The Congress was called to order by President Baker in the Auditorium, Saint Paul, at 8.30 a.m. on Thursday, September 8, few Delegates being present, and none responding to an invitation to speak for their States. After waiting some time—

President Baker—Ladies and Gentlemen: We will now go on with the regular program, leaving the Call of the States for a later time when the Delegations may be more fully represented. In the absence of the Reverend Dr J. A. Krantz, President of the Minnesota Conference of the Swedish Lutheran Church, we will dispense with the public invocation.

Professor Henry S. Graves, Chief Forester of the United States, will now address you on "The Forest and the Nation."

Professor Graves—Mr President, Ladies and Gentlemen: The movement for the conservation of our natural resources has reached the second and most critical stage in its progress. The country has expressed in unmistakable terms its approval of the principles of Conservation; there is now before it the problem of the practical application of those principles.

In forestry there is a very general agreement that our woodlands must be protected from fire, that waste must be reduced, and that a future timber supply must in some way be provided. In carrying out these purposes, differences of opinion arise, and it soon develops that with many persons the interest in forestry is confined to the abstract idea and does not extend to its practice. When the requirements of forestry are considered, forest owners usually find that they must make some modification in their methods of cutting, that they must use more care in protection from fire and in saving young growth, and that if they are to secure a new growth of trees after cutting, some investment is necessary. The general public learns that in order to secure for the Nation the permanent benefits of the forest, National and State expenditures are required.

It is at this point that indifference and even opposition to Conservation arise. Indifference is shown by the public when it fails to make adequate appropriations for public forestry. Direct opposition appears from those who fear that their interests in one way or another may be adversely affected. There is a great deal of misunderstanding in regard to the methods of Conservation, and many have charged that those methods heretofore advocated are impractical. In order to be successfully applied, Conservation must be practical; but at the same time the methods must be such as will actually accomplish its real purposes. To my mind the real significance and value of this Congress is that an opportunity is afforded to make clear the methods of Conservation, and the country will then decide whether it will really be put into practice or become a mere name.

It is not my intention now to dwell at length on the fundamental importance to the country of forest Conservation. To those who know the needs of the people for forest products, the available resources, and the manner in which they are now being used up or destroyed, it must be clear that we are facing a problem which must be met by prompt and vigorous action.

A survey of the forest resources of the world shows clearly that in the long run this Nation must be dependent chiefly on its own supplies. Those who believe that we may destroy our own forests and then draw upon foreign resources of timber are misinformed as to the facts, for those supplies will not be long available. Foreign countries will need for their own use what they can produce, and many of the exporting countries are exhausting their forests just as rapidly as America. The timber supply in this country is being rapidly depleted. We are extravagant in our use of forest products; there is waste in logging and manufacturing, and the loss by fire is a shame to the country. To offset this reduction of merchantable resources the annual production of timber by growth amounts to much less than one-third the average quantity used and destroyed. In other words, we are actually exhausting our forest supplies by use and waste.

There is a sufficient amount of land in the country better suited to forest growth than other purposes to produce all the wood and timber needed by the Nation, provided the forest is properly handled. This land includes mountain areas where the protection of the vegetation is necessary to conserve water and protect the slopes. The protective benefits of the forest can thus in most cases be secured at the same time as the production of wood and timber. There are, however, certain mountain regions of the West where large trees will not grow, and where the cover of brush and grass must be conserved to protect the slopes and to regulate the run-off of water. In these mountains special reservations must be maintained primarily for protective purposes.

There is but little disagreement in regard to these simple propositions. The difficulty lies in the fact that the people do not appreciate the need of immediate action to put the principles of forestry into practice. The reason why prompt action is not appreciated is that, except locally, the effects of forest destruction have not yet been keenly felt. It is true that the prices of certain grades of lumber have tended to increase. This increase is in part due to the reduction of supplies, but it is due also to the same causes of increased cost of production as have raised the price of other manufactured commodities (applause). The development of railroad transportation and of methods of logging have constantly opened new forest resources and furnished a supply to the public. There are today over 30,000 saw-mills throughout the country cutting timber and competing for the market. Although the prices of lumber may seem high to the consumer it is still true that in some sections the competition among the manufacturers is keeping the prices down to a point where it is hard to market low grades and to utilize in full any but the best trees in the forest. As long as the value of timber is below what it would cost to produce it by growth, the general public will not realize that our supplies are being depleted. It is after the virgin supplies are exhausted—and that will come in a comparatively short time—that the great increase in values will come and the public will suffer. We are urging action now in order that there may be new supplies produced to meet the needs of the Nation at that time. (Applause)

The general public fails also to appreciate the effect of forest destruction on stream-flow and on soil erosion. Some even go so far as to deny the connection between forests and stream-flow. There are many factors which determine the stability of water flow. Climate, character of soil, topography, and vegetative cover, all have an influence on the run-off of water. There may be a change of conditions of one or more of these influencing factors sufficient to upset the equilibrium established by nature, and alter the manner of run-off of the water in a given watershed (applause). In humid regions, where the old timber is cut off or burned, a cover of young trees or brush often springs up quickly and protects the slopes before the character of the stream channels is changed. A single clearing of the forest may thus have only a small or temporary effect on water flow. The repeated destruction of the cover may, however, result in a permanent change, and finally produce torrent conditions. Thus in the Southern Appalachian province it is not so much the present and past conditions—although those are serious—which demand forest conservation, as what will inevitably be the result of continued destruction of the cover. (Applause)

Where the conditions for forest growth are critical, and the soil and topography are such that the balance of nature is easily disturbed, the effects of forest destruction are much more quickly felt. In certain parts of the West we find already examples of flood and torrent conditions equal to those in France and Asia. For example, in Utah there are watersheds where, on account of the burning of the forests and the over-grazing of slopes, torrent conditions are already definitely established. One of the most extreme and striking instances in the West is found on the watershed of Kanab creek flowing through southern Utah and northern Arizona. As the result of over-grazing, the tributary streams have already become deep washes, and many new and deep gulches have been formed running into the main channel and into the side channels. The water which falls on the surface is quickly carried to some stream or wash which becomes a miniature torrent. The gathering of these together in the main channel makes a flood which is irresistible. The loss from the destruction of dams and bridges, the washing away of arable lands, and the deposit of rocks and gravel on cultivated fields, has been enormous. The restoration of vegetation alone will not cure the evil. It is now an engineering problem to check the torrential flow of water in the various streams and washes.

In spite of the increasing evidences of the effects of forest destruction, the public still fails to appreciate the need of prompt action to prevent the scarcity of timber and to protect the flow of our streams. The time for action is before a disaster and not afterward (applause). The small public investments necessary for forest protection are insignificant when contrasted with the losses and hardships to communities resulting from forest destruction.

The forest problem is peculiarly difficult on account of the length of time required to produce timber of useful dimensions. We are using today trees which for the most part are from 150 to 200 years of age. The time required to produce trees suitable for lumber varies from about 40 years with our most rapid-growing species to over 100 years in many mountain regions. The production of timber requires a long investment. It requires the permanent use of land for forest growth, and a stable policy in handling the forest. At the present time in this country there is great risk from fire, which discourages investment by private capital in the growing of timber. By its very nature, therefore, the problem of forestry presents great difficulties to the average private owner of forest land who has bought the property to market the merchantable timber and not to grow trees.

Forestry nearly always involves an actual investment. Private owners will not as a rule make this investment unless there is clearly in sight an adequate return. On account of the long investment, risk from fire, a burdensome system of taxation of growing timber, and the present uncertainties of market, most private owners today are not practicing a system of forestry which takes into consideration the production of new timber supplies. Many say that if fires are kept out the question of forest production will take care of itself, no matter how the forest is handled, and that all there is to forestry is protection from fire. Let me say, and with all the emphasis I am capable of using, that forest production will not take care of itself. There are cases, and remarkable ones, of natural reproduction of forests even under the worst of abuse. But where there is no systematic provision for reproduction, ordinary lumbering results in the long run in a steady reduction of growth of valuable material; and there are only too many cases of destructive lumbering which leave the land in an unproductive state even when fires do not occur. (Applause)

Forestry is necessary to guarantee to the people the continuous benefits of the forest. The responsibility of working out the problem of National forestry cannot be left with private owners. It is primarily a public question, and the burden of its solution must be largely borne by the public. In the first place those forests owned by the public must be protected and administered under the methods of practical forestry. These public forests comprise about one-third of the forest area of the country. The remaining two-thirds of our forests are in private ownership, and this includes about four-fifths of the remaining standing merchantable timber. Without doubt the area of the public forests will be considerably increased through the acquirement of areas needed for the protection of public interests, especially in the mountain regions of the East. But the Federal and State forests alone will not be sufficient to produce the supplies of forest products needed by the country. The practice of forestry on private lands, or at least on those areas better suited for forest growth than for other purposes, is a public necessity. I regard the proper handling of these private forests as a public necessity (applause). The private owner cannot escape the responsibility of ownership of an important natural resource; at the same time he cannot be expected to make financial investments in order to provide for a general public benefit. The conditions which prevent him from practicing forestry should be changed. He should be given public aid in protection from fire. There should be a reasonable system of taxing growing timber, and there should be cooperation in meeting the peculiar difficulties of his business which tend to stand in the way of Conservation.

The practice of forestry by private owners may be brought about through assistance and cooperation by the Federal Government and the States. The Government can do a great deal to promote private forestry. It is the policy of the Forest Service to aid in the introduction and practice of forestry on private lands, just as far as its authority permits. This assistance must, however, be largely confined to education, advice, and general cooperation. Through research and experiment, the Government is laying the foundation for the practice of forestry in all parts of the country. The results of the work in forest products will greatly help in the problem of saving waste. The experiments in silviculture are demonstrating the methods of handling woodlands. Direct aid to private owners in the practice of forestry must come chiefly from the States. The proper adjustment of taxes is a State matter. Assistance in fire patrol and fire fighting must come from the States. If on the other hand this aid is given by the States and the Government, and the obstacles now standing in the way of private forestry are removed, private owners should assume their obligations in actually setting to work to practice forestry.

The first necessity is prompt and effective action by the States. As yet most of our States have not assumed their full responsibilities in forestry. In a number of them good forests laws have been enacted; several States are buying lands as public reservations; and in about fifteen States a forest commission or a State forester has been appointed. But the problem of State forestry requires a great deal more than laws on the statute books, or the appointment of a State forester. There must be the machinery to carry out the laws, a thoroughly equipped organization to patrol the State and fight fires, and adequate appropriation of money to make this work really effective (applause). The real test of State forestry will be the development of a forest policy which will be stable, and the providing of the money necessary to carry on the work.

The first duty of the Federal Government in forestry is the proper administration of the forest lands owned by the Nation. A National forest policy has already been initiated. The greater portion of the Federal forest lands have been set aside as National Forests and they have been managed on the principles of practical Conservation. The purpose of establishing these forests has been to guarantee the best possible use of their resources for the people. There is still an impression among some persons that the National Forests are closed reservations, withdrawn from use and development. The keynote of the Federal policy in handling these forests is the use of their resources; but it is the continued use in contrast with that use which exhausts the resources (applause). There are many who assert that the National Forests are retarding development. It is the policy of the Forest Service to encourage the opening up and development of the resources of the forests, but we take the stand that this must be a development which will permanently build up the country. (Applause)

The Federal policy stands squarely for permanent development and maintenance of stable industries, as opposed to mere exploitation which exhausts the resources, and which shortly results in the impoverishment of the region. (Applause)

In administering the National Forests, the first task is to protect them from destruction by fire. In order adequately to protect forests from fire, the first necessity is a system of roads and trails to enable proper patrol and movement of fire fighters, and telephone lines for quick communication. The second necessity is a well organized force of rangers and guards to patrol the forest and fight fires. Ever since the National Forests were placed under the administration of the Forest Service, the construction of trails and telephone lines has been pushed as rapidly as funds could be secured for that purpose. Although there have already been built 9,218 miles of trails, 1,218 miles of roads, and 4,851 miles of telephone lines, this represents but a beginning of the work when the vast area of inaccessible and undeveloped forests is considered. The Forest Service has a well organized protective service for patrol and fire fighting, though the number of men is still inadequate. Nevertheless it has been possible in ordinary seasons to keep down the fires to a small loss. During the present season there has been in the Northwest an unparalleled drouth and constant high winds that have made fire protection unusually difficult. Innumerable fires were started in the forests from various causes. The woods were dry, and a small spark was sufficient to start a blaze. Where there were roads and trails, the patrol-men were able to reach the fires quickly and either put them out in their incipiency or soon mobilize a force of men who brought them under control before they had done much damage. This was well demonstrated by the fact that in the Montana and Idaho districts the majority of railroad fires were put out by the patrol-men employed by the Forest Service and by the railroads in cooperation before they reached dangerous proportions. Many fires were started, also, in the inaccessible portions of the forest where there are no roads and trails. It was often impossible to reach those fires until they had been burning several days, and in many cases had become dangerous conflagrations. The disastrous fires were those occurring under these conditions.

I wish to take this occasion to express my appreciation of the work of those men who lost their lives in these fires, and also of those other men who ever since the opening of this dry season have been fighting these fires, working often day and night, without regard to hours of service—working with a courage, with a singleness of purpose and desire to protect the property of the public, which makes me proud of them. (Applause)

The great lesson of these fires is the absolute necessity for a complete system of roads and trails and of telephone lines in the National Forests. I meet some men who say that forests cannot be protected from fire, and that sooner or later every extensive forest will be burned. The experience in the Northwest this year only strengthens my conviction that forests can be protected from fire even under the most adverse climatic conditions. But this protection absolutely requires a proper development of the forest in the way of transportation and communication, and an adequate force of men for patrol. The National Forests can be rendered safe from fire but they must be organized for it. This requires extensive construction work at the outset. It requires a large investment in permanent improvement work by the Government. But that necessary expense is insignificant in comparison with the value of the property which will be protected, and the benefits to the communities and industries depending on these forests.

The National Forests are for use, and are administered primarily for the benefit of those States and communities in which they are located. The various resources are opened to use under reasonable restrictions which will guarantee their best continuous service to the greatest possible number of people. The mature timber is cut when there is a demand for its use, but the cutting is conducted under the principles of forestry, so that new growth is established in openings made by lumbering and the continued supply of timber is provided for. (Applause)

The other resources of the National Forests are also being put to use. The grass is utilized under a system of regulated grazing, land more valuable for agriculture than for forest purposes is opened to entry under the forest homestead act, prospecting is allowed without restriction, and legitimate mining is encouraged. It is the aim of the Forest Service to encourage the development of water-powers, and we are endeavoring to work out a practical plan which will facilitate this development by private capital, and at the same time protect the interests of the public (applause). I believe that the use of water-power sites on Federal lands should be under Government control, and I believe that this can be accomplished so as not to prevent the attraction of capital to their development. (Applause)

So far as the National Forests are concerned, Conservation has already carried into the practical stage, for it is being put into actual operation. The National Forests will always stand as a monument to the work of the real founder and spirit of the Conservation movement, Gifford Pinchot. (Great applause)

There are many opponents of the National Forest policy and of the Forest Service, but I find in most sections of the country that those who are using the National Forests, and who are therefore most vitally interested in them, are cooperating very heartily with the Government in working out the details of their administration. It is through the kind of constructive cooperation which the Forest Service is receiving from lumbermen of the country that the practical management of the National Forests can be made really effective. (Applause)

The burden of my plea today is the need of prompt and vigorous action. Action is required of the general public in giving support for the protection of the National Forests. Action is required by the States in administering the State lands in the interests of the public. Action is required by the States in initiating a system of taxation of growing timber which will not prevent Conservation. Action is required by the States in introducing a system of forest patrol and fighting fires which will permit prompt work in the prevention of the burning of our forests. And action, finally, is needed by private individuals to introduce the practical forestry on their lands just as far as economic conditions will permit.

My suggestion is that the first step is required by the public through action of States and action of the Government. I appreciate that this cannot be accomplished without explaining fully to the people exactly what is required. I appreciate that there is necessary an organized campaign of education which should be carried into every locality of the country. This campaign may and must be practical, and not only the general problem of forestry but also the specific means of solving it must be presented to the people. This educational work may be done in part by the Government; a large amount of it must, however, be carried on through the State officials, through the State forest and conservation commissions, and through National and local associations. (Prolonged applause)

President Baker—The next subject is "The Stake of the Business Man in Conservation," by Mr Alfred L. Baker, of Chicago.

Mr Baker—Mr President, Fellow Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen: Here in this Second Conservation Congress, where are assembled specialists who have given profound study to the different phases of the Conservation of our resources, where are met together scientists in agriculture, forestry, mineralogy and waterways, it is not intended that the remarks of a business man should stumble into the fields of the experts. It is, however, appropriate that he should voice his approving earnestness and vigorous enthusiasm in behalf of the Conservation movement (applause), and voice them to those National benefactors who are holding their shoulders to the wheel of progress. As a delegate to this Congress, representing the business man and with the knowledge of his views, I wish to state with all the emphasis of which I am capable that the business men in this country are heart and soul in favor of Conservation (applause). Owing to the infirmities of human nature a few may faint by the wayside; but the great body and mass can always be depended on to faithfully and loyally support the movement. By so doing they are promoting the proper development of those resources which are not only the foundation of our National prosperity but also the foundation of their own individual success.

The most conspicuous quality in the character of the successful business man is foresight—and he, more than any other member of the community, must realize the necessity of foresight in the management of our National affairs. He himself would never permit the waste or plunder of his own personal resources, and whilst enjoying their daily possession would always take thought for the morrow. The Nation in its control of our resources should reflect the same character and intelligence which the individual shows in the management of his own private affairs. (Applause)

The great body of business men favor the well-known policies of Conservation. They recognize that those resources which are of a public character should be held in trust by the Nation for the benefit of the people (applause) and that those resources of a private nature should be so disposed of that they will be enjoyed by the greatest number for the longest time. (Applause)

They believe in the Government control of water-power (applause) with the cooperation of the States, and in the application of a scientific forestry which will eliminate waste, also in a fire patrol which, at whatever cost (applause), will prevent the destruction of our forests and of human life. They believe in better methods of farming and in the improvement of country life so that the bright boy on the farm shall no longer respond to the call of the great city, but find immediately about him equal opportunities for fame and fortune. (Applause) They believe in the continued distribution of information on a large scale that will educate the people and advance their knowledge of Conservation (applause); and finally they believe in the Conservation of public integrity, which is the basal foundation of our National life on which all else depends. (Great applause)

I am not one of those who believe that the Conservation movement should be confined solely to the technical treatment of the forest and soil and the prevention of material waste. The second article in the platform of the first Conservation Congress provides that "the objects of this Congress shall be broad, to act as a clearing house for all allied social forces of our time, to seek to overcome waste in natural, human, or moral forces." I concur in that declaration. (Applause)

We are told that the Constitution of the United States was the unexpected outcome of a conference convened for the sole purpose of investigating our waterways. The charge of irrelevancy might well have been brought to bear upon the discussions which ensued relating to a standing army and the powers of the Federal Government, but in all National movements the importance rests not with their origin but with the extent of their usefulness. (Applause)

However restricted at the outset, Conservation has grown into a larger and more comprehensive movement, and its principles include the conservation of ideals that make for good citizenship (applause). It is in relation to this larger view that I wish to emphasize the importance of the American business man and his influence on our National progress.

In the lifetime of many now living, the land in this great State of Minnesota was divided between two Indian tribes—the Sioux and the Chippewa. These tribes were uncivilized. Intelligence had not arrived at the stage which produces diversified industry, commerce, and the merchant. The influence of these forces marks the difference between the land of the Sioux and the State of Minnesota today.

The early pioneers who first settled on the Atlantic Coast and then continued their journey across the Continent were all business men, but they were not capitalists. From the eastern States they sought in Europe capital to build up the industries of their locations, and, by the use of this capital and labor rendered the East prosperous; and when these sturdy pioneers opened up the wealth of resources in the West they, in turn, drew upon the East for capital, and by paying for its use and uniting labor with it developed this great country. The descendants of these pioneer business men are the representative business men of today. They are not in an economic sense capitalists. Whilst the capitalist may be a business man, the vast majority of business men are not capitalists. The business man is the one who obtains capital from one source and labor from another source and unites them in an anticipated prosperous undertaking. (Applause)

The material prosperity of the United States is due to our natural resources and the genius of the business man united with the capital of the few and the toil of the millions; but the creative genius, the organizing ability, the spirit which animates the partnership, is the contribution of the business man—by his brains, energy, force of character, and toil he has created here in the United States a commercial system of enterprise and a degree of business prosperity unparalleled in history.

If we give the credit of this achievement to the business man, he should also bear the responsibility of the evils which have been engendered (applause). The gravest evils which have developed out of our commercial prosperity are the uncontrolled power of great wealth, the growth of monopolies, and their sinister influence on our political institutions. (Applause)

Industrial efficiency may justify the union of many smaller corporations into one big one, but if it leads to industrial despotism this efficiency is obtained at the sacrifice of industrial freedom (applause). No one nowadays, on the ground of efficiency, believes in a political despotism; surely it is equally difficult to believe that any degree of efficiency could justify industrial despotism. (Applause)

As early as 1888 so conservative a man as Grover Cleveland expressed himself as follows: "Communism of combined wealth and capital, the outgrowth of overweening cupidity and selfishness, which assiduously undermines the justice and integrity of free institutions is not less dangerous than the communism of oppressed poverty and toil which, exasperated by injustice and discontent, attacks with wild disorder the citadel of misrule." So far as communism of capital is concerned, did not Cleveland's graphic statement adumbrate the conditions as they exist today? Since that time how tremendous has been the growth in the combinations of capital and industry.

But of more importance than the size of the corporations and the combinations of capital is the activity in our political arena of the agents and members of these corporations (applause); they are not there to advocate measures for the welfare of the community, but to obtain for themselves special privileges, to gain some advantage in disregard of the public welfare and merely for private gain. These conditions are precipitating an economic and political crisis, in which the issues are not to be between the two great political parties, but between ranks which are being formed to give battle on these new issues regardless of party lines. (Applause)

To my mind great encouragement lies in the fact that there is rapidly developing a segregation in the ranks of business men. Already many of them, freed from a false sense of class loyalty, or a fear of injury to business, are unwilling to assist by their public support or private esteem that man, however successful or powerful he may be, who by himself or by his agents practices methods which are unfair and opposed to the common good (applause). They no longer respect the citizen who in any way indicates a reluctance to take part in the crusade against bribery and graft, or the one who, by silence, hopes to conceal his public attitude when public sentiment seeks to fasten responsibility where responsibility belongs (applause). This sort of man must come out into the open and declare himself—he must be either with us or against us. (Applause and cries of "Good!")

Even though the advocacy of the control of industrial combinations and the enactment of measures for their regulation temporarily affect business interests, they should not for this reason excite the opposition of the mercantile world. Those business men who have become convinced of the wisdom of regulation should be willing to follow the example of the intelligent patient who goes through with a necessary operation that in the end he may obtain permanent health and strength. (Applause)

During the last five years there is apparent among business men a larger recognition of their obligations to the community, and there is noticeable among the directors of many of our corporations a stricter sense of trusteeship. An anti-toxin to corruption has entered the very veins of the business world (applause). The phagocytes of health are overcoming the macrophags of decay. This is not a sudden revival, a temporary wave of reform, but a gradual evolution of the moral sense, a permanent advance in the idea of social justice (applause). This moral awakening may show itself politically in an effort toward municipal reform, in legislative and municipal voters' leagues, in a determined resistance to monopoly, or for a larger control and a larger share in the profits of public franchise corporations. But in whatever form it seeks its expression, it is the manifestation of an actively constructive principle which will soon become so effective that the merchant and the man of affairs will overlook the near and personal view which appears on the stock ticker and take the larger view, the view that ultimately provides for the greatest good of the greatest number (applause). This awakened sense of social justice is the new and deeper significance of the Conservation movement. (Applause)

Two years ago the Conference of Governors adopted a declaration of principles which the President said should hang on the wall of every school-house for the education of every citizen who is to become a voter in the next generation.

Since then Conservation has become the watchword of the hour. The widespread use of the word has given to it a meaning undreamed of in the beginning. In the form of an intelligent energy it has applied itself to all the concerns of life from the conservation of the soil and the forest to the conservation of birds, of child life and of health. It enters into our daily life, awakens into an active moral force a renaissance of the old-fashioned virtues—prudence, thrift, and foresight—and gives to them a larger and a National meaning.

Conservation is the intimate and individual message to our day and generation. It marks the advent of a new patriotism wherein love of humanity becomes an integral part of love of country, and where the conservation of our "rocks and rills," our "woods and templed hills," is not a more sacred trust than the conservation of those ideals and principles through which we hope to attain our ultimate National purpose—a Government of enlightened people, enjoying equal opportunities, sharing equal burdens, and rejoicing in the freedom of an Industrial and Political Democracy. (Great applause)

[In the course of the foregoing, President Baker invited Professor Condra to the Chair.]

Professor Condra—Ladies and Gentlemen: President Baker desires me to say that his voice has failed. He also authorizes me to announce that the Call of States will be made this afternoon.

I am pleased now to introduce a speaker opposed to the leading objects of this Congress. I ask you to hear kindly any criticism that he may offer. His subject is "The Relation of Capital to the Development of Resources." Mr Frank H. Short, of California.

Mr Short—Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I am permitted to speak today for the first time for real money, and apparently in behalf of those who are sometimes denominated "malefactors of great wealth." I observe that one of the Saint Paul papers in announcing this address has referred to me as a lawyer and capitalist. The latter I modestly deny. It is unprofessional for a lawyer to become rich. Good lawyers are scarce and valuable, and judging by the speeches I have heard in this Congress rich men are very common and a great public nuisance. Therefore I hold that it would be a great misfortune for a good lawyer, such as I admit that I am (laughter), to be spoiled by making out of him an ordinary capitalist.

This audience, in listening to my address, will no doubt have in mind the numerous warnings which have been given to them in advance to forestall the evil influences of my humble remarks. I hope none of you will ever have to sustain the painful ordeal of appearing before an audience decorated with hoofs and horns by angels of light wearing crowns and playing harps, who have so kindly bestowed upon me the habiliments of the Evil One. Perhaps, since I have been so excessively featured, I had as well admit the whole horrible truth. First, and perhaps worst of all, I am a Missourian, having committed the indiscretion of being born in the "Show me" State—but not in Kansas. All of my youth was spent in the Middle West in the occupation of a rough rider; and I still enjoy a fight or a footrace as much as though I were a real colonel. Further confessing, I have lived for many years in California and am a lawyer by profession, and have committed the offense of allowing myself to be retained and am now employed by a considerable number of large water companies and electric power companies and other corporations, diligently endeavoring to commit the crime of investing capital under the laws of the western States in the development of the industries and resources of those States.

The difference between a real colonel and a second lieutenant is illustrated by the fact that this admission permits of my being heard under his authority, although industrious efforts by the lieutenant referred to have been devoted to the contrary purpose. I am, however, speaking under the general permission of this Congress, and under no other frank than my unrevoked license as a real though obscure American citizen.

The rights and interests of all American citizens and business institutions under the laws of our country are the same (applause). As a man accumulates property, and his interests and substantial connection with the country and its resources increase, he thereupon becomes just that much more interested in the honesty and integrity of the Government under which he lives, in the perfectly equal and just operation of the law, and above all in the supremacy of the law and similarly in the inauguration, continuation, and perpetuation of good policies.

No doubt we self-governing Americans have all erred, both the poor man and the capitalist; and perhaps it would not be unfair to say that we all ought in humility to bear our equal share of the odium connected with whatever failures and offenses have been committed during our history, and I am not here to shift any of the burden from one class upon another. Neither am I here to answer denunciations with denunciations. I am handicapped in such debate, for the reason that I acquired my education in the old-fashioned school that was taught to believe that an honest man was one who said little of his own honesty and less of the supposed dishonesty of others.

A convention of this character can be carried on with but little capital, and may travel a good ways on sheer wind; but with all respect to free speech, it takes money to carry on Government and conduct business, and if capital is as timid as it is supposed to be, and if some of our political friends were as dangerous as they sound, all of the money would have been scared out of America before I commenced these remarks on capital. Allow me, however, respectfully to suggest that we of this country are engaged in many vast enterprises; we are responsible to many men and their families for the opportunity to work and to earn a living. We are committed to the completion of many National enterprises of great magnitude. Our crops are none too large, our reserve capital is small and is growing smaller. The general industrial and financial conditions of the country from the point of view of thoughtful men who understand the situation, are not as satisfactory as I wish they were, and those who are gaining fame and ascending to office by wild denunciations of wealth are willing to assume hazards that I do not envy. (Applause)

Honest capital is more secure when governments are made honest and special privileges are denied, when graft is prevented and crimes are punished: and there is never any danger in real reform, but infinite harm can be done by attractive orators of maximum lung power and minimum brains (applause). Honesty is the best policy in large business and in small business, and the most that capital ought to expect or demand, and the most that will be profitable to it in the long run, is to seek and if it can obtain the passage and the enforcement of equal and just laws, the continuation of justice, and the right honestly to accumulate, hold and enjoy property (applause). The relations of capital to Conservation are identical with its relations to all other business. As Conservation tends to increase and continue the natural resources of the country, the fertility of the soil, the perpetuation of the forests, the flow of streams, and all of those conditions that insure the substantial welfare of the country, the capitalist has an equal interest with all other citizens in Conservation, and the added interest that he can share in a greater degree in the resulting and continuing prosperity than his less fortunate neighbor.

Some excellent things have been done and said in this convention. If "conversational conservation" would cure the evils under which we live we would have no need of doctors for a long time. As against "conversational conservation" I wish now to say a few words about constitutional conservation. From now on I may wander a little from the rich subject that has been assigned to me, but I have been much interested in the suggestion that that branch of the Government that can accomplish the most good for the people should take charge of their business and affairs connected with Government. Unless, however, we have some authoritative source other than the nebulous question of the general welfare to determine where this authority lies, I am apprehensive that most of the resources of Government would be dissipated in fighting over the question of authority.

What I now hold to be true for all time—and you will all agree with me some day—is that that branch of the Government that under our constitutional system is designated as the one having the authority is the only branch of the Government that can benefit capital, conserve or advance the rights of the people, or do justice in any way whatever. Conservation as it was understood in its inception in this country, the preservation of our soils, our forests, and our resources presented a subject of little difficulty, and in connection with which we were all practically in accord and where apparently there would have been no occasion for any serious disagreement. No more new or difficult questions of Government are legitimately involved in Conservation and forestry than are involved in cultivation and farming.

If the device of using the public lands to graft Government onto Conservation had not been invented by some civic genius, we would have had 90 percent of conservation to 10 percent of controversy. But when the landlord seeks to be the governor, especially in America, we get 90 percent plus of controversy and 10 percent minus of conservation. Landlord law and governmental conservation was devised, we are told, to control wealth for the benefit of the plain, small man. Inquire in the vicinity of any forest reserve, and you will find that there are more plain, small people than there used to be, and they are getting plainer and smaller every day; so apparently the good work will never end.

As briefly as I may, and seriously as I can, I will state the situation that confronts the people of the West, the poor man and the capitalist alike, in connection with the forest reserve. Forest reserves were authorized by Congress for the purpose of protecting forests and conserving the source of supply of streams. Probably one-third of the 200,000,000 acres that have been set apart in forest reserves in the western one-third of the United States are reasonably necessary and suited to these purposes. As to the other two-thirds, they were largely included—and in some instances this is frankly admitted—for the purpose of authority for Government control, to include pasture lands, power-sites, irrigation projects, and the like. If forest reserves had been created to meet the actual necessity which brought them into existence, and if they had been administered with due deference to the rights of the State within which they are situated, to improve and develop its resources without restraint, to construct or authorize to be constructed roads and highways, railroads, telephone and telegraph lines, canals and ditches for the beneficial use of water, and the functions of local self-government had not been assumed to the Federal authorities and denied to the local authorities, I could conceive of no reason why the forestry policy could not have been carried out with great credit and some profit to the Federal Government and greatly to the advantage of the district in which the forests are situated. The pity of it all is that this has not been done. We are told that the sentiment in opposition to transferring from the States to the Federal Government important functions of regulation and control is not unanimous. This is true as to districts not directly affected by the forest reserves; but as to the people within and in the vicinity of the forest reserves, in other words, as to those who have come directly or indirectly in contact with bureaucratic government, the sentiment is about as unanimous as ever existed in America.

That the Forester and those under him honestly desire to benefit the people, especially "the poor, small man," we need not deny; that the actual results have been beneficial, however, we wholly deny. The imperial dominion withdrawn includes territory as large as 20 or 30 average-size eastern States, amounting frequently to one-fifth or one-fourth, and sometimes even exceeding the latter fraction of the territory within a State, and practically taking over and paralyzing local self-government in certain entire districts of a State. These lands are, and if the policy continues will remain forever, withdrawn from State taxation and revenue, and instead will become a source of expense and burden. First, considering the prime purpose to preserve and protect the forest, what has been the result? The Forester and those under him have my profound sympathy in connection with the recent awful destructive forest fires and the heroic way in which the disaster was met, even though it was not overcome.

For many years experienced and practical men in the West have protested against the policies pursued. Previous to the establishment of the forest reserves the land was pastured by sheep and cattle, admittedly in some instances over-pastured. Frequent fires ran through the country, but in most instances as the country had been closely pastured off and fires had usually recently occurred, these fires did only incidental harm, and in a general way the great forests of the West in many districts—although the result of mere natural processes—as valuable and magnificent as there are in the world, were retained in their primitive and perfect condition. For a good many years now exactly the reverse of this primitive condition has prevailed. Sheep have been excluded and cattle have been limited; falling and decaying timber, the growth of vegetation from year to year, and the accumulation of underbrush and debris have continued; and we have gone on conserving our forests in such a way that we have been accumulating fuel and the elements of destruction, piling up wrath against the day of wrath, until the fires, in spite of precautions, have started, and the destruction that has resulted is inevitable. What is needed now in this particular is a surgeon who has the nerve to amputate the conditions that create fire, and until this is done the danger will go on increasing from year to year and more destruction than benefits will inevitably result. To those who suggest that a sufficient patrol will prevent fires, I respond that they ought to try the experiment of filling a building with powder, putting an ample guard around it, and touching a match to it.

These great reserves have been practically closed to settlement and homesteading. The price of pasturage has been increased, the number of cattle and sheep pastured has been diminished, and the price of meat correspondingly advanced. The price of stumpage has been doubled and trebled, no small mills have been or can be successfully started, and the price of lumber to consumers has been increased. The policy has limited the construction of canals and other appliances for irrigation, and still more effectually limited the construction of like appliances for the diversion of water for the development of electric power. If this water could be diverted for irrigation and electric power under State laws without other restraint, the quantity available in the majority of the western States is so great that the supply would exceed the demand, the price would be lower, the consumption greater, and in every way the people would be benefited. The country would be settled, the people would be more prosperous, the supply of water and electricity would be more abundant and cheaper, and all of the people and all of the industries would be correspondingly more prosperous.

It is gratifying that the line of cleavage and difference between the advocates of bureaucratic control over local industries and the advocates of local self-government have been better defined. Upon the all-important question of the law applicable to this subject, I submit that there is little ground for honest difference. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided practically every phase of the matter over and over again, and the law is settled to the following effect: That the United States Government owns the public lands in each of the States as private proprietor and not as sovereign; that it, the Federal Government, if it seeks to assert any authority in any State, must find its warrant in the Constitution and not in the ownership of the public lands; that the authority of the United States Government to adopt needful rules and regulations in connection with public lands is an authority to protect its proprietary interest and not exercise governmental functions within any State; that every State is upon an equal footing with all of the other States, and for the protection of its own people, its own industries, and the regulation of its own monopolies, each State has all of the powers of any other Government; that the United States Government exercises the same power, and each of the States exercises the same power, "no more and no less," regardless of the existence or non-existence of public land in any State.

The whole pretense made by some that the United States Government can exercise exceptional governmental authority in a State having public lands is a pretense and a pretense only. Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, such a claim has no shadow of foundation, and its assertion is merely injurious, detrimental to capital, destructive to industry, and can never serve any useful purpose of regulation or otherwise. These principles being fully decided and clearly in mind, it is hard to understand why the issue is raised, and how it is hoped that the policy can be imposed upon the western States or any other States under the Constitution. It has been said with derision that the corporations are appealing to the Constitution. I would to God that neither the corporations nor the American people might ever appeal to anything worse. However much evil may have been taught, no honest man need be apprehensive of injustice if his rights and the rights of his fellow citizens are always measured by a just construction of the Constitution of the United States. (Applause)

We are told, and I think some of our adversaries honestly believe the tale, that all of the remaining resources of the country belong to all of the people. That "all of the resources belong to all of the people" is a slogan that sounds good. Its chief defect is that it is not true, and the next objection is that to assert it now, after pursuing an exactly contrary policy as to four-fifths of the Nation's resources, would be an intolerable injustice. The United States Supreme Court decided a long time ago that the United States Government received and held the public lands as trustee for the benefit of the people and the States within which they were situated, to the end that they might be disposed of to actual settlers at nominal prices in order that the country might be settled, cultivated, populated, and developed; the lands come under the taxing power, and all of the unrestrained functions of State government. These decisions have been reaffirmed, and it has been held that the United States' title and trusteeship as to the public lands is identical in all the States. Therefore it is not true as a matter of understanding or of law that the United States is the unrestrained proprietor of the public lands, but it holds in them a trust; and I submit that no justice can be done or good come from the violation or attempted violation of a trust. Considering the equity of the situation, if the United States is now the owner of the remaining lands and resources for all of the people, it has been such from the beginning of the Government; and having disposed of these resources to the beneficiaries entitled thereto, it is now seriously proposed to seize upon the remaining fraction and hold that fraction for the benefit of all the people, as much as for the benefit of the people and the sections of the country that have received their proportion as for those who have not received theirs.

The situation might be illustrated by this simple statement: Uncle Sam may be assumed to be the father of four sons; we will name them East, North, South, and West. Uncle Samuel being liberal to a fault and mindful of a trust, has transferred to his three elder sons, East, North, and South, all of their share in his estate. But these elder sons, especially after their industrious younger brother has begun to show the real value of his portion of their father's estate, begin to look with covetous eyes upon the younger brother's inheritance. Finally a deep sense of justice begins to pervade the minds of East, North, and South, and they appear before Uncle Samuel and say, "Father, you have been very profligate in the management of your great estate. You have turned over to us and to our children without needful restriction the whole of the proportion that we can rightfully claim. In the doing of this you have shown great incompetency and have practiced many faults, and behold, you have sinned against Heaven and in the sight of men. We can see no way of atoning for this awful offense except that you shall take and hold that portion of the estate that should descend to our younger brother for the benefit of all of your children. And as a further atonement, having shown in the distribution of your estate to us that you are dishonest and incompetent in the last degree, in consideration thereof we will nominate and appoint you the landlord and guardian, without bonds and forever, of that portion of the estate that, except for this atonement, would have belonged to our younger brother; requiring you, however, to see to it with scrupulous care that we, your elder sons, shall receive from the rents, leases, and profits of this estate our equal shares with our beloved younger brother." Painful as it may seem, these elder brothers seem well nigh unanimous as to this scheme of atonement, and Uncle Samuel seems weak and subject to the influence of the majority. History, however, will record that the Constitution broke the will and the elder brothers were charged with the costs and counsel fees. (Laughter)

If anyone present feels justified in challenging the accuracy or historical correctness of the foregoing statement or its logical application to the situation, he will now please rise and state his case or hereafter forever hold his peace.

The overshadowing political reason why the United States Government must invade the public land States and assert powers of government that it cannot assert in any other States we are told is to control monopolies. As a controller of monopolies not constitutionally subject to be controlled by the Federal Government, and under claims of title to the public lands, the United States Government and its respective bureau chiefs would have St. George, the dragon destroyer, outclassed at the ratio of sixteen to one. It may do as a political issue for a long time, but if the people of the western States had no powers of government or sources of control within themselves, or except through the Federal Government, the public lands, and the heads of bureaus, these people would have little to expect or hope for.

It is gratifying, however, to observe that instead of being helpless and impotent, the western States not only have all of the powers that are vested in any other Government for the protection of their people from monopoly and wrong, but an understanding of their constitutions and laws clearly demonstrates that they are showing themselves far more alert, advanced, and capable in these functions of government than either the Federal Government or the older States in the East. It ought not to be necessary to say to an American audience that it is elementary that the people of a locality can give themselves more honest, efficient, and better government than can be given to them by any remote authority. The reason for this is so simple that the only excuse for attempting to deny it is the ignorance and incapacity of the people concerned to carry on or carry out self-government. The people of the western States alone will suffer if they do not efficiently and intelligently exercise their undoubted authority to supply themselves with good self-government, and efficiently control and direct their own industries and their own monopolies.

About the only argument that is made in favor of Federal control and against local self-government in the West is that the corporations appear to prefer the former. The question is not what the corporations prefer but what the Constitution requires; and, in the next place, the corporations do not deny the authority of the States because they are advised that they cannot and therefore should not attempt to do so, and because they are advised that they must in any event submit to local self-government and that Federal control would be an additional and not a lawful but a wholly unauthorized usurpation of authority. The American people, of all people in the world, have earned the reputation of being the most obedient to law and the least submissive to usurpation of any people in the world. If some of our wealthy men and some of corporations have offended against honesty and attempted to circumvent, misapply, and misuse the law, these are instances to be regretted, condemned, and punished. The practice should be abandoned, and if not abandoned rigorously prevented; having it, however, religiously in mind that ultimate justice can be done and the law vindicated only by adhering to due process of law.

We are told that Switzerland as a Nation regulates and manages its own power business. Since, however, Switzerland has no more authority or powers of government than California, Colorado, or New York, and since it is probably one-tenth the size of these States and its cantons are about the size of an ordinary western school district, this would not appear to indicate any reason why the western States of the Union could not successfully carry out the same function of government.

Our former President has said to us that he would be as swift to prevent injustice and unwarranted uprising against property as anyone. This I do not doubt, and I am prepared to agree that probably no one living could perform the task more cheerfully or effectively; but in this connection it might not be improper to reflect that the people have been taught, and rightly so, that this is "a government of law and not of men," and we rely upon the equal and continued protection of the law for the protection of our persons and our property, not upon the life or disposition of any man.

We have already referred to the assertion that the remaining resources of the Federal Government belong to all of the people and are to be administered and revenues obtained for their full benefit. We are not, however, deluded with the thought that we are to begin to draw individual dividends. The revenues thus obtained are to go into the Federal treasury (and allow me parenthetically to suggest that the pay-roll will not be far behind the earnings), but if through some oversight a balance should be found in favor of all of the people it will go into the Federal treasury to reduce taxation to the common benefit. Allow me to suggest, and ask all thoughtful people to well consider, that if sufficient revenues were collected and paid into the Federal treasury to prove of great benefit to a hundred millions of people, the collection and payment of these same revenues will of necessity amount to some slight imposition and burden upon the ten millions of people when they are paid out of their resources and revenues.

While we are considering monopolies it might not be inappropriate to consider that they are of two classes: private monopolies and government monopolies. One of the highest functions of government is to control and regulate private monopolies. It is not always easy, but the undoubted power exists and if properly applied is effective. History records that four-fifths of the exactions and oppressions and human sufferings that have existed in the world have come about when the conduct of business and the sources of supply were confined and vested in the government and constituted a government monopoly. Government monopolies are invariably created for the alleged benefit of the people, and throughout all history have almost invariably operated to the oppression and detriment of the people and ultimately to deprive them of their liberties. In the face of these undeniable records of history, the people of the western States are invited to surrender their control over their industries and their own private monopolies and have substituted therefor a Federal Government monopoly over which they could have no possible control. The western States are asked not only to surrender this control, but along with it to surrender the powers of taxation and revenue over all these great resources. My friends, some of you may congratulate yourselves that these so-called policies are popular, and no doubt to a certain extent they are; we think, however, because they are misunderstood. There need be no misunderstanding between us. You are welcome to your assumption of victory, and to the assumption of defeat for those who adhere to the right of local self-government.

We are correctly told that the ancient doctrine of State rights ended at Appomattox. The doctrine was there ended that the Federal Government did not have all of the power necessary to protect and continue the Nation for the common defense and the general welfare. The undeniable doctrine and right of the American people within the several States to continue an unrestrained local self-government was at that time neither destroyed nor impaired. The right and doctrine of local self-government will endure and continue until, if ever, some common disaster shall terminate and end the National existence as well as the existence of the several States. No question is ever settled until it is settled right. Frankly, today may be yours but tomorrow is ours. The Constitution of this country is greater and more enduring than any man. Let there be no misunderstanding between us. You should not, but if you would you cannot, deprive the people of this country in any number of States or in any one State of the equal guaranteed constitutional right of local self-government.

In recent months, so numerous have been the complaints and utterances against the courts that it would almost appear that there was a common design to discredit the courts with the American people. For even a longer period there have been recurring attacks upon and denials of the capability and capacity of the representative branch of our government. Even within its obvious jurisdiction the Legislative department has not only been excessively criticized but its very powers denied. The Executive of the country and each of the States, Congress, and each Legislature of each of the States, the Supreme Court and all of the subordinate courts, derive all of their authority from the American people through the Constitution of the United States. He who acts without and in spite of the Constitution acts without authority from the people. Constitutions are adopted to safeguard the rights of all men and to protect minorities from majorities. The question is not, where the Constitution declares the measure of right, what the majority wants, but the question is, what does the Constitution declare; and that is the beginning and the end of the law. The Government under which we have lived is the best vindicated Government in the history of the world. If a democratic people, as we have been told, have destroyed more since the adoption of the Constitution than has been wasted and destroyed in Europe in all of its history, we may admit this and agree that it is wise always to prevent waste; but we can with equal truth assert that if our free people under our free institutions have destroyed more than the people of Europe in their entire history, our people by scientific research and invention have added more to the potential and productive power of the earth and the elements for the benefit and subsistence of mankind than has been added by the people of Europe, Asia, and Africa during the entire recorded history of the world—all since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.

Whether it be popular or unpopular, it is true that the tendency to belittle the legislative power, to disparage judicial power, and to correspondingly exalt the executive power, is the same evil tendency that has destroyed every free government that has ever existed. It is the same spirit that overthrew the mild judicial government of Samuel and made Saul of Tarsus king over Israel. It is the same spirit that subverted the free cities and provinces of Greece, and made Alexander, the Macedonian, the sole arbiter of the destinies not only of the people of Greece but of the whole eastern world. It is the same spirit that subverted the Senate and the tribunals of Rome, and made Julius Caesar and his successors the emperors and rulers of the entire known world for succeeding centuries. We may agree that no such events will recur in modern history. But it is the same spirit that brings about such a condition in Mexico that nobody knows or cares when Congress meets or adjourns, because they never pass or suggest the passage of any laws that have not already been approved by the President. They must have a Supreme Court in Mexico, because their Constitution is very similar to our own. For the same reason we assume that they have States, although nobody ever hears of them. Neither do we hear of any one criticizing the decisions of the Supreme Court of that country; nobody has ever suggested that within the last quarter of a century that court has ever decided anything displeasing to the President.

The United States of America today is the world's sole and single exception where the people under a constitution through a long period of years have been guaranteed and have received the equal protection of the law. No guards have been required to stand at our city gates, no bayonets have defended our towns; we have all lived and prospered under the equal protection of equal laws. (Applause)

These institutions are human, they are imperfect and under them errors have been committed, but undeniably under this Government the people have received a larger measure of liberty together with a better distribution of the benefits of industry than was ever received or enjoyed hitherto by any people in the world. We favor that new efficiency that is neither National nor State, that under an equal respect for the Nation and for the State and for each branch of the Government strives for a higher condition of civic virtue, better enforcement and greater respect for the law in all of its branches. I hope and pray that none of us may ever be required to look beyond the years when the Constitution and the law in letter and in spirit are no longer supreme in this country and when we shall have reverted to "that good old simple plan, that each may take whate'er he may and keep whate'er he can." (Applause)

Professor Condra—Ladies and Gentlemen: A question has been sent to the Chair: "Will the Congress close this evening?" We do not know; probably the Congress itself will decide. There are several other features in the program, and there will be a report by the Committee on Resolutions. It may be that the Congress can finish all of its work today if you choose to re-convene.

You all know the next speaker, Honorable John Barrett, Director-General of the Pan-American Union. (Applause)

Mr Barrett—Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentleman: When the captivating senior Senator from Indiana fascinated us yesterday, and after holding us enthralled by his eloquence ending with that magnificent climax in eulogy of Gifford Pinchot, he left this room remarking to the reporters that he couldn't stay longer because he must go down and look after his State and 3,000,000 people. Now, if some of the rest of us relied on the measure of States and population as a reason for not being here, we would not come at all. For example, I might have said, when invited to take part in the work of this Congress, that I couldn't possibly come because I might neglect that which was best for 21 independent Republics and 160,000,000 people. What I want to say is this—that I would like to multiply twenty times over all the enthusiasm with which Senator Beveridge fired us yesterday, and extend it to many millions of people, in order that the wave started here by him and other speakers might sweep over the whole western hemisphere and remove the slightest question that all these Republics are awake to the practical value of Conservation.

Possibly some of you do not know very much more about the practical work of the Pan-American Union than I knew about the country to which I was first appointed minister some sixteen or seventeen years ago—when I knew as little about foreign affairs as some of us did a few years ago about Conservation. One day the President of the United States, with two United States Senators from North Carolina standing near by—if one of them had been from North Carolina and the other from South Carolina there wouldn't have been any doubt as to what the conversation was to be (laughter), but as both came from the same State I was in the dark—looked at me and said, "Mr Barrett, I am trying to find some young man who is not afraid of hard work and wants to make a reputation for himself to go off to a distant country, in another part of the world, to settle a case involving several millions of dollars and our treaty rights in the Orient; I am looking for a minister to Siam." Well, I thought that he wanted me to recommend somebody, and was trying to think of somebody in my State that I would like to get rid of and never see again, when he added, "I am thinking of appointing you; what do you know about Siam?" To save my life I couldn't even remember where it was, and I was conscious of the terrible impression I must be making upon the Executive, when with a twinkle in his eye he intimated "I have him this time." Then, a child-memory coming back, I braced myself and said, "Why, Mr President, I know all about Siam." "You do? What do you know about that country?" "Why, Mr President, Siam is the country that produced the Siamese Twins." Whereupon he shook my hand and said he was delighted to get hold of a man of such abundant information. (Laughter)

Now, before proceeding further, let me, as one of the officers of this Congress—although one who has had very little to do with its hard work—join with you in expressing profound appreciation of the splendid hospitality that has been shown the Delegates and all others who have come here to the city of Saint Paul in the State of Minnesota (applause). Moreover, I believe it is only fair and fitting that we should also express our gratitude for the hard work and the devotion to this Congress shown by President Baker and Secretary Shipp and Professor Condra and Chairman White and other men belonging to the Executive Committee. (Applause)

I have been asked, as a resident of the District of Columbia, whether, if this Congress shall go to the East next year, it might not go to the city of Washington, and there arouse the interest and the sympathy of the East. The West is awake; and if it be necessary to secure the cooperation of the eastern sections, and if the Executive Committee hesitates as to where it may go, I can assure them that by the city of Washington, the Capital of the Nation, will be given a welcome akin to that which has been given by the city of Saint Paul.

Ladies and Gentlemen, one feature of this Congress has made a profound impression upon me, of which perhaps too little mention has been made: the cooperation and interest of the women. That was a splendid speech made the other day by Mabel Boardman; other women have spoken well, and others will. I assure you that there is no better omen of the success of this movement than this cooperation by women (applause). And I want to say right here, that whenever I am able to pay a tribute to the courage and the quality of women, I like to do it. It so happened that I was your first minister to Panama, in the days which tried men's souls—where I, as minister, frequently had to preside where three or four splendid boys, graduates from our colleges and high schools, were laid under the wet clay in one grave, all victims of yellow fever. When I went down there with General Davis, then Governor of the Canal Zone, there were some sixteen girls, nurses, picked from all over this country—I think one or two came from Saint Paul or Minneapolis—who had never seen yellow fever before, had never experienced the pestilential conditions faced in Panama when we were "blazing the way" for the present sanitary condition. Well, they came and took up their work; and in a short time the yellow fever spread until men were dying every day in increasing numbers, and both the boys and men came to us and begged that they might return to the United States—in the parlance of the canal work, they had "cold feet," and it was with the greatest difficulty that we were able to hold them there to perform the great task of making the zone sanitary as well as digging the canal that the oceans might be united; but when the yellow fever was conquered, General Davis and I discovered that during all that time of peril and death and threatened desertion, not one of those sixteen girls faltered or asked permission to leave her station of duty. (Great applause)

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a pleasure today to be followed by a representative of the British government who is a credit to his government and to the great man whom he represents here, the Right Honorable James Bryce, British Ambassador (applause). There is nothing more splendid than the thought of the cooperation of this mighty country north of us, Canada, with her 4,000,000 square miles and her ambitious men and women with problems akin to ours; and it is both appropriate and flattering that the British Empire should have responded to the invitation and sent here a special representative of their Embassy (applause). We are to be congratulated on his attendance.

It seems to me that during the past three or four days I have heard the word "insurgent" used. Am I correct, Mr President?

President Baker—"Progressive."

Mr Barrett—I think there have been some references to progressiveness and insurgency. Now, as the head of an international bureau whose constituency is composed of twenty Latin-American Republics, I want to tell you that you don't know anything here about real insurgency (applause). Why, we have men in Central America and South America who could make Murdock and Madison look like picayune persons if they came in competition with them in the matter of insurgency. We have Republics that can give Kansas and Wisconsin and Nebraska and Minnesota cards and spades and all the trumps in the pack, and then beat them out in insurgency. But I want to say this, that in all my experience in those countries as minister and my studies of their history, there has never been an insurgency or revolution, from Mexico south to Argentina which has succeeded without at the same time moving the country forward for its benefit (applause). I do not say this in any political spirit, because I am not in politics; being an international officer, I am neither republican nor democrat, but a citizen of America; yet I do say this, that the spirit of onward movement among men shown thus from time to time is a splendid sign of the progressive type which characterizes the American people, whether they be American of North America or American of South America. (Applause)

Ladies and Gentlemen, it would be a splendid thing today if the voice that has been sounded here on Conservation could be heard by every Pan-American—through that All America comprehending not only our own wonderful land but twenty other Nations, covering an area of 15,000,000 square miles, having a population of 175,000,000 people, and conducting a foreign commerce valued at the magnificent total of $2,000,000,000 annually. Only a few years ago Latin-America seemed almost like an unknown land; but today these countries from Mexico and Cuba south to Argentina and Chile are making more progress commercially and materially than almost any other section of the world. We hear much of the Orient, of Japan and of China, whose inhabitants are alien people, alien in philosophy, alien in religion, raising the greatest racial question before the world; but here at the south of us are twenty sister Nations whose peoples have the same ambitions as yours, the same religion, the same philosophy, the same hopes—and yet you and I have been sitting in cozy corners flirting with Japan and China, and neglecting our own sisters in our own family (applause). Last year Argentina—a country half as large as our own splendid land, in a temperate zone, with nearly 7,000,000 splendid white people, having sons whom you would allow your daughters to marry and daughters you would allow your sons to marry—conducted a greater foreign trade than the 50,000,000 Japanese or the 300,000,000 Chinese (applause); and yet we are neglecting them. Now these countries gained independence at the hands of leaders who studied the life of George Washington (applause), and they have continued their existence under the example of such men as Abraham Lincoln. Whether you go upon the high Andes or in the valley of the great Amazon, the names of Washington and Lincoln are known almost as well as those of their own great heroes who helped them to win independence.

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time that through the cooperation of all these countries we should accomplish protection for them and for ourselves; and we should have in the near future a great Pan-American Conference of Conservation, when all the countries from Canada south will send their representatives to join us in working together to safeguard their prosperity, to safeguard our own, to promote our mutual and several interests until this whole hemisphere from Alaska and the Arctic on the north to Chile and the Straits of Magellan on the south shall present a united force for the benefit not only of ourselves but of those who are to come after us. Is there anything more magnificent than this thought that the twenty-one independent Republics and an independent Nation like Canada should join hands in such a purpose? The details I shall not discuss, but I want it to be a thought that shall sink into your minds.

Now, I wish that I could take all the "hot air" that has arisen in this great auditorium and make a mighty balloon to take you for a trip over our sister countries (applause). I would like to show you Brazil, into which you could place all of the United States and still have room left over for the German empire; I would like to take you up the Amazon, out of which flows five times the volume of the Mississippi; I would like to take you to Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, which has a population of 1,200,000 and is growing faster than any city in the United States with the exception of New York and Chicago—I would like to show you its magnificent boulevards, its splendid public buildings, its schools, its cathedrals and churches; I would like to take you across the Andes over that wonderful tunnel just completed and show you Chile, which if placed at the southern end of California would reach up into the heart of Alaska, in the very infancy of a splendid development; I would like to take you into Bolivia, into which you could put Texas three times and still have room left over; into Peru, which would cover the whole Atlantic Coast from Maine to Georgia; into Colombia, where you could place all of Germany and France; into Mexico, that would cover the whole southwestern section of this country; I would like to take you over all these countries and show you how they are moving forward, prove to you the remarkable fact that during the last fifteen years that part of the world has gone ahead with progress almost equal to ours. Now, if we in this country are going to meet the great problems of manufacturing and the employment of labor and capital in the future, we must aid these countries to conserve their resources to supply our manufacturing plants with raw material. Hundreds of millions of dollars today are keeping occupied by laboring men in this country factories that would have to be closed tomorrow if these countries were unable to supply us with their raw materials—think of that as we remember where we were only twenty-five years ago; and if some God-given influence can empower them to see our mistakes we will find, twenty-five years from now, Brazil and Argentina and Mexico and Canada providing us with those elements which shall make this country forever the greatest power in the world for civilization and for commerce. (Applause)

As I stand here before an audience of the West an inspiration comes for the work we have in Washington that only those can feel whose residence is not entirely in the West. Though born and brought up in New England and later taking my residence on the Pacific Coast, I have been much out of the country representing you abroad; and I rejoice in the ozone of patriotism that I am able to absorb in a State like Minnesota. Time and time again, after trips around the world I have arrived in New York or in Washington hardly feeling that I was in the United States of America; but when I have crossed the Alleghenies into the Mississippi valley, into sections like this, then I have felt the pulsing of red blood, that impulse and influence which is making our country great; and I am proud today to be able to go back to Washington feeling more capable than ever before for my humble task because of the contact with representative men of the West. (Applause)

There are two personal references that I make before I sit down: When on Tuesday I sat on the platform and saw the personality of the foremost private citizen of the world exerting its influence, the prime thought that came into my mind was, not that he was speaking for the great cause of Conservation, not that he was appealing to the moral sense of our people, but that there stood a splendid, a perfect example of what the young men of this country can do (applause). Is there anything finer than to see a man of his physique, with the glow of health upon his face, the father of a family of which he can be proud, a man with a clear moral life and courageous career, one whose voice has been heard all over the world with respect—is there anything finer than that we should raise up in this country that class of men? And I tell you it would be disgraceful to our country with its 90,000,000 people if we could not produce a man of that kind. It is the personal influence of Theodore Roosevelt, all over this country, not only among our young men, but among our young women, leading to world uplift and to sterling character, that we must have in order to fight the battles that are before us. (Great applause)

And there is this suggestion about his chief lieutenant who has perhaps been the father of this movement: I have known Gifford Pinchot personally, as a dear friend, for many years. It makes my heart well up with joy, it makes my pride as an American citizen more emphatic than ever before, when I think that a man born in affluence of a splendid family, born with every opportunity in the most exclusive circles of New York and Washington, a man who could own his private yacht or spend his time in the gaieties of fashionable resorts, a man who could belong to every club and enjoy all its pleasures—that such a man has devoted his life unselfishly to the good of the American people and to the cause of Conservation (great applause). It is a splendid example of true American manhood; and when he speaks here, as he has spoken in other places, the influence that he exerts is not merely for the cause of Conservation but for the highest ideals which you and I have of American manhood. So I rest assured that the cause of Conservation, with such an advocate as Theodore Roosevelt and such an apostle as Gifford Pinchot, will not be confined within the limits of the United States but will resound through Canada and through Mexico and on south even to the limits of the southern continent; and I foresee that you and I will be proud that we were able to participate in the effort to extend this movement. (Great applause)

A Delegate—Mr Chairman: As a member of the Executive Committee of the National Conservation Congress, I ask for the privilege of the floor for the purpose of introducing a resolution.

Professor Condra—That will be in order immediately after the response by Honorable Esmond Ovey, Secretary of the British Embassy, which is a part of the presentation now in progress.

I take pleasure in introducing Honorable Esmond Ovey. (Applause)

Mr Ovey—Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: When I arrived here on Monday I noticed in the program laid before me a very disquieting item to the effect that a speech would be delivered on the subject of "Conservation as a World-wide Question" by a visiting representative of a foreign nation. I did not think that would mean me, and until yesterday evening was still hoping that some other representative would be found, more adequate than myself, to take the burden from my shoulders. However, no savior has appeared, and I think my best course will be, under the circumstances, to make an entirely clean breast in the matter and tell you that my knowledge on the subject of the technical details of the Conservation of natural resources is very meager. The field of natural resources with which I personally am more occupied is one which is slightly different from that which forms the subject of your deliberations, a field that is perhaps as great and in many ways certainly as important; it is a field which requires neither phosphates nor potash, nor any of these ingredients of which I unfortunately am so ignorant—it is the field of international relation, and the crop or harvest is the harvest of peace and good will (applause). The duty of the diplomat is to watch this crop ripen. It is a crop which can go on forever ripening and getting greater, but there is, of course, the possibility of some spark dropping; and it is then the duty of the diplomat to attempt, so far as possible to arrest and extinguish that spark before it flames up like these wasteful and terrible conflagrations which occasionally sweep through the forests of this country. In this connection I will point out that in the immediate field of international relation between Great Britain and the United States there has been an exceedingly long period in which there has been no spark dropped (applause); the year after next will, Gentlemen—I may call it to your attention—be the 100th birthday of peace between the two great English-speaking nations of the world. (Applause)

I have the very great pleasure of being here as the representative of my chief, the British Ambassador, Mr James Bryce (applause). The British Board of Agriculture were unfortunately unable to send a delegate to attend this great conference. Mr Bryce himself was the recipient of a very cordial invitation from the President of this Congress, Mr Baker. Mr Baker in his letter stated that should Mr Bryce be unable to accept, he would be glad if a member of his staff could come. Mr Bryce had long pre-arranged and planned a visit to Panama and South America; I can only suppose with his great intelligence Mr Bryce (my own immediate chief) has gone there for the purpose of improving his mind in the contemplation of the achievements of my friend Mr John Barrett (applause). I have been commissioned by Mr Bryce to tell you how very glad he would have been to be able to accept this invitation. Confidentially, I may tell you that, glad as Mr Bryce would have been to be here, I do not believe he would have been so glad as I am to be here myself. (Applause)

Mr Bryce is a man very difficult to represent (applause). His knowledge is encyclopedic. Even if taken by surprise and asked to speak to an audience such as this, containing so many representatives of all the practical, scientific and technical phases of the great problem which is being discussed at this Congress, he would, I am certain, have been able to draw on the great storehouse of his knowledge and give you the benefit of his accurate observation in a technically interesting form. I can, unfortunately, lay claim to no such talents. I will, however, refuse to yield to him in the enthusiasm—that sort of contagion to which Mr Barrett referred—which I feel here in this great country and in the State of Minnesota on the subject of the noble ideals, the efforts and the aims of these congresses. It seems to me that the idea of careful deliberation and open discussion by persons from all parts of the world in an attempt to arrive at the conclusion and basis on which to build up a policy of Conservation so you can hand down to posterity the great benefits that you enjoy, is a very noble conception.

One of the great characteristic differences between Occidental civilization and that of certain less civilized and advanced Oriental nations is the great quality of foresight, of looking to the future; and this is a quality which you possess in a most extraordinary degree. I do not wish to deny that other people to whom I have referred also possess this quality; I will, if you permit me, give you an instance to prove that it is possessed by them, if in a less perfected form.

There was upon a time a gentleman from some unspecified country in the Far East who had an orchard. To protect this orchard from the prevailing cold northerly winds which destroyed his fruit in the early winter, he built a wall on that side of his property. When he had built his wall he called in a friend to admire it. The friend came and admired it. The wall was solidly built, six feet high, and twelve feet wide. The friend asked him, "Why have you chosen these peculiar dimensions for your wall?" He said, "Ah, I have foresight. I built this way for a reason: my neighbors' walls are frequently blown over by the wind. When mine is blown over, it will be twice as high as it was before." (Laughter) Now, that is not the sort of construction in this magnificent building of Conservation that you are preparing.

Another quality, if I may be permitted to mention it, that I, as a foreigner, have observed, is a great quality which is invariably a concomitant of real progress; it is a certain kind of glorious dissatisfaction with your own achievements, however great they may be (applause). For instance, you have something which is very, very great—your country. You never were satisfied with that, you want to make it very, very good. You have something which is very, very good, the great American people; you want to make them, as far as I can understand, as numerous as possible (laughter and applause). You have your natural resources, which are very great and very good, perhaps the greatest and best on earth, and yet you are not satisfied. What do you do then? You say, "Let's make them everlasting." (Applause) Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, that seems to me a very fine and high ambition on which you have set your minds.

Before concluding, I will venture to tell you about an impression that I received on my way out to Saint Paul, on this my first visit west of Washington. As I looked out of the windows at the flying countryside, upon lake after lake, upon mountain, valley, plain, stream, forest, farm, garden, factory, city, town, I said to myself, "What manner of people then can these well be who have so kindly and courteously asked me to a Congress which is apparently convening for the purpose of conserving the natural resources? What manner of people can these be that by digging, delving, plowing, mining, bridging, tunneling, felling, and building roads and railroads on all these countless millions of acres of rich and fertile land—many of which are protected from approach on the east by apparently uncrossable mountains and unfordable streams and what to lesser intelligence might seem unbridgable rivers—what manner of people may these be who, in spite of these obstacles, in this short period of time, have forced Dame Nature herself to cry out, Gentlemen, please hold steady with me for a moment." (Applause) Such were my thoughts: and it seems to me that the necessity for convening these annual congresses for open discussion of the best means of avoiding unnecessary waste and of giving nature a chance of recuperation affords the highest compliment that it is possible to pay to the enterprise, courage, perseverance, and indomitable pluck of any nation.

Can you, therefore, Ladies and Gentlemen, ask if in view of these facts the Government of Great Britain is interested in your efforts? As Secretary of the British Embassy I myself was instrumental in forwarding to my Government in one year, through the kind intermediation of the State Department, no less than 110 copies of the report of the Governors of 1908 on the Conservation of your National resources, which, if I understand rightly, was one of the first expressions of this great movement—110 departments of that Government interested in this movement. (Applause)

It is my pleasurable duty to inform you that with her own magnificent dominions across the seas, with her great enterprises in forestry, irrigation, agriculture, and mining, in all scientific exploitation of land for the public good in Canada, in Australia, in India, in Egypt, in South Africa and British East Africa, and in all the other places throughout the world in which Great Britain is now working, the Government which I have the honor to serve is in the heartiest possible sympathy with the great object of your endeavors in conserving for posterity, for people not yet born, the same magnificent heritage which you and we enjoy. (Applause)

Professor Condra—All those who wish to say that as Delegates we stand for Pan-American conservation of natural resources, and for good fellowship and world-wide Conservation of all things best for mankind on all lines of industrial development, will please rise.

[The audience rose en masse.]

Professor Condra—There was a resolution to be offered at this time.

A Delegate—Mr Chairman: I move that the time for the election of officers of the National Conservation Congress for the ensuing year be fixed for the hour of 8 p.m., Thursday, September 8, and that the Committee on Resolutions submit their report immediately following the election of officers.

The motion was seconded by Delegates from Iowa, South Dakota, Utah, Indiana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia; and the motion was put and carried without dissenting voice.

Professor Condra—A recess will be taken until 2 oclock p.m.