Professor ROTH. No sir; in ten years.

Mr. Cocks. They would not be worth much.

Professor ROTH. No, sir.

Mr. PLUMLEY. That is one thing that I know something about. I can answer my own questions on that.

Mr. Cocks. What do you know about it? I would be glad to have you tell us.

Mr. PLUMLEY. A little while before I came down here I visited the Billings estate in Woodstock, Vt., where Mr. Aiken has been the manager for thirty years, and thirty years ago he began to set out the Norway spruce and the hard pine on soil useless for anything else-light sandy soil. He has begun cutting wood from those trees, and he showed me a section of a Norway spruce that was more than two feet in diameter at the proper cutting distance from the ground, and he has set out 750 Norway spruce and hard pine, all the way from seedlings of last year to those of thirty years' growth, so that right on that farm you can study the whole problem and see it in its actual existence. At twenty years' growth a Norway spruce or hard pine is worth $2 a tree on the stump on sandy soil. It is not then profitable to cut, but it is worth $2. At thirty years it is worth $5 on the stump, and is marketable at what would be good commercial usage to-day.

Mr. Cocks. For wood pulp?

Mr. PLUMLEY. For wood pulp. Now, in planting his forests he plants the trees 8 feet apart and plants midway, in part of it—that is a sort of an experiment-a locust tree, the theory being that the locust, being of that class of tree that draws to it a supply of nutrition, will also yield it out through its nodules or roots for the more rapid growth of the pine tree. When it reaches the age of 8 years he cuts that for the purpose that Professor Roth has spoken of, for fence posts, which are not laughable material, but are absolutely valuable at 20 cents every 6 feet; and at that time there are two or three good fence posts on every locust; and he grows his forest of pine trees and of spruce faster than he would have grown it without the locust, and that begins to bring in his return, so that in eight years he gets in his first return, which pays very handsomely, and the setting out of it is comparatively a very cheap process; it is one stroke of a pickax and one stamp of the foot. That is all there is to planting it.

The CHAIRMAN. This is very interesting, but the fact that in the national forests we now have about 200,000,000 acres of virgin forests which have not been able to pay more than half of their running expenses lends color, I think, to the suggestion that the self-supporting feature of this policy ought not to be emphasized.

Mr. CURRIER. We have been told that they could make the gross receipts of the Forest Service anything they pleased, and that they were not cutting one-twentieth of what they could cut without injury to the reserves.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true, but it also remains to be observed that under this bill the merchantable timber, so far as there is any, may be reserved by the owner, and I take it that the commission acting for the Government would rather allow the owner to reserve the timber than to pay $40 or $60 an acre for the land with the timber on it.

Mr. CURRIER. If the land in the White Mountain region had been purchased twenty years ago at the prices then prevailing, it would have been paying a net revenue to this Government of 20 per cent a year, and it is going to advance in the next thirty years just as much. Mr. LAMB. Since this is a personal experience meeting—and I hope my friend from New York (Mr. Cocks) will not go away, because this is in direct answer to his question-when I was 12 years old I helped the negroes to plant corn on a field of my father's of 50 or 60 acres. A year or two after that he turned that field out for some purpose. I went into the war, and when I came back I found that field growing up with timber, and when it was 30 years old I cut that wood, 30 cords to the acre, and shipped it to the Yankees in the North and got $10 a cord, and got back some of the money for the mules they took. [Laughter.]

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK E. GUERNSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE.

Mr. GUERNSEY. I would like to speak to the committee just a moment. I do not want to occupy your time, but in connection with this matter, in which I am greatly interested, I would say that I introduced House bill 21589, which is more of an amendment to the bill which you have been discussing than otherwise, as it is a reproduction of Mr. Weeks's bill, and I wanted to present it simply to get before you two propositions, possibly to be considered as amendments to his bill more than for any other purpose.

As I understand, the object of the bill is for the National Government to acquire large areas in the States. That being so, it seemed to me that the purpose of the bill being to cooperate with the States in protection of the navigable rivers, it would be well to have an amendment to the bill providing that the States might have the right under certain restrictions which are contained in the provisions which I have introduced, to enter the national reserves in inland waters for the purpose of creating storage water at points where it was desirable for them to create it, and at the same time exercise complete control, for the benefit of the citizens of those States, over any water power that might arise. I know that in Maine, if large areas were acquired there, the result would be that every valuable storage point for water would be covered by the national reserve, and not only for storage purposes, but it might be utilized for various purposes of the State; but also there would be valuable water powers there, and it would seem that it would be good policy to give the States the right, if they saw fit, to enter those reserves and exercise control over the storages and also over the power. Necessarily, the States under the common law and under the state laws do control the rivers' above the navigable portions, but in order to exercise any rights over the powers they have got to be in the nature of riparian owners, and the National Government would control the powers.

As to the proposition, further than that, it would also appeal to me, coming from Maine, where I have witnessed the value of the preservation of game, as being a good thing to give the States the right to control the national reserves within their borders so far as all game is con

cerned; and in that event the measure I have introduced covers those provisions, and you have it before you.

I have also witnessed the value of a storage dam. Our rivers are continually creating storage dams, which regulate and increase the minimum flow of the river and accomplish the very purpose that this bill has in view, and if the States were allowed to exercise a right to create those storages and, possibly, create storage dams, they would aid, under the purposes of this bill, in connection with the forests, in regulating the flow of the streams.

In connection with the question as to how far the forests do aid in increasing the minimum flow of the streams, I recall, in my own county, the instance of the Piscataquis River, which runs westward, and which has been cleared up by farms on both sides. There is another river that runs north of it, parallel with it, extending westwardly, and through an entirely forested country. My portion of the Piscataquis valley is on the border of the great Maine forest. The Piscataquis River drains itself amazingly fast, because the slopes are not covered with forest, and the water power there is dependent on auxiliary steam power, whereas the other river that I mentioned, the valley of which is protected entirely by forest, is, for its size, the most constant water-power system in Maine, and the mill privileges on that stream do not fail for lack of power for weeks, and sometimes months, after the Piscataquis, in the same locality and under the same conditions of rainfall, fails.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing further, the committee will go into executive session for a few minutes.

(At 5 o'clock p. m. the committee went into executive session.)

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Washington. D. C., Tuesday, March 1, 1910. The committee met this day at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Charles M. Scott (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. In accordance with the order made by the committee at its last meeting, we are met this morning to resume consideration of the Weeks bill, relating to the purchase of forest lands in the White Mountains and the Appalachians. It occurred to some members of the committee that army engineers who have been required in the course of their duty to study the subject of river control might possibly be able to give us some information on this subject, and Major Cavanaugh, of the office of the Chief of Engineers, has been kind enough to respond to the invitation of the committee, and I will ask him if he will submit to a few questions.

Major Cavanaugh, will you state to the reporter, in order that the record may be complete, what your official rank is, and what your engineering experience has been?

STATEMENT OF MAJ. J. B. CAVANAUGH, U. S. ARMY, ASSISTANT TO CHIEF OF ENGINEERS.

Major CAVANAUGH. My name is Maj. J. B. Cavanaugh, Corps of Engineers; Assistant Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C.

The experience which is pertinent to the matter in hand consists of practically eight years in connection with rivers in Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama.

The CHAIRMAN. Upon what rivers have you been particularly engaged?

Major CAVANAUGH. The Chattahoochee, Flint, Alabama, the Mobile River system, and some of the smaller rivers in Mississippi. The CHAIRMAN. All of those streams, I believe, have their sources in the Appalachian Mountains?

Major CAVANAUGH. The Alabama system and the Chattahoochee system have their sources in the Appalachian Mountains.

The CHAIRMAN. Your work as an engineer has been directed, I presume, to the maintenance of navigation on those streams? Major CAVANAUGH. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In the course of that work have you had occasion to study the influence which the character of the watersheds has possessed in respect to the question as to whether it is forested or otherwise?

Major CAVANAUGH. In connection with the Chattahoochee River particularly, the changes in the watershed have led to the appearance of much more sand and gravel in the river; but these changes are mostly limited to the fields along the banks of the river, in the lower reaches which are under cultivation.

The CHAIRMAN. What proportion of the sand and detritus which obstruct navigation would you say comes from the upper region of the stream, above the navigable point?

Major CAVANAUGH. I might answer that by stating that most of the material with which we have difficulty comes from the farm lands which border the streams on either side, and it has never occurred to us that our troubles come from the headwaters or the sources, since it was perfectly evident that we had a satisfactory explanation of such troubles in the detritus from the fields immediately adjacent.

The CHAIRMAN. Your work has been directed, then, chiefly to protecting the banks of the river as they are and to taking care of the wash that has come in from the fields lying alongside of the navigable reaches of the stream?

Major CAVANAUGH. We have attempted to protect the banks and to keep the material moving, so as to pass it out of the mouth of the stream practically and to store it away in pools and in the wide reaches of the river within retaining works.

The CHAIRMAN. If the choice were given you of retaining the upper slopes of the mountains in forests or in having the lower slopes forested, the purpose being to maintain the navigability of the stream, which would you regard as the more important?

Major CAVANAUGH. I should prefer the protection close to the stream rather than distant from where I had to work.

The CHAIRMAN. Has your work in any of these streams extended over a period of time during which there has been a material change in the watershed, as to its forestation or otherwise?

Major CAVANAUGH. I believe not. The changes do not occur as rapidly as that. In any of the streams with which I have been connected there has been practically no change in the character of the watershed in the limited period during which I have been connected with it.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever heard, or do you know, of a river engineer who advocates the forestation policy as a direct and practical method of governing the regimen of navigable rivers?

Major CAVANAUGH. There may be such, but I do not believe I know of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with Colonel Chittenden's report on that subject?

Major CAVANAUGH. I have read it; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. From the comments you have heard upon it, do you think that the sentiment of army engineers was favorable or unfavorable to the contention he makes?

Major CAVANAUGH. I think most engineers are rather in favor of the general conclusions of Colonel Chittenden. I would not confine that to army engineers alone.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you familiar with the report recently published from this committee by Prof. Willis L. Moore?

Major CAVANAUGH. Simply as to the general conclusions. I have not carefully examined the report yet.

The CHAIRMAN. Have any members of the committee any questions to ask Major Cavanaugh?

Major CAVANAUGH. I would like, before you go any further, to add, really as a preface to all my remarks, that I am thoroughly in sympathy with the movement for reforestation and for the preservation of the forests, and I think the same is true of every other army engineer; and if we are unable to agree with some of the conclusions or some of the opinions which have been published we more or less regret that we are not able to fall in with them, and it is not the desirability of forestation, but the effect, that we have to question.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I should state, in fairness to Major Cavanaugh, and also to Captain Johnston, who is to follow, that they both appear reluctantly, not wishing even to seem to be placed in the position of opposition to another branch of the Government, but coming only because they felt it to be their duty to give such information to a committee of Congress considering an important measure as their experience has afforded them.

Major CAVANAUGH. I might also say that we have certain documents and certain expressions of opinion from various engineers which Captain Johnston will submit, which show the opinions of others and the results of actual observations.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LEVER. Mr. Chairman, I hope the committee will not be bored by the questions I shall ask during this hearing, but if it is permissible at this point, I would like to ask Major Cavanaugh if he knows Major Raymond?

Major CAVANAUGH. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEVER. I would like to quote from the Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1891, from the report of Major Raymond, and ask Major