the constitutionality of the measure being presented. Then came the familiar delay. Meanwhile boards of trade, chambers of commerce, women's clubs, civic and patriotic organizations and individuals without number representing every section of the country, every political creed and practically every social class and interest, poured in letters, telegrams, petitions and resolutions, as one congressman declared, "by the millions." The Senate passed the bill.
The House Committee on Judiciary, by unanimous vote, on April 22, decided as follows:
Resolved, that the Committee is of opinion that the federal government has no power to acquire lands within a state, solely for forest reserves; but under its constitutional power over navigation, the federal government may appropriate for the purchase of lands and forest reserves in a state, provided it is made clearly to appear that such lands and forest reserves have a direct and substantial connection with the conservation and improvement of the navigability of a river, actually navigable in whole or in part; and any appropriation made therefor is limited to that purpose.
Resolved, that the bills referred to in the resolutions of the House, H. R. 10,456 and H. R. 10,457, are not confined to such last mentioned purpose, and are therefore unconstitutional.
This decision, apparently adverse, was really favorable. The bills were at once modified to meet the requirements of the Judiciary Committee and reintroduced. The Agricultural Committee of the House, however, reported a new bill, providing only for a Congressional investigation or "junket" during the recess. This passed the House, but went no farther.
Effort should now be concentrated on the House, to secure the passage, by that body, of the excellent Senate bill. Already the tide of public opinion has risen high in favor of this legislation. It is still rising. An earnest, united, systematized effort, by all concerned, should bring success at the next session of Congress.
