Chapter XIV: Part 14

The problem at this time is to combat the customs of long standing and introduce sane and scientific methods of farm management and soil treatment. The real offenders in this great wholesale scheme of soil robbery and dissipation are the farmers themselves. The men who are supposed to possess a thorough knowledge and understanding of the business of farming and who, above everything else, should most scrupulously guard, preserve and protect the thing that denominates and is the unquestioned and absolute measure of their success. When we judge of their qualifications as farmers by showing they have made in permitting the farms intrusted to them to deteriorate in productive power, the true situation reveals itself. There is no use in sugar-coating the situation. These men are not farmers, but soil robbers. I speak as a farmer or I would not dare to make such a statement. We have mined and shipped away the valuable constituents of the soil until its productive capacity has been, in a comparatively few years, reduced far below that of many European countries that have been farmed for a thousand years.

THE BUSINESS OF FARMING.

What further proof is wanted that there is urgent need of reformation in farm management? We cannot disguise the fact that many men have adopted the vocation of farming, and have thereby undertaken the conduct of a business which requires not only intelligence of the first rank, but more fundamental, scientific knowledge, better judgment and greater ability than any other industrial calling in the world, with few or none of the necessary qualifications for the business. To be more explicit, in the great majority of cases, the man has not made good in his calling.

The business now demands a higher order of qualifications and more knowledge than is possessed by the majority of our farmers. I do not mean by this that the farmers of this country are incapable of better things or that they have not the ability, when properly directed, to do intelligent and scientific farming, but quite the contrary.

The farmers of this country need and must have more education and scientific knowledge along the line of their special business. They must learn what the farmers of the older countries learned through force of circumstances many years ago.

We have heard from this platform during this Congress that average yield of crops in some European countries is more than double the yield in this country, although their lands were originally not so rich and fertile as ours and they have been cultivated and cropped for a thousand years.

There is one fact in connection with this statement that must not be overlooked. Mark it well. Those countries that are now excelling us in crop yields and are being referred to as proof of the assertion that all soils are inexhaustible and contain the necessary plant food for all time to come, have imported from this country millions and millions of tons of phosphate and applied to their lands to take the place of the phosphorus removed by the growing of crops and to supply in sufficient quantities the food necessary for plant growth, the plant food that has enabled them to double and even treble our yields.

This importation and use of plant food has not been confined to the phosphate imported from this country, but they have procured and used whatever elements of plant food their experience has taught them was necessary for maximum plant growth. They have fed and not starved their growing crops. They have replenished what they have removed from the soil and made it richer instead of poorer.

The importation by these countries of millions of tons of those elements which enrich their soil should cause us “to sit up and take notice” and then explain why they have been permitted to invade our shores and carry away such enormous quantities of phosphate when every pound is needed in this country and is just as valuable to us as to them. The intelligent use of this element, which has been allowed to get away from us, would have doubled the yield of our crops and proved the greatest investment on record. How shall these facts and the requisite knowledge be brought home to the farmer?

SOIL ROBBERS.

The great majority of the men who own and farm their own land fail to “play even” in the matter of soil fertility and must therefore be classed as soil robbers.

The retired farmer who has moved to town and rents his farm, as a rule, is a soil robber of a still higher degree. The renter who meets the exactions of the landlord and can make a living for his family has got to be an expert and accomplished soil robber. If our soil is to be conserved and not wasted as at present, there must be a universal or nation-wide campaign of education that will enlighten and bring home to the people, including the land owner as well as the tenant, the real facts of the situation.

The work of our colleges of agriculture, experiment stations, farmers’ institutes and various agricultural organizations are doing a great work, but this work as yet is only effective in a small degree when we take the whole country and all of the farmers into consideration.

The plan proposed by the National Soil Fertility League and others, and to which reference was made by President Taft in his address from this platform, of placing a man with scientific agricultural knowledge in every agricultural county in the United States, to advise, direct and carry on experiments in every community with the aid and coöperation of the farmers themselves, and where they can see and know every step and every process and then note the results, is a most admirable one and one that will hasten and finally solve the problems of soil conservation.

As an illustration of what may be accomplished by actually doing things in a community where all other educational methods have proven ineffectual, I desire, briefly, to call attention to my experience in growing alfalfa in Illinois.

It was undertaken twenty years ago, and at first without marked success. Later, when inoculation was found to be necessary and dirt was brought from Kansas to sow upon Illinois land, the climax of folly in the eyes of neighboring farmers was reached. The idea of sending to Kansas for anything to put on Illinois soil was ridiculous in the extreme, and the sanity of the perpetrator of such an act was called in question.

Nevertheless, the study of alfalfa growing and its adaptation to Illinois conditions went on until this season I have harvested better than five tons per acre, in three cuttings, from a twenty-five-acre field, in less than one year from seeding. And the end is not yet, for it is still growing, and fear has been expressed that I may have to hay all winter.

I want to serve notice upon Mr. Coburn, chairman of the meeting, that Kansas must look well to her laurels as an alfalfa state, for Illinois is going to grow alfalfa and lots of it.

When I was preparing this ground for alfalfa and was applying manure, lime, phosphorus and inoculated soil, and when I was plowing and following with a subsoil plow and making a perfect seed-bed, my neighbors were not interested except to regard it as more folly and foolishness on my part, but when they saw the result and realized that the crop taken from one acre of that land was worth at least $100.00, and that it represented ten per cent interest on $1,000.00 as the value of the land per acre, they were compelled to take notice, and now they are, figuratively speaking, falling over themselves, to learn how it was done. There is no mistake about the effect of the demonstration. The farmers of that community saw the preparations; they saw the alfalfa growing; after it was cut; in the winrow; in the shock, and on the way to the barn. The lesson could not have been brought to them as effectively in any other way.

I want to reiterate my approval of the plan proposed, of placing a qualified instructor in every county devoted to agriculture, to do things on the farms that the farmers can see and show them how to procure the results they read and hear about.

I know that the plan is feasible and that it will bring results, for I have tried it.

We have reached the point in the extension of agricultural knowledge where less talk and more demonstration work is demanded.

If this Congress does nothing more than to get behind this movement and assist in making it the success it deserves, it will have accomplished more for the maintenance and increase of the fertility of the soil than any other agency, and helped to solve the greatest of all industrial problems.

Chairman COBURN—The report of the committee on resolutions, Mr. Fowler, chairman of the committee.

Mr. Fowler read the resolutions (which will be found in full at the beginning of this volume) to the Congress, framed and unanimously adopted by the following committee: Arkansas, E. N. Plank, Decatur; California, L. R. Glavis, San Francisco; Colorado, Dr. Hubert Work, Pueblo; Connecticut, Prof. J. W. Towney, Hartford; District of Columbia, W J McGee; Illinois, A. P. Grout, Winchester; Indiana, H. E. Barnard, Indianapolis; Iowa, J. R. Doran, Beaver; Kansas, Thomas Potter, Peabody; Louisiana, Oscar Dowling, Shreveport; Massachusetts, W. P. Wharton, Groton; Michigan, Henry N. Loud, Au Sable; Minnesota, A. W. Gutridge; Mississippi, H. L. Witfield, Columbus; Missouri, Dr. W. H. Black, Marshall; Montana, C. Q. O’Neil, Kalispell; Nebraska, Geo. Coupland, Elgin; New York, Albert B. Sheldon, Sherman; Ohio, Edmund Secrist, Wooster; Oklahoma, Thos. P. Smith, Muskogee; Oregon, M. J. Kinney, Portland; Pennsylvania, Dr. Harry S. Drinker, South Bethlehem; South Dakota, R. Newbanks, Pierre; Texas, W. H. Gray, Houston; Washington, Everitt Griggs, Tacoma; Wisconsin, Herbert Quick, Madison.

Chairman COBURN—You have heard the report of the committee on resolutions.

Delegate POTTER—I desire to move its adoption by this Congress of the able report that we have just heard read by the chairman of the committee on resolutions.

The motion was duly seconded.

Chairman COBURN—It has been regularly moved and seconded that the report of the committee as read be adopted. Are you ready for the question?

Delegate JOHN C. SHOFFER, of Chicago—As one looks over this hall and compares the number of suggestions made by the committee on resolutions, it would seem that there are more resolutions offered than there are delegates here. I think it is an unfortunate thing, sir, that this platform or these resolutions should go out as expressing the sentiment of this Congress. There are too many absentees to vote on this question at this time. If we are going to put this forward as an expression of this great Congress, the delegates should be here to vote on it, and not be bound by the vote of the few who are here this afternoon. It is not fair that this should go out as an expression of this Congress when there are only a handful of delegates left to vote on it.

Delegate CONDRA—We have a committee, one from each state. It is perfectly regular, and there is a pretty big handful here to vote on it.

Chairman COBURN—Are you ready for the question?

(Cries of question, question.)

All in favor of the motion to adopt the resolution as read, signify the same by saying aye. Contrary no. The motion is carried and the resolutions as read adopted.

[Resolutions will be found in front part of this volume.]

Delegate A. W. STUBBS, of Kansas City, Kan.—I realize what the gentleman has said, that the resolutions are very long, and I am greatly embarrassed by the enormity of the subject taken in hand by this National Congress. There has been one disappointment to me, and I have embodied that in a resolution which I believe will be appreciated by every delegate present, as well as by the officers who have had to sit and listen to some of the addresses, well intended, on this floor, but not germane to the subject at hand, and I have prepared this brief resolution to submit now, not as a part of the platform, but more as an expression from the delegates to this Congress.

_Resolved_, that we recommend to the executive committee of this Congress that in the preparation of future programs care be exercised to prevent the time of delegates being taken up by papers and speeches not germane to the purposes of the Congress, and that provision be made for brief discussion of papers presented by the delegates from the several states.

I move the adoption of this resolution.

The motion was duly seconded.

Chairman COBURN—You have heard the motion. It has been moved and seconded that the resolution as read by the gentleman be adopted. Are you ready for the question?

Mr. CONDRA—Will you please read the last section of that resolution?

Chairman COBURN—Will the gentleman read the last, about the several states?

Mr. STUBBS—And that provision be made for brief discussion of papers presented by the delegates from the several states. Many interesting papers have been read here, and many delegates have come hundreds of miles who would have been glad to say just a word perhaps, not any extended discussion, but express themselves from the body of the Congress, and expressions from a body like this would be found invaluable to the entire audience.

Mr. CONDRA—I asked the question because I misunderstood. I thought that he meant representation on the program from the various states, which would absolutely kill this Congress.

Mr. STUBBS—Oh, no.

Mr. CONDRA—I hope that the matter he refers to may be taken up and by departments, thus giving opportunity for further discussion.

Delegate POTTER—I don’t want any misunderstanding of the intent of this resolution. The author of it, as I understand it, does not mean to embody this in the general resolutions, but only as a suggestion of the desire of this Congress through our committee to make arrangements for the future.

Delegate STUBBS—That is correct.

Chairman COBURN—Those in favor of the adoption of the resolution as read say aye. Contrary no. Motion carried.

Chairman COBURN—Our program for the afternoon is now concluded and a motion to adjourn until 8 o’clock this evening is in order.

Upon motion to adjourn, duly seconded, being put, was unanimously carried, and Congress adjourned until 8 o’clock p. m.

_CLOSING SESSION._

President WHITE—Ladies and Gentlemen of the third National Conservation Congress will now come to order. I will introduce as the first speaker Prof. William Hoynes, Professor of Law at Notre Dame University.

Professor HOYNES—Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: In the limited time at my disposal, aware as I am that Senator Owen and Mr. Bryan are to follow, I recognize the need of brevity, and though I shall contend that the conservation movement is but the fulfillment of a natural impulse or instinctive privilege as old as the human race, yet I shall do so in as few words as practicable. In short, what I have to say may be viewed in a threefold aspect, as conservation in respect to soil fertility, conservation in respect to waste and extravagance in the affairs of daily life and the utility of education as a means of furthering the efficacy of conservation and common sense in these matters.

As viewed by many the principle of conservation is of recent origin. But this is a mistake. It is as old as mankind. In reality it amounts simply to the natural protest of reason and experience against waste and extravagance. It originated simultaneously with the consciousness of the need of food, raiment and shelter for the protection and preservation of life.

As men struggled in the primitive ages to procure food for sustenance, the pelts of animals to cover their bodies and the shelter of caves or rudely constructed huts to protect them from the rigors of the elements and the incursions of prowling beasts and venomous reptiles, they at the same time realized the indispensableness of these things and the necessity and wisdom of conserving them.

As in the case of our own Indians, the struggle they made to obtain the necessaries of life taught them to be saving of what they procured in that line and to be vigilant in providing for the future. They took no more fish from the waters of lake or river than seemed necessary for actual use, they did not destroy wantonly the wild creatures of the forest, and the denizens of the air were free from trap and arrow beyond the range of hunger and necessity. Thus they conserved carefully the sources of their food supply, and the pathetic story of a Hiawatha had rarely to be told.

It was only on the coming of the white man, who did not specially rely upon such means of livelihood, that the wild creatures of the air, forest, prairie, plain, lake and river were heedlessly slaughtered, or wantonly destroyed in sport, or driven to hiding places in swamp or mountain.

It may thus be seen that when things are deemed essential to the maintenance of life the lesson of care in using and conservation in protecting and preserving them is brought home to the comprehension and firmly fixed in mind and habit. But when, on the other hand, things appear to be measurably superfluous or easy of acquisition, the sense of their value becomes abated and the spur of conservation blunted.

And so with the land, which to civilized man is the source of life’s sustenance and the basis of progress and prosperity. Heretofore in abundance and easily procured at moderate cost or for the mere taking of it under the homestead law, but little attention was bestowed upon the preservation of its fertility. When there came manifest and pressing occasion for keeping it up by the restoration of its exhausted elements the owners sold it for whatever it would bring and migrated to the easily procurable new lands of the great West. But now this movement has met with a decided check, for there is hardly any more arable free or cheap land to be had. The most desirable government land has been taken by settlers under the homestead law, and that which has been reclaimed under the irrigation system is held at comparatively startling prices. Thus exists a condition which is measurably responsible for the overflow of nearly a million of our people into the British possessions on the North, actuated by the lure of virgin soil and cheap lands. And even this door is now less ajar through the taking by first corners of the choicest holdings and the failure of our reciprocity negotiations.

The comparatively impoverished lands sold by those who sought new homes in the West were usually purchased by persons who knew little about farming, or took them as an experiment or for speculative purposes, and placed tenants on them—tenants whose chief aim was, not to restore the fertility of the soil, but to make it yield all the profit possible with the least possible outlay of money and labor.

But a halt has been called in this state of things, and mainly so, as it seems to us, through the instrumentality of the many agricultural boards, alliances and societies, not to mention the Grange and Department of Agriculture, that appear to have united or coöperated in the organization of this great conservation movement. There is a marked tendency, as observers must admit, to look backward to the neglected lands and abandoned farms. These are being sought again by the returning pioneers of the West or their descendants, and so probably to a greater extent relatively in the South than in the East. This counter-movement is unmistakable and has led to a notable and increasing advance in the prices of these lands during the past decade. The cause lies not alone in the acquisition by settlers of all the desirable free and cheap lands of the West, but also in the expected restoration of soil fertility in the South and East.

To this end the deliberations of the present Conservation Congress have in large measure justly and wisely tended. Much has been said, and well said, touching the study and utilization of scientific means to restore soil fertility in the case of impoverished lands throughout the country. It is a subject of paramount importance. It points to the possibility of increasing at least twofold the productiveness of our present acreage.

It will not be considered as digressing if I refer in this connection to the Agricultural Department at Washington and the state agricultural colleges, boards and societies as having conferred incalculable benefit through work in this line on the people and the country. Well would it be, too, if the suggestion of President Taft, made in the course of his address in this hall last Monday evening, could be realized and the Agricultural Department represented among the people by an intelligent and practical farmer in each county of the several states. It would bring directly to the notice of farming communities the most approved means of cultivating the soil and lead to wholesome emulation in restoring its fertility and insuring abundant crops.

I am strongly optimistic in regard to the natural resources of the country and would not venture to set bounds to the possibilities of our soil and climate. We know historically that for thousands of years untold millions of people have lived on the same land in China, Japan, Egypt and Europe. They have treated it as a living thing, feeding it with the elements requisite for its productiveness. So judiciously and systematically has this been done that in some quarters it yields twice as much to the acre as the average of our own land. I venture to predict, however, that the present movement toward soil enrichment will not fall short of attaining to a like standard of productiveness.

While the restoration of soil fertility has fittingly been the dominant theme of these proceedings, I am pleased to observe that they have taken a much wider range. Thus are vastly broadened the activities and usefulness of this body, and correspondingly is strengthened its claim upon the confidence, approval and coöperation of the public.

So much has been said in relation to the conservation of health, morality, religion, municipal government, deep waterways and the public welfare that it would be superfluous, even if time permitted, to touch again upon these subjects.

I may be pardoned, however, for referring somewhat specifically to education in the light of its saving and helpful influence. It inquires into, searchingly examines and intelligently determines what to do in the practical phases of conservation. It penetrates proposed plans and theories and warns against mistakes, waste and extravagance.

With the diversification and expansion of labor in the industrial domain its products became marvelously varied in form and utility. With the machinery which labor invented and introduced one man could accomplish tenfold as much in a given time as could previously be done by hand. The things produced by labor were thus enormously multiplied and cheapened, and this very fact, as in the case of land superabundance, led to deplorable waste and senseless extravagance.

Ignorance may appropriately be called the mother of these evils. Education is the antithesis of ignorance and may be depended upon to curb them. Ignorance is imitative rather than original, and the wastefulness attendant upon it grows with the expansion of luxury. The wage or income of unfortunates upon whom it has set its mark usually passes through their hands as freely as water through a conduit, often going for the purchase of things unnecessary and tawdry, if not actually harmful.

But they are not alone in this regard. It happens that no matter what may be the income of some men it goes promptly forth again on its merry round, and they are as poor at the end of the month or year as they were at its beginning. The cause ordinarily lies in absurd vanity or inexcusable wastefulness and argues lack of self-control and common sense.

Edison is credited with having recently stated as the result of his observations abroad that a French family could live comfortably on what an American family throws away. Other travelers have spoken to like effect, but with remarks applicable to Europe generally. It must be admitted, however, that the French rank first in this respect or in the practical application of domestic science and economy. They have evidently learned to apply the principle of conservation in the management of kitchen, dining room, household and purchases in the market. Were we to use like foresight, discrimination and economy the cost of living might be reduced from one-third to one-half. Would not this be an easily achievable and reasonably satisfactory solution of the harassing problem of high prices?

The knowledge that creditably adorns the mind and makes for independence should show the wisdom of such economy and not be humiliated by betrayal into imitation of the reckless extravagance characterizing the vulgar rich in pomp, dress and prandial excesses. Intelligently and sagaciously inculcated along these lines, such knowledge would revolt at the conditions indicated. To this end education of wider scope and a more practical turn is needed. It should be of a nature capable of grappling successfully with such problems and conditions.

Education, genuine and practical, is the most precious of possessions, surpassing in value to honorable and useful manhood all the vulgar hoards of selfish and pleasure-seeking wealth. True education teaches independence and self-respect and scorns temptation to compete with showy vulgarism in dress, dining and deportment. It is the key that unlocks the arcana of knowledge and surpasses all the dross of mine or mountain in bringing man into soulful communion with God. It makes clearer and more acceptable the duties we owe to country and to one another. It teaches courage in adversity and fortitude in affliction. It is a light that penetrates the gloom of doubt and makes plain the path of honor and usefulness. It illuminates in all directions the activities of this great movement and I congratulate you upon having recognized the fact and so generously acclaimed it in the proceedings of this Congress. (Applause)

President WHITE—I now take pleasure in introducing to the audience United States Senator Robert L. Owen of Oklahoma. (Applause)

Senator OWEN—Ladies and gentlemen, and delegates of the Conservation Congress, when called on to pay my respects to this great meeting for the purpose of bringing about a public sentiment which should sustain the conservation movement, I felt in duty bound to respond, and for that reason I delayed my departure from this city to spend a few moments to present my respects, my sympathies, and my support to this movement. (Applause) I believe in the conservation of our national resources, and I believe that no government should go beyond the sentiment of the people, of the Republic, in the direction of conservation, or of any other important progressive policy. (Applause) This audience, therefore, and this Congress, have a duty to perform, and that duty is to sustain public opinion upon these important matters, and give it a concrete form, that will make its impress upon the legislative and administrative branches of this government. I believe in the conservation of our forests; in the conservation of our land; the reclamation of arid lands; the reclamation of swamp lands; making accessible the lands that we have, by good roads and by the improvement of waterways. I believe in the conservation of our water powers, that they shall not pass into private hands for speculative purposes, but I believe above and beyond all in every form of conservation that may be well discussed. I believe in the conservation, above all other things, of human life and human efficiency. (Applause) It was for that reason that I took occasion to draft a bill, providing for a department of health with a secretary in the cabinet at the head of it. (Applause) And I was actuated to do that by the pitiful history which we had recorded in the last great war, the war with Spain. I remember so well that over 900 of our chosen young men, those who had offered their lives upon the altar of patriotism, those who were willing to fight the battles of the Republic, instead of being able to die in the service of their country upon the battle field, facing a hostile foe, were laid in their graves by a malignant disease, at Chickamauga. We lost nearly a thousand of our best men at Chickamauga. And why? Because of the gross, unspeakable ignorance of those who were charged with the preservation of the lives of those young men. (Applause) It is a noted fact that the flies came from the cesspools where the offal and waste of the camp was thrown, came from those cesspools, with the slime on their feet, with typhoid germs on their feet to poison the chosen youth of our land by thousands. That is not only a national tragedy, it is a national humiliation, and it is a disgrace to this Nation. Therefore I desire, together with thousands of other men, to put an end to that sort of thing by a department of health. I remember Herman Biggs’ map of lower New York where in a single house twenty-three cases of tuberculosis were recorded, and in the house next to it eighteen cases. So that those houses where the poor workmen go, without notice, were in fact nothing but charnal houses where they went to their death. We ought not, in a civilized nation, to permit that to continue. And I glory in the man who has been trying to preserve the health of this Nation. I glory in our magnificent Dr. Wiley. (Applause) And I feel a sense of personal happiness that the millions of microbes that move and have their being in impure food and drinks, did not get Wiley’s goat. (Applause)

I am reminded in this connection of one of the stories of the champion of health, Mr. Lutz, of Indiana. It is called the story of the “Little Mother and the Fat Hog.” There was a little mother in Indiana. She was only twenty-three years old. She had three children. She began to notice that she was feeling ill, that the children, in whom she had had great happiness, were commencing to worry her, and become a care. She knew that she must be sick, and she went to the doctor. He looked at her and said, “You are all run down.” He gave a prescription in Latin. It was a little ginger, and a little alcohol, and a little water and some other things. She paid a dollar for it at the drug store, and she took it, but did not get well. She checked her strength out in a little while, and then one day she felt a sharp pain in her breast, a coughing spell came on and putting her handkerchief to her mouth, it became covered with blood. She had a hemorrhage. She sat down and wrote a letter to the secretary of health of Indiana: “My dear sir:—I am a little mother of Indiana. I have three children, I would like to raise to be good citizens of Indiana. I have just had a hemorrhage. Can you tell me what to do or where to go, so that I may get well? I do not want to die now.” He wrote her back an official letter right away in typewriting, and said something like this: “My dear madam, the state of Indiana does not make any provision for a case like you have described, but in case you die the state of Indiana will take care of your three children until some good people can be found who will take them from the asylum. Yours respectfully, Secretary.” (Applause)

A fat hog squealed in the back yard of a man, and the hired man looked at him and he said, “He has got the cholera.” The man said, “Telegraph to Uncle Jimmy Wilson right away.” And he did. And a man came with a little black satchel marked D. V. S., with a bunch of serum in one hand and a syringe in the other, and he shot a load into the hog and the hog got well. MORAL: Be a hog and worth saving. (Applause)

Now, last year as a United States Senator from Oklahoma, I had the opportunity and I sent out 25,000 bulletins on how to take care of the hog. And I didn’t have a single bulletin on how to take care of babies. I believe that the babies and the youth of this land ought to be given the preference, if necessary, over the swine family. (Applause) In New Zealand they have a death rate of 9.5 per thousand. In this Republic, where we have the fancy that we know more than other people do, and where it is largely a matter of fancy and not one of reality, we have a death rate of 16.5 to the thousand. In other words we lose by death from preventable causes seven persons to the thousand that we might save. That makes a vast army of 630,000 human beings who march to their graves every year from preventable causes. And we have on an average nearly three millions of people who are sick on an average throughout the United States from preventable causes. A careful calculation on a money basis, putting each individual as worth $1,700 apiece, and I do not think that is a high estimate for an American—it would make a loss of four thousand million to this Republic every year. And I think that is worth conserving. (Applause) Therefore in the few moments which I have at my disposal I call the attention of this great audience to its duty as American citizens, and I call the attention of this great Conservation Congress to its duty to this Republic to put on record a declaration in favor of a department of health. I thank you for your attention. (Applause)

President WHITE—Ladies and gentlemen, I now take pleasure in presenting to you an American citizen who in all this broad land requires no introduction. (Applause)

Mr. BRYAN—Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am sure that whatever you may think of my speech you will agree with me that I was justified in asking you to listen to these other speakers. (Applause) I believe in the Conservation Congress. The good that it does is difficult to calculate. How many of the thousands who are assembled tonight have given to the subject of conservation the thought or study that it deserves. The arguments that are presented at such a meeting as this help make up the public opinion that controls our governments, state and national. A large number of subjects are brought before a Congress for its attention. The speeches made present the subject from different points of view, and each one turns upon the subject the light of his intelligence, and the warmth of his heart. When we go from such a meeting, we go enlightened, and with our views enlarged. We go prepared to communicate to others something of the information that we have received, and to impart to them something of the zeal that we feel. A number of subjects have been presented here, and I am sure that this meeting will be worth all that it has cost those who have brought it about or participated in it.

Take the thought, for instance, that has been presented by Senator Owen. I am so glad that I insisted upon his speaking, for his ability and public spirit are only equaled by his modesty, and if I had not insisted, I am afraid you would have lost the benefit of the speech that he has delivered. (Applause) And yet what one of us will forget the splendid illustration that he has given us in the story told of the difference we make between the human being with a priceless soul and the animal that can be converted into dollars and cents on demand. (Applause) We need to have this matter brought to our attention, and I venture the assertion that there is not one present in this audience that will not go from this meeting tonight with the conviction that our Nation could afford to subtract a little from its appropriations intended to prepare us to kill people, and spend the money in the preservation of human life. (Applause) Is it not strange how much more interest we can feel in the battleship and in the new gun than we feel in the preservation of the life and health of those about us? We need a speech like this to wake our consciences to our own neglect, and to give us a better idea of proportion when we look at things about us.

You heard last night a speech upon public health from one who has done so much to arouse the Nation to the unspeakable iniquity of the adulteration of food. Who will estimate the benefit of such a speech as that delivered to an audience with such intelligence as this audience represents?

AGRICULTURAL EXPERTS.

The President presented, as I understand it, a thought that has been emphasized today. The idea that there should be in every agricultural county of the Nation a representative of the Government, an expert on agriculture, to assist the people of that community to a better and more intelligent production of the crops to which the soil and climate are adapted. An idea like that needs only to be presented in order to be accepted and approved. The fact is that what we need is instruction. In Leeds, England, a year ago, I was speaking at a dinner in the mayor’s office. I was emphasizing the fact that our difficulties and controversies are largely due to misunderstandings and that misunderstandings are largely due to a lack of acquaintance with each other, and there flashed into my mind that quotation from Holy Writ, the last prayer of our Savior: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And I was impressed, as I had never been before, with the fact that ignorance is a large cause of sin. It is ignorance that we have to combat; when the people are once enlightened and understand a subject, you can trust their patriotism, their good intent, and their sense of justice. (Applause) These meetings help by instructing, and we go from them not only with larger information, but with a stronger determination to do our part in the correction of evils that need a remedy. As I sat tonight and listened to those who spoke before me, a thought came into my mind, and I venture to impart it to you. It is a proverb of Solomon’s; I do not know of a better motto for the conservation movement. It was suggested by the gentleman from Indiana that necessity compels us to conserve the Nation’s resources when we become aware that they are being impoverished, and I thought of this proverb of Solomon’s: “The wise man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself, but the foolish pass on and are punished.” What is conservation except looking ahead, the making of provision against coming dangers that may be prevented? Wisdom manifests itself in foresight. If we had had more foresight we would not have need of as much energy as is required today to protect that which is being wasted. I suggest, therefore, as a proper motto for the conservationists this wise saying of Solomon, “The wise man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself, but the foolish pass on and are punished.” (Applause)

Let me gather up some of the scattered threads of the discussion to which the delegates have listened. I am not an expert in any part of this conservation work. I confess that I am one who has been blind, during a part of my life, to the needs that are now so clearly recognized. I have had work that has engrossed my attention; I have been busy, but not with matters of conservation such as have been discussed. Possibly I represent some in the audience who have not had their attention turned to these subjects. I am grateful to those who have brought me into contact with this information, and I shall endeavor to make up for lost time by larger effort along these lines. (Applause)

The subject has grown upon me as I have examined it, and have listened to those who have spoken upon different branches of it. The first thing that claimed my attention was the preservation of the forest. I found that we were exhausting our timber supply. I found that it was a matter merely of calculation, a simple matter of mathematics; that we could take the number of acres of timber land remaining, subtract the yearly cut, and calculate how long it would be before it was practically destroyed, and then, when on the other side, we examined the amount of land planted in trees and compare that with the yearly destruction, it was easy to see we were approaching a time when our timber supply would be exhausted. I became interested at once, as you must be interested, in legislation that has for its object not only the protection of that timber which remains, but the replanting of such ground as can be reforested. I am interested, as you are, in protecting this country from exhaustion of its timber supply.

THE NATION’S WATER SUPPLY.

Then, my attention was next called to another reason why our timber should not be destroyed, and I am a little ashamed to admit to you, that it is not very many years ago since I first began to think of the protection of our water sheds. I wonder how many in this audience have felt, until tonight, as indifferent as I felt until a few years ago. I wonder how many tonight realize how serious a question it is? Two years ago last June I crossed the crest of the Rockies, and as I went over the ridge, I saw patches of timber, and then areas of naked land. I found that wherever there was timber there was snow; and when I came near to these patches of timber, I found little streams running down to make the brooks and rivers. But wherever the timber was gone there was no snow; it was perfectly dry, and then I realized, as I had not before, how God in His infinite wisdom had established these great reservoirs that never need repair, while man in his folly has been destroying them, and then endeavoring to replace them by building great dams, and forming great lakes that will in time fill up and have to be abandoned. What supreme folly it is to allow the water sheds to be denuded and these natural reservoirs destroyed, only to spend money after a while to replace them with inferior substitutes. What does it mean to have a Nation’s water supply imperiled? Have you ever been in a city that was threatened with a water famine? Have you ever been where they discovered the necessity of a larger water supply? What would it mean to the people living upon the slopes of the Rockies if these water sheds were destroyed, and the rain of the winter ran off, and left us with no reservoirs to supply our surface streams and the veins from which we draw through wells? When people tell me that the water shed question can safely be left to the states in which these water sheds are, I tell them that while I am glad to give every reasonable presumption to the state, I insist that the people of this Nation have, on the fundamental doctrine of self-preservation, the right, when necessary, to protect their water supply in the mountains, and I may add, I have no fear that this will cause a conflict between state and nation. (Applause)

My observation is that you very seldom have a conflict between states and nation unless some private interest is attempting to ignore the rights of both state and nation. Back of this controversy which we sometimes hear suggested between the state and the Nation, you will find the interest of the predatory corporation that is as much an enemy to the people of the state as it is the enemy of the people of the Nation; whenever we reach the point where the people recognize that they are greater than any corporation which they create, the settlement of state and national questions will become an easy matter, for patriots can then agree. (Applause)

After one has acquainted himself with the necessity of preserving the forests on the water sheds, he naturally comes to the control of the water that comes tumbling down the mountain side. It is a little more than two years since my attention was called to this subject; the facts were given me by one who is in a position to know, and since that time I have had a fixed opinion that has been freely expressed in regard to the control of these mountain torrents, the commercialization of these mountain streams.

THE LANDLORD SYSTEM.

One who has not visited the Old World cannot understand the landlord system there. If you ask me what I regard as the greatest burden of the people of Europe I reply “Landlordism.” (Applause) In some of those countries the people are so situated that those who till the soil transmit from generation to generation the right to pay rent, with no possibility of ownership; while a few families transmit from child to child the right to collect rent, with no disposition to till the soil. I regard that as the greatest burden of Europe, and one of the blessings that we enjoy in this country is freedom from such landlordism as they have in the Old World. I know of nothing that nearer approaches the system of landlordism in Europe than the proposed giving away of these mountain streams in perpetuity to great syndicates that through the years and generations to come could exact their toll from a toiling people. Therefore, when we consider the use of these mountain streams, the first thing we must decide is that there shall be no perpetual grant to a water power. Who can tell what that right will be worth a hundred years from now? Look back twenty-five years. Who could have estimated then the value of a water power today? Within the last quarter of a century we have had a development of electricity that makes it possible to carry, for hundreds of miles, power generated by falling water. If you visit Canada you will find in the Province of Ontario great towers carrying to the various cities the power generated at Niagara Falls. We are now in the very beginning of the use of electricity. No human being can measure the value of one of these water falls. What criminal folly, then, for this generation to barter away the sacred rights of posterity to syndicates and corporations. (Applause) So, it seems to me, that one of the important questions to be decided in the conservation of our natural resources is that the principle of monopoly shall not be permitted in this country under any guise or in any form. (Applause)

Let us insist that wherever and whenever a franchise is granted it shall be granted for a term of years, and that that term shall not be so long, but that we can reasonably estimate today the value of it at the end of the term. No other principle is tenable in the discussion of this subject.

But one cannot visit the mountains; one cannot consider these streams that we are trying to protect without thinking of the reclamation of the arid lands. And here I think we have a subject too that is only beginning to be understood. Go along a road and see on one side a desert and on the other side a garden, and understand that the only difference is that one is not watered and the other is, and then irrigation becomes a subject of thrilling interest. Investigate and find how large a per cent of the people of the world live upon lands cultivated by irrigation. Learn how ancient and honorable an industry it is. Visit the communities, where, by the use of the water under systems of irrigation, a man can make a living for his family on twenty, thirty or forty acres, or even less. See how the people are brought together; how every advantage of the city is brought to the farm, and then you will understand why the country has at last yielded to the demand that has come from the West, that some money should be spent in the reclamation of these lands.

We have next the impounding of water, the building of storage reservoirs. It is in its infancy. It ought to be continued until not one drop of waste water is allowed to run down and flood the valleys in the spring. All of this water should be conserved. It ought to be spread out on the lands which need it, and then we can invite people from the crowded cities to avail themselves of the light and liberty and larger life of the country. (Applause)

SOIL WASTE.

But one subject leads on to another. You begin to reclaim arid lands, and then you ask yourself, Why should we attempt to bring land under cultivation at large expense while we waste the land that we have? And that brings us to the very interesting subject that is presented at all of these congresses, the conservation of the fertility of the soil. A farmer this afternoon spoke of some people as robbers, who robbed the soil of its fertility; I suppose I am one of the guilty ones, although I have done most of my robbing of the soil through agents rather than directly myself. (Applause) And yet, I had my apprenticeship upon the farm, and when I was farming it never occurred to me that I was wasting the soil. I was one who could claim pardon under the plea, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” (Applause) And yet, we cannot be guiltless hereafter now that we understand of what we have been guilty.

Here is a subject that must interest every man who owns an acre of ground. What right has one to impoverish the soil? As was suggested today, we are not owners, we are merely tenants. The life of the individual is short. He lives, he works, he passes away. What right has the tenant of today to impoverish the estate upon which generations to come must live? Is it not worth while to have these experts tell us? Is it not worth while to have this fact impressed upon our minds and our consciences? And when we come to the conservation of the soil on the farms, we then understand the importance of the agricultural college. I rejoice that the agricultural college has shown such wonderful growth and development during the last twenty-five years. The interest which has been manifested in these schools is wonderful, and what does it mean? Not merely that our farms are to be better tended; not merely that our crops will be increased in quality and in value; that is not all. To my mind two important influences will grow out of this agricultural school in addition to the material advantages. I expect to see more inventions; I expect to see a quickened interest in improved machinery; that these men who go out from college to till the soil will add more and more of brain to the muscle when they till the soil; that the character of the work is to be dignified and elevated just as in the factories we have found the character of the work constantly lifted up as larger and larger intelligence is brought into play in our industries. I expect to see this on the farm. But more than that, I expect to see the farmer a larger political factor in his government with the rising intelligence of the farmer boy. (Applause)