists.

Senator Beveridge, of Indiana, will now address us on a subject which ought to be very near the heart of every father and mother--"The Young Man's Idea." I have the pleasure of introducing Senator Beveridge.

[The band here played "The Star-Spangled Banner," while the audience rose and greeted Senator Beveridge with tremendous applause.]

* * * * *

Senator BEVERIDGE--Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: The United States IS. (Applause) The American people are a Nation (applause)--not forty-six Nations. (Applause)

In war we fight under one flag (applause) for our common safety; in peace let us strive, under one flag, for our common welfare. (Applause)

Our history is the story of the struggle of the National sentiment of all the people, which special interests for their selfish purposes sought to discourage, against the provincial sentiment of some of the people, which special interests for their selfish purposes sought to encourage. (Applause)

The parent of the provincial idea in American Government was the British crown. The British kings believed that if they could keep the colonists separated by local pride, local prejudice, and local jealousy, the British policy would be easier. They knew that if the colonists were united by common interests, common sentiment, and a common purpose, the British policy would be harder; and that British policy _was_ to permit the special interests of the United Kingdom to exploit the people of the divided colonies (applause). And so from King James to King George the British crown sought to keep the people of the Colonies divided--separated by geography for the convenience of the English government; they sought to keep them separated in spirit for the interests of the British manufacturers. Every British law which forced the Revolution was a law to enable the special interests of the United Kingdom to monopolize the markets of the people of the Colonies. Our Revolution was nothing more than the war of the people, for the moment united, against the special interests of the Colonies which had kept them divided.

Now, such is the origin of the provincial idea in America. Washington and his Continentals were the infant National idea in uniform, and manning the shotted guns of liberty (applause). The British and their Hessian and Tory allies were the full-grown provincial idea behind the bayonets of oppression. Our first attempt at Government was a failure because the British provincial idea still was powerful. The local pride, prejudice, and jealousy of the separate Colonies reasserted itself, after their common danger was past. The result was the Articles of Confederation. Washington said that the Government thus formed was contemptible, and yet it was the provincial idea carried to its logical conclusion; and so it fell. The cruel necessities of the people forced the reassertion of the National idea, and the Constitution of the United States was that idea's immortal child (applause). The Articles of Confederation said, We, the States, form a Government: the Constitution says, We, the _People_, form this Government for our general welfare (applause). And yet into this great "ordinance of our nationality," as Chief Justice Marshall calls our Constitution, there crept defects which the statesmen of that day could not prevent, defects which have caused most of our trouble since, and nearly all of them are due to the provincial idea. For example, few men remember that when the Constitution was adopted, "State rights" was not mentioned in that instrument. Washington had been elected President. The Congress of the United States was in session. The National Government was under way. The Tenth Amendment was adopted to quiet those who were preaching the paradox that the general Government of the people would oppress the people. Noisiest of these was Patrick Henry, then Governor of Virginia, who refused to attend the Constitutional Convention, opposed the ratification of our fundamental law, and was against its adoption. Upon the embers of provincialism he heaped the inflammable brush-wood of excited rhetoric. Being in the Constitution, the State rights provision is as valid as any other amendment. But such is its origin and spirit, and no misinterpretation of the provincial idea of State rights must be permitted to impair the American people's general welfare, waste their resources, plunge the Nation into war, or impede our general progress as a people (applause). Now, as always, the danger has been, and is, not so much that the Nation will interfere with the rights of the States as that the States will interfere with the rights of the Nation. (Applause)

After our present Government was founded, its first conflict with the British provincial idea was in the Whiskey Rebellion of Pennsylvania; the special interests that dealt in rum, under the guise of State sovereignty defied the Nation's laws; but George Washington put down that first State rights rebellion in the name of the Government of all the people (applause). Then came the special interests' defiance of the laws of the General Government in Andrew Jackson's day, and Andrew Jackson's voice, like the voice of Washington, was the voice of all the people against the voice of the special interests who tried to exploit the people. Next came the special interests that thrived on human slavery, and, in the name of State rights tried to destroy the Government they could not control. But again the National sentiment responded to Abraham Lincoln's call to arms (great applause), and a million bayonets wrote across our Constitution these words of the American people's immortality: THIS IS A NATION! (Applause)

Then came the special interests that robbed and poisoned the people by lotteries, that destroyed the morals of the people by obscene literature. They flourished under State protection. Only the Nation could stop them. Those special interests denied that the Nation had the power to stop them. But the Nation _did_ stop them, and the Supreme Court of the Nation upheld the Nation's power (applause). Then came the special interests that sold to the people diseased meats, poisoned foods, and adulterated drugs. Again they flourished under State protection. Again the Nation only could protect the lives of the Nation's people. And again those special interests denied that the Nation had the power, but the Nation _exercised_ the power, and today National laws protect the lives and rights of the American people from special interests that were plundering and poisoning and killing them. (Applause)

And it is the same conflict between the National and the provincial idea, for and against the great, necessary, and inevitable reform of the National control of corporate capitalization, on which so largely depend just prices and rates to the people. (Applause)

These are examples of the evils; but nearly every step of progress we have taken has been due to the success of the National idea. For example, President Madison vetoed the first internal improvement bill. He said, in one of the ablest messages ever written--far abler than the diluted State rights doctrine we hear today--that the Constitution gave the Nation no power to build roads, bridge rivers, improve harbors; but the people needed these things in order to win that righteous prosperity which only they can have acting as one people, under one flag--and so Congress passed the internal improvement bill over Madison's veto, and today no one dares question the Nation's power to make internal improvements; the only question today is how we can best do that work. (Applause)

Again, for a hundred years, the provincial idea kept the quarantine of the Nation's ports exclusively in the hands of the States; but if pestilence entered at a port of one State it attacked the people of other States. The germs of yellow fever did not know State lines when they saw them, any more than a forest fire knows the boundaries between States when it sees them. And so the open grave, the dead on the street, the people's past and future peril, asserted the National idea again for the Nation's safety, and today we have substantially a National control of National quarantine to keep pests and death from our shores, and the States are cooperating.

So you see that the history of the American people has been merely the narrative of the making of the Nation, merely the record of the compounding of a people, merely the chronicle of the knitting together of one great brotherhood. It is an inevitable process, and it is a safe process--except for special interests that seek to exploit all the people. For the American people can be trusted (applause). The combined intelligence and composite conscience of the American people is the mightiest force for wisdom and righteousness in all the world, and no ancient and provincial interpretation of State rights in the name of development must impede our general welfare (applause), no plea for hasty local development must impair our healthy general development (applause), no temporary State politics compelled by the wealthy few must prevent permanent National statesmanship for the general good of all. (Applause)

Affairs that concern exclusively the people living within a State are the business and the problem of that State. Affairs affecting the general welfare of the whole people are the business and problem of the Nation (applause). And even in solving its own problems, every State must remember that its people are an inseparable and indivisible part of the whole American people (applause). Of States as of men it may be written, No State liveth unto itself alone. (Applause)

Just as the idea of provincialism has caused most of our National evils in the past, so it has wrought the waste of our National resources. The provincial idea was that the National resources belonging to all the people should be handed over for nothing to special interests. This was done under the plea of encouraging individual enterprise and the hastening of local development. And so forests, which once belonged to all the people, have been ruthlessly slaughtered, and upon their ruins have risen the empires of our lumber kings (applause). Priceless deposits of coal and iron and copper and phosphates have been freely surrendered to special interests, and those sources of the people's revenue, which should have flowed into the people's treasury to help pay the expenses of the people's government, have been diverted by the ditch dug by the provincial idea into the treasury of special interests until the multi-millionaire constitutes one of the gravest problems confronting American statesmanship. (Applause)

All this waste and robbery of the people's property must be stopped! (Applause) The hand of waste or theft must not be strengthened by any legal technicality that plays into the hands of special interests and out of the hands of the American people! (Great applause)

Had we kept all the property that belonged to all the people, and compelled special interests who exploited it to pay us a reasonable price for it, that income today would be paying most of our National expenses. Our resources would have been developed and not exhausted, and our whole material evolution would have been rational and sound instead of unbalanced and defective. Had this been our policy from the start, we would have enjoyed all the benefits from our natural resources, and our children today would inherit colossal National wealth and small National burdens instead of the special interests enjoying all the benefits of the people's property and _their_ children inheriting colossal fortunes and small private burdens. (Applause)

The Nation must keep and administer for the benefit of all the people the property yet remaining to the people (applause). Every State should help and not hinder the Nation, in doing this great duty (applause). Every State should administer the public property within it, and belonging to it, for the public good. Every municipality should keep and administer the property belonging to it for the public good; and both State and municipality should aid the Nation in keeping and administering for the people the property that belongs to _all_ of them.

I want to give you an illustration, very concrete: Many of New York's inconceivably vast fortunes have been expanded by corrupt councils selling watercourses and other property for a mere song to private owners. Had New York kept the property which belonged to the city, instead of squandering it to already multi-millionaires, the city's debt today would not be so vast--and her great private fortunes would not be so vast either (applause). The people's taxes would have been less, and the gigantic unearned incomes of the heirs of great wealth would have been less (applause). And as between the two, the wiser policy have been for the city to keep the property that belonged to all the people of the city instead of selling it sometimes for an infamous price to private owners whose vast wealth, accumulating by the work of the city itself, has raised up in the midst of the American people one of the great questions of the age.

Cooperation of municipality, State, and Nation, in keeping and administering for the general good the property of all the people--this is the policy of common sense and common honesty (applause). Strife and dissension between municipality, State, and Nation, that the reign of pillage may go on and that mighty accumulations of wealth may be upbuilded upon the ruins of the people's resources--_that_ is the policy of private avarice and private plunder (applause). Coal, timber, asphalt, phosphates, water-powers--all the property of the people--must be kept and administered for the people by the Government which Lincoln said was "of the people by the people for the people" (applause). Already this greatest of our present-day National policies is well under way. Let any man beware how he retards or hinders it (applause). Already we have saved much of the people's property still belonging to the people. We must save _all_ of the people's property still belonging to the people. (Applause and cries of "Good") "Honor to whom honor is due." (Applause) Let us not forget, in this great hour, that the man who, by thought, word, and deed, has wrought for this great reform, until today he stands its National personification (applause), that splendid, courageous, pure, unselfish young American, the President of the National Conservation Association, Gifford Pinchot. (Tumultuous applause and cheers, calls for "Pinchot"; and the audience rose, gave the Chautauqua salute, and continued cheering for many minutes)

For years--and I speak from personal knowledge, because twelve years ago when I entered the Senate I was made the chairman of the then despised forestry committee--for years Gifford Pinchot has ceaselessly worked and fearlessly fought to keep for the people the property of the people which special interests were trying to steal from the people (applause). And in that Nation-wide battle he has been the field-officer of the man who _first_ succeeded in making Conservation a permanent and practical policy of American statesmanship, Theodore Roosevelt. (Great applause. A Voice: Let us vote to give him back his job!)