I will omit some of the rest.

In other words, the forests until recently absorbed the rainfall and diverted the greater part of it into the soil, whence it percolated gradually into the great natural subterranean sheets of water. Most of the forests have now disappeared. Their destruction is thus, fatally, a national calamity, the terrible consequences of which have just been demonstrated by the present floods. In regard to future legislation to preserve the French forests, it is pointed out by several large proprietors of timber land that the present excessive taxation on forests has brought about a wholesale transformation of wooded regions into pastures or fields where sugar, grain, wheat, and vegetables are raised. The landowners thus lay the blame on the Government for imposing almost prohibitive taxation upon forests.

That question of forest taxation is a very important matter.

Moreover, the general council of the department of the Marne, in its special session on January 31, unanimously passed a resolution declaring that the cutting down of the forests was the fundamental cause of the present floods, and calling upon parliament to enact, as a matter of supreme urgency, laws that will diminish taxes on forests, and that land replanted with trees shall be totally exempt from taxation, etc.

Mr. CURRIER. Professor, that is like the paper I have here, is it not? Mr. SWAIN. It is the same thing.

Mr. CURRIER. I wish you would put the whole of it in the record. Mr. SWAIN. I should be glad to have the whole article put in. (The above-mentioned paper is, in full, as follows:)

THE FRENCH FLOODS.

M. Velain, professor of physical geography at the Sorbonne, has drawn up a report on the causes of the French floods, which he attributes, in the first place, to exceptional rainfall during the last six months, and, secondly, to the wholesale destruction of forests. In this respect M. Velain voices the unanimous opinion of French scientists.

Professor Velain explained to your correspondent that the three most important affluents of the Seine above Paris are the Yonne, the Upper Seine, and the Marne. These three rivers flow through soil of identical geological conditions. They take their respective sources in cretaceous formations in regions of hard, impermeable clay, and afterward flow through zones of softer millstone clay, which becomes quickly saturated.

most alarmarise. The longer retain

During the last thirty years the forests have been cut down t ing extent on the plateaus where these three affluents of the. pastures and cultivated soil, which have replaced the forests, the rainfall, which is now sluiced off, as if from the roof of a house, directly into the rivers. This water is prevented from infiltration by the hard, impermeable clay. It then flows into the regions of partially impermeale millstone clay, readily saturated. Here the water, after a few weeks of rain, when the millstone clay has become saturated, increases so rapidly that, instead of filtering down into the large natural underground reservoirs, it rushes along in the river beds. In this way the plateaus of Brie and Langree, now devoid of trees, launch their total rainfall in a sort of mill race toward Paris.

In other words, the forests until recently absorbed the rainfall and diverted the greater part of it into the soil, whence it percolated gradually into the great natural subterranean sheets of water. Most of the forests have now disappeared. Their destruction is thus, fatally, a national calamity, the terrible consequences of which have just been demonstrated by the present floods.

In regard to future legislation to preserve the French forests, it is pointed out by several large proprietors of timber land that the present excessive taxation on forests has brought about a wholesale transformation of wooded regions into pastures or fields where sugar, grain, wheat, and vegetables are raised. The landowners thus lay the blame on the government for imposing almost prohibitive taxation upon forests. Moreover, the general council of the department of the Marne in its special session on January 31 unanimously passed a resolution declaring that the cutting down of the forests was the fundamental cause of the present floods and calling upon parliament to enact, as a matter of

supreme urgency, laws that will diminish taxes on forests, and that land replanted with trees shall be totally exempt from taxation until the first cutting takes place, which shall be done only in accordance with the forest laws established during the reign of Louis XIV, and which provide scientifically for a gradual increase of trees.

The parliamentary group for the protection of forests met yesterday under the presidency of M. Pierre Baudin and passed resolutions proposing a new fiscal estimation of forests, and urging that the bill for the protection of forests, with several important amendments to favor and encourage tree growing, be forthwith submitted to the chamber of deputies and the senate.

Mr. SWAIN. It is argued by some that there is yet no serious effect. A good many of us think the effects are serious; and if you will go into the mountains you will see them. But we do believe that they will be much more serious in the future. Ours is a very young country. We are only one hundred years old. One hundred years ago this was really a virgin country. In Europe they have a thousand or two thousand years to look back upon. We believe in calling in the doctor before the patient is dead. We believe in preventive medicine. We believe, all through New England, that the forests should be protected by legislation similar to that which has been found necessary in European countries.

Whether or not we have statistical information sufficient to prove our case is a minor matter. I think we have not sufficient to prove it; but we soon shall have, if the destruction which is now going on is continued. And, gentlemen, when we do get it-when there do come floods like the flood in Paris-when Pittsburg and Cincinnati and other cities are devastated, perhaps, as they never have been before (because we are always likely to have a greater flood than we have ever had before) the public mind will always be imbued with the idea that it is due to the destruction of the forests. You can not get that out of their minds, because they look at the matter from the common-sense view that I have suggested. They know that the forests retard the accumulating of the snows, and hold back water; and they therefore believe that they have an effect on floods. They probably exaggerate that effect, thinking perhaps that the maximum floods are always les

But they

e that idea, and in the main it is correct; and they will be inclined to place the responsibility upon you gentlemen, who now have the opportunity to do something, to take a step in imitation of what h. been done abroad.

It happens that the only legal justification for your action is navigation. I have shown you that practically all the authorities are agreed as to the beneficial effect on navigation of the forests on the steep slopes which are not suited for crops. But there are side effects, by-products, which are of great importance. Of course the preservation of timber is very important. We all know how near a timber famine we are coming. The question of water power is very important and will become more and more important in the future, and by every small amount that the regimen of the flow of our streams is made more regular just so much is the water power benefited. This follows, even though you perhaps can not show it statistically by the measurement of the flow at the present time, although I believe the statistics are generally indicative of something.

Then the question of health and the question of beauty come in. The floods leave matter suspended on the banks which, when it putre

31735-VOL 3-10- -2

fies, is deleterious to health, if the rivers carry sewage, as they frequently do. And the beauty of our mountains is something which ought to be preserved. Of course that is all outside of your legitimate power. Those things are by-products of your legal action. But assume once that you have a legal power to act, that there is an undisputed relation between erosion from the mountains and the navigation of the streams, and it seems to me that we should all be very glad to do something which brings with it so many beneficial by-products. [Applause.]

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to remark that in hearings of this character it is not considered within the rules to have expressions of approval or disapproval from those in attendance.

Mr. LEVER. Before Professor Swain takes his seat I should like to task one question, Mr. Chairman.

A great deal of importance, Professor Swain, is being attached to this report of Professor Moore's on the influence of forests on climate and on floods. Professor Moore himself admits a very recent change of heart on the proposition. I do not know that you care to answer this question; but I will ask it, and you can answer it or not as you please. Has Professor Moore had the scientific training that would warrant the public in giving to his scientific conclusions that importance which seems to be given to this document?

Mr. SWAIN. I do not think I could answer that, sir; but I have said already that I think the document does not affect our case a particle.

Mr. LEVER. Do you know whether or not Professor Moore is a graduate of any scientific school?

Mr. SWAIN. I do not know. I think not, though I am not sure. Mr. LEE. Was Paris ever visited by as great a flood as that of this year?

Mr. SWAIN. Paris has been visited in the past by a number of floods. There is a work in three volumes giving full information regarding all the floods for three hundred years back. The greatest flood up to this time was in 1802, I believe. I have not seen the full data in regard to this one. In fact, I have never happened to see that work itself. But there is a list. I think, in Professor Moore's paper here, of inundations of the Seine, quoted from M. Belgrand. But it is entirely inconclusive. You can not draw any conclusion whatever from it.

Mr. LAMB. I want to ask one question: Have you ever had occasion to study the effects of the erosion along the banks of the James River, from its source down to Richmond?

Mr. SWAIN. I have been all along the James River, sir; but it was a number of years ago. I have not seen it in late years, since the erosion has been most rapid. I presume Professor Glenn would know more about that than I do.

Mr. LAMB. I hope we can hear something about that. I will remark just here that if you had observed the effects of it as I have, and you were a member of this committee, you could scarcely refrain from a little applause now and then yourself, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SWAIN. Mr. Chairman, may I quote one sentence from Mr. Chittenden's paper? Mr. Chittenden makes this argument: That all sediment carried into the Gulf of Mexico comes from the uplands; and "that if the banks of these streams were revetted from the Gulf

to Pittsburg, the Falls of St. Anthony, and the mouth of the Yellowstone, the quantity of sediment passing into the Gulf would not be diminished a particle."

The CHAIRMAN. Whom are you quoting from?

Mr. SWAIN. Colonel Chittenden. If that means anything, it means that the sediment which comes down into the Gulf of Mexico comes from the mountain slopes.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever traveled on the Mississippi River? Mr. SWAIN. Yes, sir; but not very extensively. I have not been down the river.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not make that statement on your own authority, do you?

Mr. SWAIN. I do not make that statement on my own authority. I do not believe it is correct. I criticised it in the statement I made to you, which you have on file, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It is true according to your observation, is it not, that the sediment in the Mississippi River which interferes with navigation on that stream is derived almost entirely from the banks of the river in its lower reaches?

Mr. SWAIN. Not entirely; no, sir. It is a complicated question; but I think the greatest erosion from the surface of the ground is on the steep slopes, where the water flows down with the greatest rapidity. It is generally supposed that the eroding power of water varies as the sixth power of its velocity. That is to say, if you double the velocity of running water it is able to move a piece of material sixty-four times as large as it was before. It is on the steep slopes that the water carries the material down. That material gets into the river and is carried by the various floods farther on; the bars are moved and changed by each flood; the banks cave, and the sediment is added to as it goes down; and there is a steady march of eroded matter all the way down the river.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you yourself believe that the sand bars in the Mississippi River which interfere with navigation are due in any measurable degree to the sediment that comes down from the steep slopes of that watershed?

Mr. SWAIN. I do-partly to that and partly to other things. You can not distinguish where they come from.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not true that whenever a bank begins to cave, a sand bar will be laid up only a few hundred yards away? Mr. SWAIN. Yes; sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Does not that lead to the conclusion, then, that most of the sediment which results from the caving in of that bank is deposited within a short distance?

Mr. SWAIN. Most of the sediment which results from the caving in of that bank may be deposited in a short distance, and then by the next flood it may be moved farther downstream; and so it is with the caving of every bank, from the headwaters down.

The CHAIRMAN. I am asking these questions because I was one of the party which went down the Mississippi River last fall from St. Louis to New Orleans, at a time when the river was at its lowest stage, and therefore, presumably, it was eating into the bank in a less degree than it would at a higher stage. And yet our boat was hardly ever out of sight of a caving bank. Tons upon tons of earth were constantly falling into the river, and it seemed to those of us

who were on that boat, who commented upon the matter, that the amount of sediment which came down twelve hundred or fourteen hundred or two thousand miles must be negligible as compared to the immense amount of dirt that was being pulled into the stream along the reaches where we were traveling.

Mr. SWAIN. Of course, what is visible to the eye is what makes an impression upon you in such a case. You see a caving bank where you are. You do not see the sediment which has come down from points farther back and formed the bars. That is one of the mistakes in Colonel Chittenden's paper. I do not agree with that, sir. I simply illustrate it to show what he says.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your judgment that in the White Mountains most of the sediment comes from the steep slopes, or from the lower portions?

Mr. CURRIER. May I answer that?

Mr. SWAIN. Yes.

Mr. CURRIER. I want to say this: The great bar that has formed in Long Island Sound at the mouth of the Connecticut, and which very seriously interferes with navigation, is said to be composed almost wholly of granitic sand, which must necessarily come from the headwaters of the stream, and can come from nowhere else.

The CHAIRMAN. How long has that bar been there?

Mr. CURRIER. That bar has been forming for quite a good many years, but in the last twenty years it has become a serious menace to navigation.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether it was a serious obstruction to navigation a hundred years ago?

Mr. CURRIER. No; I think not.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. At what point is that?

Mr. CURRIER. At the mouth of the Connecticut, in Long Island Sound. That bar has been forming since the mountains in New Hampshire have been denuded of their forests, and it is composed of a sand that can only come from the headwaters of the river, as I understand it. I think at some time testimony has been given before this very committee in regard to that bar.

Mr. SULLOWAY. It could not come from anywhere else, could it? Mr. CURRIER. There is no such sand in the lower reaches of the river.

The CHAIRMAN. Is anything else found in that bar except this granitic sand?

Mr. CURRIER. Oh, necessarily, there is something else. But I am told (and there has been testimony to this effect, I think, before this committee) that in large part it is composed of sand coming from granite; and in order to get that you will have to go back to the denuded mountain sides of New Hampshire.

The CHAIRMAN. I should like to ask Mr. Swain one more question, if you have finished.

I believe you stated, Mr. Swain, that it was conceded that forestation would not control the great floods?

Mr. SWAIN. I said that it may not; that the floods from a forested district may be as great as the floods from that district if it were deforested.

The CHAIRMAN. If that is conceded, does it not give away a large part of your case?