Page images

F. W. Dean,
A. DeCort,
Frank J. Dutcher,
Russell W. Eaton,
Frederick A. Flather,
Ellis Foster,
M. F. Foster,
A. L. Fowler,
A. H. Goff,
A. M. Goodale,
John M. Graham,
George P. Grant, Jr.,
Edwin Farnum Greene,
S. Harold Greene,
Frank J. Hale,
William Halliwell,
Frederic W. Hamilton,
Charles L. Harding,
William D. Hartshorne,
J. Fred Harvey,
W. M. Hastings,
William Carroll Hill,
Franklin W. Hobbs,
Robert J. Hoguet,
J. L. Honer,
George G. Houghton,
J. B. Jamieson,
Joseph C. King,
S. R. Latshaw,
E. A. Leigh,
H. F. Lippitt,
James Logan,
F. R. Low,
James R. MacColl,
Robert V. Macintosh,
H. F. Mansfield,
John P. Marston,
Henry D. Martin,

H. E. Mason, Robert McArthur, E. J. McGaughey, James A. McDonald, John MacManus, Peter B. MacManus, George B. Morison, 0. B. Munroe, Arthur W. Newell, E. Noble, F. W. O'Brien, Sidney B. Paine, Edward Palmer, Walter E. Parker, C. H. Parsons, Haven C. Perham, Bernard Peterson, Ralph S. Potter, Theodore Ellis Ramsdell, Israel P. Rounds, Alfred Sager, George W. St. Amant, Dwight Seabury, Albion K. Searls, Harvey N. Shepard, H. H. Shumway, Louis Simpson, George F. Steele, Wallace I. Stimpson, J. M. Sturgis, Edward W. Thomas, James P. Tolman, William Whitman, John G. Whittaker, Fred A. Wilde, Oscar W. Wood, C. J. H. Woodbury, G. A. Yeo.


in calling the company to order after the dinner said:

From a domestic point of view it is said that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. Perhaps we might paraphrase this and say that the way to a man's head is through a banquet. No reflection is intended. Nevertheless, it seems to be true that until the gastronomic features of a banquet are well completed the “ feast of reason and flow of soul ” which is supposed to follow is not likely to be appreciated. Apropos of this statement a story is told of JOSEPH CHAMBERLIN, who was a guest of honor at a dinner at some town in England where the mayor was presiding. When they reached the coffee the mayor touched Mr. CHAMBERLIN on the shoulder and said, "Shall we let the people enjoy themselves a while longer, or shall we have your speech now?” (Laughter.] I am sure, gentlemen, I need not pass such a remark in regard to the gentlemen who are about to address us, for I am sure whether you have completed your gastronomic functions or not, you will be very glad to listen to them. I might here say that the next speaker was expected to be Mayor HIBBARD, who was to give us an address of welcome, but unfortunately he has been very closely engaged all day and also this evening, in ma connected with the great fire in Chelsea, so that he has been unable to come tonight.

It is said that a lawyer should know something of everything except perhaps the principles of law, which he could obtain from others at the moment he needs them. We have with us tonight one to whom this exception does not apply; a counselor learned in the law, and a man of affairs, whose utterances are molded in eloquence and grace; one who has been of great use to the cause of forest preservation, in which this Association is taking such an intense interest; not in the presentation of the facts about the flow of rivers or of forest culture, but by a masterly elucidation before a committee of Congress of the constitutional principles which give warrant to the legislation proposed. I have the great pleasure of introducing to you Hon. HARVEY N. SHEPARD of Boston. [Applause.]


Mr. President, I am not quite sure, gentlemen, whether this greeting is because of the story the president has told of Mr. CHAMBERLIN and its application to myself, or whether it is because I am almost the only man present who has accepted the notice of this banquet as it is written and have come here in dress wholly informal.

I have been asked to say something in regard to the White Mountains Forest Reservation. Now, gentlemen, whether the amount of rainfall is affected at all by the presence of a forest is in doubt. But there is no doubt whatever that the retention of that rainfall depends very materially upon the existence of a forest. The soil which has accumulated under the trees, the leaves which fall year after year, act like a sponge in keeping back the water and make the escape regular, so that the condition of one month and another is about the same. If, however, you remove the trees, it is evident at once that you have no falling leaves year after year, the soil exposed to the hot sun dries, and the rains wash it away; and if it be upon a steep slope, in a little while you will have exposed the bare rocks which cannot hold back any of the falling rains. More than that, the melting of the snows in the spring washes the soil into the rivers; you have in the place of clear rivers, muddy rivers, you have great freshets in the spring, and in the summer you have a much diminished flow.

In Massachusetts we have two rivers, the Connecticut and the Merrimac which have their head waters in the White Mountain region. Once this region was covered with a dense ever

Then the early writers tell us that both the

green forest.

Connecticut and the Merrimac had clear waters abounding in fish. Now, the forest has been nearly all removed and you have got far from clear water, and in the place of a steady flow month by month, very much the same in the summer as in the spring, you have a very great rush of water in the spring and comparatively little in the summer months. The lower portions of these rivers are navigable and therefore they come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, under the provisions of our Constitution. It has been suggested then that Congress authorize the taking of the White Mountains in order to preserve the remnants of the forest yet remaining, and to re-forest, where the trees have been cut away, in order to preserve the navigation of these and the other rivers of New England which rise in the White Mountains. This is constitutional because it affects the flow of these streams, and because it affects the amount of the soil which washes into them. If it is legal for Congress to appropriate money to dig out year after year the soil that is washed into these rivers, certainly it must be also legal for Congress to appropriate money to prevent the washing into the rivers of this soil. If it is constitutional for Congress to appropriate money to build reservoirs at the head waters of the rivers of California, at the head waters of the Mississippi river, so as to make regular the flow of those rivers, can it be other than constitutional for Congress to provide a forest, which is the natural reservoir, to accomplish the same purpose for the Connecticut, the Merrimac, the Saco, and the other rivers of New England? That this would be an efficient means is proved to us by the experience of Italy and France. In fact, the lesson of France may be well taken home to us, for they are spending now more than $40,000,000 to bring back the soil and the trees upon the slopes of the mountains where they were removed under exactly the conditions that now prevail in our White Mountains. If it be constitutional for Congress to provide means to preserve the navigation of these two rivers, then, because that action also will accomplish other things, the legal foundation being once laid, is a strong and additional reason

for such action. And perhaps the greatest of these reasons is the relation of these rivers to manufactories. In the valley of the Connecticut we all know how many manufactories there are of cotton and wool and paper. On the Merrimac there are more manufactories carried on than upon any other river of the same extent in the world. In fact the amount of capital invested in the manufactories upon the four great rivers of New England which rise in the White Mountains is more than $250,000,000. Now, these depend very much for their successful working upon water power. The reason that they were established where they are is because water power was then found in these locations. It is not strange then, Mr. President that a great Association like this National Association of Cotton Manufacturers should have memorialized Congress to take action for the preservation of the forests in the White Mountains and the southern Appalachians, and your efficient secretary presented your cause with great ability before the Committee on Agriculture in January last. [Applause.] But, alas, you were alone in that representation. The manufacturers of wool, the manufacturers of paper, also have a vital interest in this relation of the water power to the existence of the forest, and they were not there.

We have also got near the end of the supply of wood and lumber which once ours from the great forests which extended over New England. Soon the time will come, unless something be done, when there will be no more wood found here for fuel, and no more hard wood for use in the lumber industries.

It has been shown by European experience that it is perfrctly possible to carry on a forest as a good farmer will carry on his farm, raising crop after crop, and yet without exhausting it, and in this way a forest can be maintained. It is not to be kept idle, it has to be cut when the trees have got to maturity, but always with provision made for the future. Our present method is the very opposite of this, it is a reckless waste, it is the stripping of everything that stands for lumber and pulp;


« PreviousContinue »