Another example of a confusion of the question, or raising a false question, is when a saving of natural resources is identified with locking them up; as though energy conserved were to be understood as energy neutralized. Quite the contrary: Conservation means so treating our resources as to get the most we can from them. In the case of our forest wealth, as of any other in which there is growth and decay, a judicious degree of consumption of the product is a necessity. After the period of most rapid development has been succeeded by a slower rate of increase, approaching that when losses by accident and by interior degeneration are barely made up by the growing season, there is obviously a gain in removing the tree and leaving its place to be filled by something that will continue to grow. In a properly conserved forest no tree is left standing until attacked by decay, but each is cut when its value is greatest, so that the best management is recognized not so much by the largest amount of standing timber as by the largest yearly gross increase in growth of timber. It is somewhat similar with water-power. "The mill never grind with water that is past," so the power has to be used when it is within our grasp, or be lost. Conservation of water-power is maintenance of the amount of such power that so appears, and disappears. It is for use; Conservation for disuse, in this case, becomes an absurdity. Even as to mineral resources, which cannot be replaced when once withdrawn, Conservation calls only for economical use, not for neglect or insufficient use. The argument is that we have quite as good a right to the enjoyment of the gifts of Nature as our successors have, but not a right so much better than theirs as to render a wanton waste of our patrimony justifiable, or even pardonable.
In connection with this same identification of forest Conservation with neglect of the forests, we should consider the hasty tendency shown in some quarters to regard the terrible forest fires of the last few weeks as proof that we are safer without a woodland than with it, and that therefore our policy is at fault. But our policy is care, and not neglect. We would avoid such calamities by preventing them. The recent fires appear to have been due very largely to carelessness, from meal-preparation or from smoking in presence of dry combustible material; and in some instances to actual incendiarism, which was, where it occurred, a crime no less serious than wilful murder. These forests might have been safeguarded by an expenditure of one-tenth the loss by fire, and at no danger to life. Fires from locomotive sparks—a far too frequent nuisance—should no longer be classed with unavoidable accidents; for the masses of dried grasses, etc., that make the sparks dangerous could and should be removed from the track vicinity; or the locomotives provided with efficient spark-arresters, or oil used instead of coal. From strictly non-preventable accidents such as lightning, general conflagrations must be exceedingly rare; and thus the cure for the entire evil is within the reach of capable caretakers. Where an efficient forest guard is provided, as experience in European countries and some American States has demonstrated, these disastrous visitations are no longer dreaded. To look on a universal removal of our Nation's tree-wealth as the only remedy, is like the old proposition to drive rats from the granary by burning the barn.
One more illustration will be enough. It is a great advantage to any cause when the opposing advocate can be found in error on any point, no matter how trivial or how far aloof from the essential issue; for then the convenient presumption of "false in one thing, false in all," can be raised, and the weakness of the said cause most effectively disguised. This expedient is at least as good as the famous rule in pleading: "When you have no case, then abuse the plaintiff's attorney." It is readily possible, I dare say, to show that some of our Conservationist champions may have in a few cases underestimated the life yet remaining to our National resources. Estimate in these matters is necessarily uncertain, few or none of the elements of the calculation being well ascertained. This is particularly true of our mineral supply. The time when our coal, for example, may be expected to become practically exhausted cannot be set within a hundred years, for we cannot gauge the stock in veins out of sight, nor foresee the rate at which the use of coal will be accelerated. But it would seem sufficient to know that, at the present rate of extraction (the amount mined in 1906, as the figures show, excelled all previous records, and yet the increase in 1907 over 1906 was more than the total annual supply 10 years earlier), no finite quantity could indefinitely survive; hence more attention must be paid to avoiding the present lavish waste in mining, as well as applying water-power and wind-power wherever adapted to do the work now done by burning coal. These economies should be introduced now from choice, not left till the disappearance of our fuel-supply drives us to them by force. It is a wretched business to allow our boast that "The country's coal supply is good for many hundreds of years yet" to uphold us in the reckless waste we now make of it.
But I attempted to cover the whole field of Conservation in an address at our first Congress, and will not repeat but, in conclusion, will touch upon that form of Conservation which all will concede to be of supreme importance—the Conservation of the most precious asset of the State: its men, women, and children. If the life and health of citizens is sacrificed, by vicious measures or by simple neglect, no saving of any other of our possessions will at all avail us. The importance of efforts, on a National scale, for the maintenance of public health has been proved by ample experience, and we should see to the continuance, and especially to the proper organization, of such efforts. An important step in that direction is the proposed formation of a Department of Health under the Federal Government, as contemplated in the bill so ably championed by Senator Owen at the last session of Congress. Our race is a prey to epidemics which extend far beyond State boundaries, arising from causes that often require long-continued and expensive investigations for their determination and their counteraction; and it is obvious that any effectual work against them must be under charge of the General Government. The clear and cogent reasons for this view have again and again been given by sanitary experts, and it is needless to repeat them. The matter is of sufficient importance to call for action from our Congress, and a resolution favoring a Department of Health, at the National Capital ought surely to meet with no opposition. I would propose the following resolutions:
Resolved, That this Congress declares its hearty approval of the opinion made public last week by our honored Chief Executive, President Taft, that his party and his Administration are pledged "to make better provisions for securing the health of the Nation. The most tangible and useful form that this can take would be the establishment of a National Bureau of Health, to include all the health agencies of the Government now distributed in different departments."
Resolved, That we accept, in principle, the "Health Department" bill of Senator Owen now pending, and strongly recommend that that measure, suitably amended where necessary, be enacted into law.
Resolved, That our Secretary be directed to communicate a resolution advocating a Department of Health to the members of the National Senate and House of Representatives, and that our own membership be urged to use all their individual influence to aid the passage of the measure hereby recommended.
REPORT FROM ARKANSAS
Sid B. Redding
Secretary Arkansas Conservation Commission
Progress has been made in the Conservation movement in Arkansas through the recent organization of the Arkansas Conservation Commission. Up to this time we have had no legislation along Conservation lines, and our Conservation Commission is one whose members serve without compensation. The Commission was appointed by our present Governor, and its officers are George W. Donaghey, Chairman, and Sid B. Redding, Secretary. The Commission has effected a permanent organization, and its membership includes some of the leading business and professional men of our State. The Arkansas Legislature will convene in January, 1911, and at that time Governor Donaghey will perhaps recommend legislation covering a fixed Conservation policy for our State.