Conservation vs. Control of Profits

THOUGHTFUL people have raised questions as to how long nature's bank could continue to accept our drafts. These questions came to the fore so persistently, and there were so many evidences -such as the failure of natural gas in Indiana, the increasing scarcity of lumber in the Lake Superior region, the progressive sterility of Southern farm lands, the choking of the Sacramento River by tailing-point-ing to possible danger from overdraft or to misuse of resources and opportunity, that President Roosevelt called a conference which assembled at the White House on May 13, 1908, to consider these and related questions. This, the first great Conservation Congress, had a wide and beneficial influence on the thought of the world. It profoundly influenced the course of succeed-ing events and, while even yet there are sharp dis-agreements as, to the wisdom of much that has been done in the name of conservation, I believe that thoughtful men, and engineers especially, agree that the time had come when sharp attention was properly called to the waste that accompanied development of our resources. RESOURCES LARGE BUT NOT INEXHAUSTIBLE In 1908 there was a surprisingly large number of men, who should have known better, prepared to argue that our resources are "inexhaustible." No competent mining engineer, of course, believes that, as regards minerals at least. They may be, and, in most cases, fortunately are, large; as to many of them our knowledge is too general to permit measuring the reserves; but we know now, and I think the public appreciates, that there is a limit to our supply of gas, oil, coal, iron, and metals. Indeed, with the inten-sive study made necessary to meet the demands of the war, and the more careful accounting required by the newer systems of taxation, depletion has become a common word, and that mines are wasting assets has become a platitude.