Chapter V: Part 5

Another curious thing may possibly interest you. The first time I went over to Ancon, which is on the west, the Pacific side—and I might explain about Ancon—there are three towns. There is the town of Panama, which stands on the Bay of Panama; a little distance off and connected with it, you can hardly tell where, is the American town of Ancon, and then across over a big hill is Balboa, the part in which the United States is making all its improvements—getting ready to take care of the transportation question. Now when I got down there, and I arrived rather early in the evening, I had a beautiful room assigned me. All the rooms have balconies. I went out and sat on the porch and looked at the Pacific Ocean. What, to my surprise, did I see? I didn’t know what had happened, but I saw the moon rising out of the Pacific Ocean. Now take that in if you can. It was in the east—the Pacific Ocean was to the southeast of Panama, and the moon was rising out of the Pacific Ocean, as the sun did the next morning. I was completely turned around. The Isthmus of Panama almost describes the letter “S.” We do not realize that unless we take an atlas and put it before us. If you ever see a drawing or illustration of the great work going on down there you will see how they always place Panama on the right-hand side of the map as you look at it. It seems all wrong. It ought not to be there. It did to me when I first saw it. I think I have talked about Panama long enough, and you must be tired, and I am quite sure the President will be here in the next few minutes. He is trying to get here as rapidly as possible. What he will tell you about conservation will be so much more than I can do. I thank you very much. (Applause)

Chairman CONDRA—I have a note from the director of the band saying that they can sing a certain song to be dedicated to the President. Dr. Hiner, have you the soloist there? Can you favor us with the song? It is to be sung next Saturday at Sedalia, I believe, and it has been dedicated to the President by his permission.

After the singing of the song, the President entered, accompanied by his official party and members of the Commercial Club and others, the audience rising and singing “America,” after which long and loud cheering took place for several minutes.

President WALLACE—Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of the Conservation Congress: It is my high privilege and duty to introduce to you tonight, Hon. William H. Taft, President of the United States. (Loud applause and cheers)

ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

President TAFT—Your distinguished President, Dr. Wallace, a month or two ago wrote me and asked me to come before this Congress and advocate and talk about the conservation of the soil. If that subject does not address itself to you as a proper one in this Congress, you must blame your president. If what I say is not orthodox, you must blame him, because he called on me. But I am going to read you the best view that I can make from the consideration of the best authorities that I can find on that subject. And if you will bear with me, I will promise not to keep you long, for the reason that my knowledge on the subject will not consume a great deal of time.

At last year’s convention of this Congress I had the honor and pleasure of delivering an address on the subject of conservation of our national resources, and therein attempted to state what the terms “conservation of our natural resources” meant, what were the statutes affecting and enforcing such conservation, classified the different public lands to which it would apply, and suggested what I thought was the proper method of disposing of each class of lands. Nothing has been done on this subject by Congress since that time, but it is hoped that the present Congress at its regular session will take up the question of the conservation of government land containing coal and phosphates or of furnishing water power, adopt some laws that will permit the use and development of these lands in Alaska and in continental United States, and evolve a system by which the Government shall retain proper ultimate control of the lands, and at the same time offer to private investment sufficient returns to induce the outlay of capital needed to make the lands useful to the public. The discussion did not invoke the consideration of any question which directly concerned the production of food.

Tonight, however, I wish to consider in a summary way another aspect of conservation far more important than that of preserving for the public interests public lands, that is, the conservation of the soil with a view to the continued production of food in this country sufficient to feed our growing population.

We have in continental United States about 1,900,000,000 acres. Of this the Agricultural Department, through its correspondents, estimate that 950,000,000 acres of this are capable of cultivation. Of this, 873,729,000 acres are now in farms. The remainder, about 1,000,000,000 acres, is land which is untillable. It is reasonably certain that substantially all the virgin soil of a character to produce crops has been taken up. It is doubtful how much of the part not included in farms can be brought into a condition where tillage will be profitable.

The total acreage of farms in the last ten years, although the pressure for increased acreage by reason of high farm prices was great, was only about four per cent, or about 32,000,000. There are upwards of 25,000,000 acres that will be brought in under our irrigation system, and perhaps more, and the amount of lands which can be drained and made useful for agriculture will amount to about 70,000,000 acres.

The total improved farm lands in the United States amount to 477,448,000 acres, which is an increase in the last ten years of 62,949,000, or fifteen and two-tenths per cent. The product per acre actually cultivated increased in the last ten years one per cent a year, or ten per cent. The total product increased in ten years nearly twenty per cent.

INCREASE OF POPULATION.

The population in this same time increased twenty-one per cent. If the population continues to increase at its present rate, we shall have in fifty years double the number of people we now have. It is necessary then that not only our acreage but our product per acre must increase proportionately so that our people may be fed. We must realize that the best land and easiest land to cultivate has been taken up and cultivated and that the additions to improved lands and to total acreage in the future must be of land much more expensive to prepare for tillage. The increase per acre of the product, too, must be steady each year, and each year an increase is more difficult. Still, even in the face of these facts, there is no occasion for discouragement. We are going to remain as a self-supporting country and raise food enough within our borders to feed our people. When we think that in Germany and Great Britain crops are raised from land which has been in cultivation for one thousand years, and that these lands are made to produce over two and three times per acre what the comparatively fresh lands in this country produce in the best states, it becomes very apparent that we shall be able to meet the exigency by better systems of farming and more intense and careful and industrious cultivation. The theory seems to have been in times past that soils became exhausted by constant cultivation, but the result in Europe, by which acres under constant use for producing crops for ten centuries are made now to produce crops three times those of this country, shows that there is nothing in this theory, and that successful farming can be continued on land long in use and great crops raised and garnered from it if only it be treated scientifically and in accordance with its necessity. There is nothing peculiar about soils in Europe that give the great yield per acre there and prevent its possibility in the United States. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the application of the same methods would produce just as large crops here as abroad.

One of the great reasons for discouragement felt by many who have written on this subject is found in the movement of the population from farm to city. This has reached such a point that the urban population is now forty-six per cent of the total, while the rural population is but fifty-three per cent, counting as urban all who live in cities exceeding 2,500 inhabitants. This movement has been persistent, and has made it very difficult for the farmers to secure adequate agricultural labor, with an increase in the price of labor which naturally follows such a condition. Still we ought to realize that enormous advances in the machinery used on the farm have reduced the necessity for a great number of farm hands on each farm.

THE COST OF FARM PRODUCTION.

Mr. Holmes, of the Department of Agriculture, in the Yearbook of that Department of 1899, points out that between the years 1855 and 1894, the time of human labor required to produce one bushel of corn on an average declined from four hours and thirty-four minutes to forty-one minutes, and the cost of the human labor to produce this bushel declined from thirty-five and three-fourths cents to ten and one-half cents. Between 1830 and 1896 the time of human labor required for the production of a bushel of wheat was reduced from three hours to ten minutes, while the price of the labor required for this purpose declined from seventeen and three-fourths cents to three and one-half cents. Between 1860 and 1894 the time of human labor required for the production of a ton of hay was reduced from thirty-five and one-half hours to eleven hours and thirty-four minutes, and the cost of labor per ton was reduced from $3.06 to $1.29.

In 1899, the calculation made with respect to the reduction in the cost of labor for the production of seven crops of that year over the old-time manner of production in the fifties and sixties, shows it to have been $681,000,000 for one year. But while it is possible to say that there may be in the future improvements in machinery which will reduce the number of necessary hands on the farm, it is quite certain that in this regard the prospect of economy in labor for the future is not to be compared with that which has been effected in the last thirty years. Hence we must regard the question of available population and available labor in that population for the cultivation of the fields as an important consideration. My impression from an examination of the figures is that the change in this last decade from farm to city has not been as great in its percentage as it was in previous decades, and if this be true, it indicates that there is in the present situation an element that will help to cure the difficulty. Farm prices are increasing so rapidly and the profits of farming are becoming apparently much more certain and substantial. While the acreage of the improved land only increased 65,000,000, or fifteen per cent, and the total acreage only four per cent, the value of the farms in money increased from $20,000,000,000 to $40,000,000,000 in ten years—an enormous advance. This, of course, was due somewhat to the investment of additional money in the improvement of land, and somewhat to the increase in the supply of gold which had the effect of advancing all prices, but the chief cause for the advance is in the increase in the price of farm products at the farm. So great is this increase that the value of the average farm has now gone from $3,562 to $6,440, while the average value per acre has increased from $19.81 to $39.09. In addition to this, comfort of farm life has been so greatly added to in the last ten years by the rural free delivery, the suburban electric railway, the telephone and the automobile, that there is likely in the next ten years to be a halt in this change toward the city, and more people in proportion are likely to engage in gainful occupation on the farm than has heretofore been the case. Such an effect would be the natural result of the actual economic operation of the increase in the value of the farm product, and the increase in the certainty of farming profits. It is the business of the country, insofar as it can direct the matter, to furnish the means by which this economic force shall exert itself along the lines of easiest and best increase of production. Of course the Government by furnishing assistance in irrigation increases the amount of tillable land, and the states, if they undertake the drainage of swamp lands, will do the same thing. The cost of such improvements will be considerable, and will affect the farming profit, but the result generally in such cases is to yield such great crops per acre that the farmer can well afford to pay interest on the increased investment. Increased acreage from any other source is likely to be, however, in more stubborn land, calling for greater effort in tillage and producing less per acre. We may reasonably infer from the high prices of the decade immediately passed that everything was done by those who owned land to enlarge the acreage where that was easy, or practical, and that what is yet to be brought in as tillable land presents greater difficulties and greater expense. The way in which the states can help to meet future increased demand is by investigation and research into the science of agriculture, and by giving to the farming community a knowledge which shall enable them better to develop the soil, and by educating those who are coming into the profession of farming. It is now almost a learned profession.

CONSERVATION OF THE SOIL.

The first great step that has to be taken in reformed agriculture is the conservation of the soil. Under our present system the loss to the farms in this country by the erosion of the soil is hardly to be calculated. Engineers have shown how much is carried down the great rivers of the country and is deposited as silt each year at their mouths. The number of cubic yards staggers the imagination. The question is how this can be prevented as it must be because the soil which is carried off by this erosion is generally the richest and the best soil of the farms which are thus denuded.

Of the rain or snow which falls on the land, a part evaporates into the air; a second part flows down the slopes to the streams and is called the run-off. The third part soaks into the soil and subsoil, and thence into underlying rocks, perhaps to reappear in springs or seepage into streams. This is called ground water. The fourth part is absorbed by organisms, chiefly by trees, grasses and crop plants, either directly through the tissues or indirectly through the roots penetrating the moistened soil. Erosion is due to the run-off, and its quantity is dependent on the slope of the farm and also the nature of the soil and its products. Any reasonable slope, and any full cover of forest or grass with an abundant mulch, or a close crop on a deeply broken soil, or a friable furrow-slice kept loose by suitable cultivation, will absorb rain and curtail the run-off, or even reduce it to slow seepage through the surface soil which is the ideal condition. Now the ground water is the most essential constituent of the soil, because solution, circulation and organic assimilation are dependent on water. All the organisms and tissues are made up of this solvent of water, and it constitutes a large percentage of the bodies and food of men and animals. The question of the amount or ratio of ground water in the soil is a vital one. If it is excessive it makes a sodden mass, sticky when wet, but baked when dry, so that there is no possible absorption further into it, and it sends on the water that falls on it to erode easy slopes.

The erosion begins on the farm and should be remedied there. Deep cultivation tends to absorb the product of each rainfall and to reduce the run-off. Deep cultivation brings up fresh earth salts to the shorter rootlets, but carries down the humus and mulch to thicken the soil and feed the deepest roots. In flat lying fields and tenacious soils, tile drainage is the best method of relieving the farm from the danger of too great run-off. Deep drainage permits both soil and subsoil to crumble and disintegrate and through mechanical and chemical changes to become friable and capable of taking on and holding the right amount of moisture for plant growth, while the water which runs out through the drain is clear without carrying the soil with it, and therefore without erosion. Of course different farms require different treatments. Certain farms require what is called contour cultivation, by which each furrow is to be run in such a way as to level and to hold the water. On hilly lands, strips of grass land are grown, called balks or breaks, separating zones of plow land, and they should curve with the slopes, and the soil being carried by the water will be caught by them and constitute them a kind of terrace without effort. The use of forests, of course, in foothills and deeply broken country is essential and should be combined with grazing. They will prevent the formation of torrents by making the mulch and soil deep and spongy. Of course over all mountain divides, the retention of forests greatly helps to prevent the carrying off of the good soil to the valleys below. The proper selection of crops has much to do with the stopping of erosion.

I gather these facts from the reports of the Secretary of Agriculture as to the best method of preventing erosion. They are simple and easily understood, but they need to be impressed upon the farmers by education and by reiteration. Then the productivity of the soils might very well be increased by more careful use of commercial fertilizers. In 1907 $100,000,000 was expended in fertilizers, but the Agricultural Department is of opinion that one-third of this was wasted for lack of knowledge as to how to use it.

Careful crop rotation is essential because it has been found that the remains of one crop has a poisonous effect upon the next crop if it is of the same plant, but such remains do not interfere with the normal production of a different plant. Then a kind of crop should be selected to follow which will renew that element in the soil which the first crop exhausted.

FARM ORGANIZATION.

Then there is the organization of the farm on plain business principles by which the buildings and the machinery are so arranged as to make the movement of crops and food and animals as easy and economical as possible. A study as to the character of the soil and the crops best adapted to the soil; the crops to be used in rotation for the purpose of strengthening the soil—all these are questions that address themselves to a scientific and professional agriculturist, and which all farmers are bound to know if the product per acre is to be properly increased. We have every reason to hope, from the forces now making toward the education and information of the farmer, as to the latest results in scientific agriculture, that the country will have the advantage of improvement in our farming along the proper lines. Further agricultural development is to be found in the breeding of proper plants for the making of the best crops, while the growth of live stock is made much more profitable both to the owner and to the public by improving the breed and the infusion of the blood of the best stock.

The improvement in agricultural education goes on apace. All the states are engaged in spending money to educate the coming farmer, and this system is being extended so that now we have the consolidated rural school, the farmers’ high school, and the agricultural college, and one who intends to become a farmer is introduced to his profession soon after he learns to read and write, and he continues his study of it until he graduates from his college and applies for a place upon the farm.

The land-grant colleges established by the Federal Government have vindicated the policy in making the grant. Now the department employs eleven thousand persons, many of whom are engaged in conducting experiment stations and spreading information all over the country. The coöperation between the state agricultural school system and the Federal Government’s publicity bureau and experimental work is as close and fine as we could ask. It is difficult to justify the expenditure of money for agricultural purposes in the Agricultural Department with a view to its publication for use of the farmers, or to make grants to schools for farmers on any constitutional theory that will not justify the Government in spending money for any kind of education the country over; but the welfare of the people is so dependent on improved agricultural conditions that it seems wise to use the welfare clause of the Constitution to authorize the expenditure of money for the improvement in agricultural education, and leave to the states and to private enterprise general and other vocational education. The attitude of the Government in all this matter must be merely advisory. It owns no land of sufficient importance to justify its maintenance of so large a department or of its sending into all states agents to carry the news of recent discoveries in the science of agriculture. The $50,000,000 which has been spent in the department, however, has come back many fold to the people of the United States, and all parties unite in the necessity for maintaining those appropriations and increasing them as the demand shall increase.

EXPERIMENTS FOR EACH COUNTY.

It is now proposed to organize a force of 3,000 men, one to every county in the United States, who shall conduct experiments within the county for the edification and education of the present farmers and of the young embryo farmers who are being educated. It is proposed that these men shall be paid partly by the county, partly by the state, and partly by the Federal Government, and it is hoped that the actual demonstration on farms in the county—not at agricultural stations or schools somewhere in the state, but in the county itself—will bring home to the farmers what it is possible to do with the very soil that they themselves are cultivating. I understand this to be the object of an association organized for the improvement of agriculture in the country, and I do not think we could have a more practical method than this. It is ordinarily not wise to unite administration between the county and state and federal governments, but this subject is one so all-compelling, it is one in which all people are so much interested, that coöperation seems easy and the expenditure of money to good purpose so free from difficulty that we may properly welcome the plan and try it. On the whole, therefore, I think our agricultural future is hopeful. I do not share the pessimistic views of many gentlemen whose statistics differ somewhat from mine, and who look forward to a strong probability of failure of self-support in food within the lives of persons now living. It is true that we shall have to continue the improvement in agriculture so as to make our addition to the product per acre one per cent of the crop each year, or ten per cent each decade; but considering what is done in Europe, this is not either impossible or improbable. The addition to the acreage in drainage and in irrigable lands will go on—must go on. The profit to the state or to the enterprise which irrigates or drains these lands will become sufficient to make it not only probable but necessary to carry through the project, and we may look forward to the middle of this century when 200,000,000 of people will swear fealty to the starry flag as a time when America will still continue to feed her millions and feed them well out of her own soil.

At the conclusion of the President’s address, President Wallace declared the Congress adjourned until tomorrow morning, 9:30 o’clock.

_FOURTH SESSION._

President WALLACE—The Congress will come to order and be opened with prayer by the Rt. Rev. Dr. E. R. Hendrix, of Kansas City, Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church (South).

INVOCATION.

_Let us pray. Oh, God, our Heavenly Father, we bless Thee
that Thou hast been made known unto us as a God that works,
and that Thy Son coming into the world, declared, “My Father
worketh even until now, and I work.” We know that the gods of
the heathen do not work. They idle, they quarrel, they dishonor
the very name of a god, and a decent man is better than any
of the false gods. But our God is revealed to us as one ever
employed, active mind, best and highest motives, noblest, most
wide-reaching plans, and honors man greatly by making him a
fellow worker. Grant unto us the wisdom to work together with
God. Give breadth of view, give clearness of perception of what
needs to be done. Give responsibility to the best motives, and
give plans that are as wide-reaching as the great plans of God.
Upon this Congress, upon all its methods and its plans, grant
Thy richest blessing, our Father. We ask in the name of Christ
our Savior. Amen._

Recording Secretary GIPE—A great number of states have not yet reported their members to the committee on resolutions. I ask for the names of the various states now, and let the chairman of the delegation kindly rise, and give me the name, as I call the state in order that the chairman of that committee may immediately assemble these gentlemen to get to work at once. Alabama; Arizona; Arkansas; Delaware; Florida——this is for the committee on resolutions. There is a delegate here from Florida. Georgia; Idaho; Indiana——

H. E. BARNARD of Lafayette—I have not the report from Kansas.

Delegate POTTER—Kansas is here in force, but her officers are out on committees. As they come in we will see that you have the names.

Recording Secretary GIPE—Do you know who was elected as a member of the resolution committee from Kansas?

Delegate POTTER—I was—Thos. W. Potter from Peabody.

Recording Secretary GIPE—Kentucky is here. Louisiana; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts.

A DELEGATE—William P. Wharton, of Massachusetts.

Recording Secretary GIPE—Michigan—Is Michigan here? This is the committee on resolutions; we want your member from Michigan, please.

A DELEGATE—He has not turned up yet.

Recording Secretary GIPE—Will you not kindly see that the Michigan delegation meets at once and names its member for the committee on resolutions? The next is Minnesota.

A. W. Guthridge, Minnesota.

Recording Secretary GIPE—Missouri; Montana; Nevada; New Hampshire; New Jersey—New Jersey is represented. New Mexico; New York; North Carolina—they are represented. North Dakota; Oregon.

F. J. Kinney, Oregon.

Pennsylvania—Dr. Henry S. Drinker, president of the University of Pennsylvania, and delegate from Pennsylvania.

Recording Secretary GIPE—Rhode Island; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas—J. B. Smith, of Texas. Utah; Vermont; Virginia; Washington—Everitt Gregg. West Virginia; Wisconsin; Wyoming.

President WALLACE—Mr. Fowler, the chairman of the committee on resolutions, would like to make an announcement.

Mr. FOWLER—Mr. President and Delegates: I hope you all realize what the work of the committee on resolutions may be. Many states have been called here this morning and no names have been given and no one has responded. This is a conservation congress. There are representatives here from these states, from every state I trust in the Union, and there is not a state in the Union that is not interested in the question of conservation. I hope then that the delegates from every state will see to it that a good man is upon this committee on resolutions. The committee is not near full. Many states are not represented, and you must remember, my friends, that the work of the committee on resolutions is the crystallization of the work of this Congress, and the resolutions speak for the Congress, and speak for all the states of this great Union; hence, we must have some one represent every state. I have had some experience with resolution committees in other congresses, and many of you have had the same, and you know that it is a working committee. It is the committee that is compelled to sacrifice about everything else after the work of the committee begins. Consequently, we want working men upon this committee on resolutions, men who are willing to give their time and make a few sacrifices of their own pleasures and own enjoyment during the rest of the sessions of the Congress until the work of the committee is done and the resolutions presented to the Congress. (Applause)

Recording Secretary GIPE—Is Prof. Condra of Nebraska here? If so, he will kindly come to the platform.

Sergeant-at-arms—Ladies and Gentlemen: President Wallace desires me to make this announcement: “Cincinnati, Ohio, September 26, 1911. President Conservation Congress, Kansas City, Missouri. Will arrive on Alton, 7:45 tomorrow morning.—W. J. Bryan.” (Applause)

President WALLACE—I would like to make one suggestion. We are going to be very short of time. We are now coming to the call of states. We want every state to be heard from, but we want you to confine yourselves to five minutes, and to tell us, not what your resources are, not what you are going to do (applause), but tell us what you actually are doing in the way of conservation. If you have a conservation association, as you ought to have in every state, tell us about it, or anything that bears upon it. Boil it down to five minutes. We will ring the bell on you if you don’t stop at the end of five minutes.

Recording Secretary GIPE—I understand that some of the states reported last night while you were at the dinner given to the President, and I hope, that since I do not have the names of those states, that the gentlemen will advise me when I call the roll. We do not want any duplicates. The next state is Maine. The next is Mississippi. Is Dr. Lowe in the room to respond for Mississippi? Missouri?

President WALLACE—I now introduce to you Mr. George B. Logan, secretary of the Missouri Waterways Commission, who will speak for Missouri. We will hear from him for five minutes.

Mr. LOGAN—The Missouri Waterways Commission was created by an act of the General Assembly in 1909. This act provided for a commission of five members, who were to investigate “the various problems associated with the navigable waterways of the state and the reclamation of land subject to overflow; the construction of levees; the benefits to be derived from proposed navigable waterways, and the reclamation of lands subject to overflow or inundation.” The result of these investigations, together with all obtainable statistics, was to be reported to the succeeding General Assembly. The commission was allowed $5,000 as expenses. None of the members were to be compensated for their services.

At the time the Missouri Waterways Commission presented its statement to the Second Annual Conservation Congress, the report which was last January submitted to our legislature had been prepared. The commission was very successful in obtaining information of a detailed nature pertaining to conservation of the state’s resources, and from this information extremely valuable statistics have been compiled and were included in the report transmitted to the General Assembly.

Because of the small amount of funds, the commission was forced to do almost all of its investigating by correspondence, inasmuch as original research was not possible, and they were gratified to find a widespread interest in the state which caused its correspondents to answer promptly and fully. The investigations were conducted under four heads into which the subject of water conservation in this state seems to be naturally divided. The uses of the water being in the order of importance: First, water supply in which the water is consumed in maintaining life; second, agriculture in which the water is consumed in the growing of the crops yielding food and other necessaries of life; third, power in which the water is employed in aid of, or as a substitute for, human labor, and is not consumed; and fourth, navigation in which the water is used for commerce and is not consumed.

Strauss Studio, St. Louis. Mo.]

WATER SUPPLY.

Under the first head the commission delved deeply into the sources of the state’s water supply, consisting of rainfall and watershed drainage. From this point of beginning, the commission went into the question of water supply of the various municipalities, considering the character of the water used, the state in which it was used, and the available quantity.

In the conservation of human life, which is the ultimate end of all conservation, the commission felt that nothing was more important than the securing of a permanent and proper water supply for the inhabitants of the state. Sixty-five communities in the state have been investigated, and from the findings presented to the General Assembly the commission hopes that much needed and beneficial legislation will result. As was to be expected, the investigations of these communities showed conclusively that the community water supply is nearly everywhere closely involved with community sewage disposal. The legislature will be asked to pass such laws as will encourage or compel municipalities to dispose of their sewage as not to endanger the lives of their own inhabitants, or of those who by geographical location are forced to have the same source of water supply.

AGRICULTURE.

While the quantity of rainfall remains approximately the same from year to year, the effects on the soil, and the subsequent benefits resulting to the soil from the rainfall, change materially. By improper methods of agriculture, hillsides and slopes have been denuded of trees and pasturage with the result that the soil on the hillsides is no longer absorptive, and the rain falling thereon is lost to it. This is especially true in this climate where a very large percentage of the annual rainfall comes in hard or excessive rains, taxing the absorptive capacity of any soil to its fullest extent. By proper education and agitation it is hoped that this natural fact will be borne in mind by the agriculturists of the state who have it in their power to be leaders in this work of conservation.

The converse of the problem of too little water is found in Southeast Missouri, where a very great area is burdened with an excess of water. The solution of this problem has been drainage which is being accomplished by drainage districts organized either in the county or circuit courts. Already 1,271,470 acres have been thoroughly drained and will be valuable agricultural land as soon as the heavy timber is cleared off. The average cost of drainage has been approximately $5.00 per acre, which is paid in small annual installments. The increase of the value of the land thus drained has been many hundred per cent, while the benefit to the health conditions has been great. Drainage is being fostered and encouraged by the state authorities, and as fast as the necessity for working laws is shown, these laws are forthcoming from the General Assembly. There is need for further drainage, but the energy and enterprise of the people in the communities where it is needed will probably suffice for the solving of this problem in the future as it has in the past.

NAVIGATION.

Missouri is blessed with magnificent opportunities for vast conservation of transportation cost, by reason of the presence on and within her borders, of the two greatest rivers of this country. Accepting the figures of unofficial investigators, the commission has estimated that the demand for water traffic indicates that the through freight movements between St. Louis and Kansas City alone would amount to four hundred and sixty-eight thousand tons annually, while that through the Mississippi in and out of St. Louis would reach a million or more tons. The surplus products of the soil and mines of this state aggregate fully ten million tons. If even forty per cent of these products could be moved by water at the large water cost of one-quarter that of rail transportation, the aggregate saving to the producers would amount to $11,250,000.00. This saving, or the adding to the wealth of the state, is too important to be disregarded.

The commission feels that the sentiment among this state’s law-makers is already strongly in favor of coöperating with the National Government in any systematic effort to permanently improve our waterways.

WATER POWER.

From the investigations conducted under this head the commission believes that herein lies one of the greatest and least understood of the state’s natural resources. Only ninety-nine water power sites are in use, and one hundred and twenty-three formerly in use have been abandoned. The abandonment is due chiefly to two causes: First, economic conditions in agriculture have so changed that there is no longer need of a manufacturing or consuming point at the place of production. It is more profitable to ship the products of the soil and buy whatever flour, meal and sugar is necessary than to have these small quantities ground at local mills. Hence, grist mills and sugar cane mills have disappeared. The second cause for abandonment of water power sites is the failure of the streams, due, as mentioned above, to the changed soil conditions. However, the advance in electro-mechanical appliances has created new uses and put a new value on water power sites. The point of application of the power may now be many miles from its point of generation. Sites abandoned years ago have “come back” and have greatly enhanced in value. Properly exploited, the value of resources in this state is incalculable. One of the chiefest aims of the commission in its present work is to sufficiently impress upon the people and upon the General Assembly the great value of this natural resource. While more expensive to produce, undoubtedly the greatest latent power in the state is in the Missouri River. The commission has planned to investigate in detail some site on the river which has the most natural advantages and using this as an illustration to demonstrate what can be done in this state.

At the recent session of our Legislature the report of the commission covering these topics, giving in detail the information meagerly outlined above, was presented to the General Assembly and copies of this report were widely distributed throughout the state. The $5,000 appropriation for four years has increased to $17,000 for two years. The resignation of members and political differences arising outside of the commission have temporarily impaired and hindered the work of the commission.

However, since the presenting of its last report the commission has put in the time of its executives in bringing up to date and supplementing the statistics gathered the preceding year. Practically nothing is now lacking in the figures concerning community water supply, water works and sewage disposal. Pending the beginning of actual engineering investigation of a water power site, the commission has studied the water power laws of all the states of the Union to the end that accurate information may be presented to the General Assembly when legislation in this state on these subjects is asked for. The delays and petty hindrances touched upon are undoubtedly temporary, and with the very recent completion of the personnel of the commission we have great hopes and expectations for the work which may be done in the cause of conservation during the coming year.

During the reading of a list of telegrams, Mr. W. A. Beard of Sacramento, California, assumed the Chair as temporary chairman.

Temporary Chairman BEARD—The secretary will continue the call of the roll of states.

Recording Secretary GIPE—Montana; Nevada; New Hampshire; New Mexico; New York; North Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio.

President WALLACE—I now introduce to you Mr. C. P. Dyar of Marietta, Ohio, who will speak for Ohio.

Mr. DYAR—I have no speech to make. Ohio simply sends greetings to this Congress, and wishes it Godspeed and a large measure of success in the work before it. Ohio has always been a great conservation state throughout its entire history; it has had presidential, gubernatorial and senatorial timber, and other minor political timber, sufficient for the entire consumption of the United States. Ohio felicitates her sister states on the scope and energy of this movement and she voices the hope that has been expressed in this meeting, that the lesson of the parable of the talents shall not be forgotten, that conservation shall not be interpreted to mean simply to save, but development through wise use, which creates wealth, not only for the present, but future generations.

Recording Secretary GIPE—Oklahoma.

President WALLACE—I have the pleasure of introducing Mr. Milton Brown, who will speak for Oklahoma.

[Mr. Brown’s paper will be found in Supplementary Proceedings.]

Chairman BEARD—We are getting down to business this morning, and I think we are getting the meat out of the cocoanut. These addresses have been directly to the point. I now have the pleasure of introducing a representative of the State of Pennsylvania, Mr. A. B. Farquhar.

Mr. FARQUHAR—Pennsylvania is a state of such gigantic resources it would take all the rest of our session to begin to describe them, a good portion of it, and tell what we are trying to do to conserve them. It is only within the last month or two we created a state branch of the National Conservation Association, and they wanted me to be its president, I suppose because I have been interested in conservation for about twenty years past, and was a director in the National Association.

[Mr. Farquhar’s paper is in the Supplementary Proceedings.]

Chairman BEARD—We will now listen to Dr. Henry S. Drinker, president of Lehigh University.

Dr. DRINKER—It would seem that this third National Conservation Congress in ordering its deliberations cannot do so more wisely than in giving heed to the closing words of President Taft’s luminous address at St. Paul last year, when he said:

“I am bound to say that the time has come for a halt in general rhapsodies over conservation, making the word mean every known good in the world; for after the public attention has been aroused, such appeals are of doubtful utility and do not direct the public to the specific course that the people should take, or have their legislators take, in order to promote the cause of conservation. The rousing of emotions on a subject like this, which has only dim outlines in the minds of the people affected, after a while ceases to be useful, and the whole movement will, if promoted on these lines, die for want of practical direction and of demonstration to the people that practical reforms are intended.... I beg of you, therefore, in your deliberations and in your informal discussions, when men come forward to suggest evils that the promotion of conservation is to remedy that you invite them to point out the specific evils and the specific remedies; that you invite them to come down to details in order that their discussions may flow into channels that shall be useful rather than into periods that shall be eloquent and entertaining without shedding real light on the subject. The people should be shown exactly what is needed in order that they make their representatives in Congress and the State Legislatures do their intelligent bidding.”

It would seem well for us here to take account of stock of what has been done, of the agencies that have been utilized and of those that have been neglected, as well as to exchange views as to what we think that others, or the interests we individually represent, should do.

I have the honor of representing Pennsylvania as a state, and the Lehigh University as an educational organization deeply interested in the promotion of the cause of forestry and of conservation in general. We have an efficient and active forestry association. Pennsylvania, as we all know, has been, and is, famed for her deposits of iron and coal, and for her pre-eminence in the iron and steel industries. The resources in these directions are so great that it would be wearying to attempt even to inflict on you a summary of them in these short talks, but what the state has learned in conservation of mineral resources is of direct and pregnant interest. Forty years ago the movement for stopping the waste in coal was begun at the organization at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, in 1871, of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, an institution whose membership now runs into the thousands and whose influence for good is world-wide. As a young engineer I had the privilege of attending that meeting. Among the things done a committee was appointed to study the question of waste in the mining, preparation and transportation of coal. This committee was followed by, and, in fact, incited the appointment by the Pennsylvania Legislature of a coal waste commission, which made a valuable and exhaustive report, and we thus see that in one phase of conservation, and a very important one, that of mining, our engineers have been doing their duty, and that forty years ago work in conservation was being done to which the public is only just awakening. Our government officials are doing most intelligent and good work in pointing out the way.

Perhaps one of the best summaries of this great conservation question now before our people, and in which the engineering profession is so interested, and in regard to which our mining profession has so great a duty to perform, was given by Dr. C. W. Hayes, Chief Geologist of the United States Geological Survey, in an address some time ago at the University of Chicago, when he defined conservation as “Utilization with a maximum efficiency and a minimum waste,” and said:

The reform that is needed throughout the country as a whole
must gain its motive power not from sporadic instances where
true business methods prevail, or from the well-intentioned
enthusiasm of the few, but from the well-informed intelligence
of the many. The campaign for conservation must be one of
education.

There appears to be an unfortunate confusion in the minds
of certain advocates of conservation. They have apparently
confused conservation of natural resources with destruction
of the trusts, and the mixture has resulted in pure
demagoguery.... Anyone who has studied conditions attending the
development of mineral deposits must have been impressed by
the fact that those deposits held by large companies are being
developed and utilized with a view to prevention of waste,
in accordance with the principles of conservation, to a much
greater extent than are the deposits held by small companies or
by individuals.

I was much struck, as I think we all were yesterday, by the statement of our President followed by that of the chairman of the executive committee, that at this Congress we were to discuss conservation without any infusion of politics, and I take it that we use the word “politics” in its broadest sense, and are to see how we can best use capital and labor, and intelligently directed industry, all to the common end of the promotion of conservation; and that we can and will recognize what I have quoted above from the Chief Geologist of the United States Geological Survey in regard to the proper recognition and utilization of capital in conservation as highly important.

In the report of the National Conservation Commission, made through President Roosevelt to Congress in January, 1909, Mr. J. A. Holmes (now director of the United States Bureau of Mines), in reporting on our mineral resources, said:

In considering the conservation of resources, it should be held
in mind that:

(1) The present generation has the power and the right to use
efficiently so much of these resources as it needs.

(2) The Nation’s needs will not be curtailed; these needs will
increase with the extent and diversity of its industries, and
more rapidly than its population.

(3) The men of this generation will not mine, extract, or
use, these resources in such manner as to entail continuous
financial loss to themselves in order that something be left
for the future. There will be no mineral industry without
profits.

In his message to Congress, 1910, President Taft, speaking of the anti-trust law, said:

It was not to interfere with a great volume of capital which,
concentrated under one organization, reduced the cost of
production, and made its profit thereby, and took no advantage
of its size by methods akin to duress to stifle competition
with it. I wish to make this distinction as emphatic as
possible, because I conceive that nothing could happen more
destructive to the prosperity of this country than the loss
of that great economy in production which has been and will
be effected in all manufacturing lines by the employment of
large capital under one management. I do not mean to say that
there is not a limit beyond which the economy of management by
the enlargement of plant ceases; and where this happens and
combination continues beyond this point the very fact shows
intent to monopolize and not to economize.

Let us consider these questions as business men, weighing the good as well as the evil that the different powers can afford that bear on conservation, and utilizing and encouraging all that will promote the great ends which the conservation movement was started to serve.

President WALLACE—It was expected that the National Grange would be represented on this platform. Neither the president nor the gentleman whom he recommended could come. I have therefore taken the privilege of appointing Mr. B. G. Holden of Iowa, who will give us an address this morning, not on the Grange itself, but on the Grange and other movements that tend to the uplift that we stand for. We will now hear Mr. Holden, who is the evangel of the corn gospel in all these inner states. We will hear him for half an hour.

Mr. HOLDEN—Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of this Congress: You came here to listen to the great people of this country, and you are anxious to hear them, so I will take just as little time as possible, for I have already been warned by the president that I must be brief. I have laid my paper upon the table, and I am going to forget all I can and say the rest to you. I am going to be something like the Irishman who was painting a fence. He was working as hard as he could putting on the paint. A neighbor Irishman came along down the street and said, “Pat, what are you hurrying so for?” Pat kept right on putting on the paint. And he said, “Begorra, I am trying to get my job done before my paint runs out.” I am trying to get through before my paint runs out this morning.

SOCIAL LIFE ON THE FARM.

To conserve humanity—to make humanity worth more to itself; to direct human forces so that each person wastes the least possible energy, and accomplishes the greatest good for himself and for others—this is the most vital problem before our country today.

No nation can long remain great whose rural people are oppressed, or for any reason have degenerated.

It was Goldsmith who said:

Ill fares the land to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay;
A bold peasantry, their country’s pride,
When once destroyed can never be supplied.

It is not that country life on the farm is bad in the United States, for it is not, but it can be greatly improved, and in my opinion it is the greatest question before the Nation today. I am sure that when history is finally written it will place foremost among the many good things that President Roosevelt did, the inaugurating of the Country Life Movement. Three things are necessary: First, and most essential, is an awakened and serious interest on the part of the rural people themselves; second, there must be encouragement by both the nation and the states in the way of better laws and financial aid; third, there must be leadership—men and women who are willing to devote their lives to this great work.

Just how is this work of bettering country life to be worked out? In my opinion it must be done largely by the following agencies now in existence: