Kotok: Corporate or public. Now I come to the next case, if you're re ady . Now as far as public forests are concerned in Europe, they really date from the time of Napoleon. He took over all the royal and noble lands in France and converted them to public forests. That was the beginning actually on a big scale of public forests in the world — public in the sense that the state owned them, not the royalty or the nobility. Now insofar that one considers that the king was the state, then we're in the area of semantics. Fry: Yes. [Laughter] Kotok: Now I raise these questions about the character of the development of forestry both in Europe and the United States as background for how the international aspects developed in forestry. Early in the 1900's the European foresters, which meant largely under the guidance of the French, the Germans, and the Scandinavian countries, initiated international congresses of forestry in which the British participated, and of course the British invited their colonial representatives, and the United States joined early in these congresses. The ones I specifically recall: in the thirties one was held in the — twenties rather --one was held in Hungary in which the United States participated, and one was held before the Second World War in Italy, in Rome, in which the United States participated. So there was an attempt then of a meeting of minds. Fry: Did you attend any of these meetings? Kotok: No, I did not. When the League of Nations was set up, under the pressures from the Scandinavian countries a section on forestry was established. A man who was a participant in the secretariat of the League of Nations in the forestry division was one Igon Clasinger, whose nativity is difficult to define because originally he was a Pole. When that part of Poland became Czechoslovakia, he was a Czech, and then later when the boundaries were resettled he was a Pole again. So no one really knew what his nationality was. But he was a member of the Secretariat in the League of Nations. The League of Nation's meetings on forestry Americans didn't have much interest in. We weren' t in the League of Nations in the first place, but we didn't participate in their meetings. The main object appears to me of the secretariat for forestry in the League of Nations was to furnish basic data on supply and demand — market information; it was designed primarily to stabilize the timber markets. University of California • Berkeley This manuscript is made available for research purposes. No part of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library of the University of California at Berkeley. Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 Library, and should include identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identification of the user. The Bancroft Library University of California/Berkeley Regional Oral History Office Edward I. Kotok THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE: RESEARCH, STATE FORESTRY, AND FAO An Interview Conducted by Amelia R. Fry Sponsored by Resources for the Future and the United States Forest Service Copy No. / CJ 1975 by the Regents of the University of California Edward I. Kotok 1939 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Edward I. Kotok PREFACE i DESCRIPTION OF SERIES 111 INTERVIEW HISTORY vli INTERVIEW I (18 June 1963) 1 The U.S. Forest Service and International Forestry; The Formation of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization; The Role of Foresters in International Re lations; The FAO Mission in Chile; Foresters Trained for Community Leadership; Example of Kotok in Eldorado National Forest; Second Echelon Battle Against Transfer of the Forest Service to the Department of Interior INTERVIEW II (25 June 1963) 38 Second Echelon Battle Against Transfer of the Forest Service to the Department of Interior (continued) ; Congressional Contacts; The State Chamber of Commerce in Politics and Forestry; Anecdotes of Cabinet Members Visiting California INTERVIEW III (3 July 1963) 70 More About Congressmen; The Rise of Corporate Forestry; Professor immanuel Fritz; Botanist Willis L. Jepson; Congressman Martin Dies; Henry Wallace; The Presidents; Senator Wayne Morse; Rex Tugwell; Carl Alsberg INTERVIEW IV (16 July 1963) 122 Food and Agriculture Organization Mission; Point Four Mission INTERVIEW V (31 July 1963) 161 The Civilian Conservation Corps and Research; The Information and Education Division and Public Relations; University of California's Dean of Forestry Walter Mulford INTERVIEW VI (16 October 1963) 180 (With Guest Interviewer Paul Casamajor) Fields of Study in Forestry; Schools of Forestry INTERVIEW VII (29 October 1963) 209 The Experiment Station; Its Effect on and Relation to the School of Forestry; Further Remarks About Dean Mulford INTERVIEW VIII (5 November 1963) 232 The Forest Service and Power Companies; Claims — Swamp and Overflow; Kotok's Early Life INTERVIEW IX (9 January 1964) 266 Ties of American Forestry and European Forestry; Kotok's Personal Contacts ; Visitors to the United States Such As Shenk and Others ; With International Organizations When in the Washington Office ADDENDUM I (14 August 1963) 277 Mrs. Ruth Catherine Show Kotok Discusses Growing Up in Palo Alto; Her Brother, S. Bevier Show; The Role of a Forester's Wife ADDENDUM II (9 January 1964) 319 Biographical Information on Stuart Bevier Show; His Con tributions to the Food and Agriculture Organization ADDITIONAL MATERIALS LIST 333 INDEX 334 PREFACE This interview was made possible by a grant from Resources for the Future, Inc., under which the Regional Oral History Office of The Bancroft Library, University of California at Berkeley, embarked on a series of interviews to trace the history of policy in the U.S. Forest Service. Dr. Henry Vaux, Professor of Forestry, University of California, Berkeley, was the Principal Investigator of this project. Eighteen interviews were undertaken in the years between 1964, when the project received its first grant from Resources for the Future, and 1970 when the last funds were expended with five interviews still to be completed. In 1974 a grant from the History Section, U.S. Forest Service, enabled the Office to finish the remaining interviews. The Regional Oral History Office was established to tape record autobiographical interviews with persons prominent in the recent history of the West and of the nation. The Office is under the administrative supervision of the Director of The Bancroft Library. Willa Klug Baum Department Head 1 July 1974 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library University of California at Berkeley THE RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE SERIES Tape-recorded interviews on THE HISTORY OF FOREST POLICY, 1900-1950 Clapper, Henry, Executive Secretary, Society of American Foresters. The Society of American Foresters, 1968 Crafts, Edward C. , Assistant Chief, U.S. Forest Service Congress and the Forest Service, 1950-1962, 1975 Dana, Samuel T. , Dean, School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan. The Development of Forestry in Government and Education, 1967 Gill, Tom, Forester, author, head of Pack Foundation. The Summary of the Career of Tom Pill, International Forester, 1969 Granger, Christopher, Assistant Chief, U.S. Forest Service. Forest Management in the United States Forest Service, 1965 Hall, R. Clifford, Director, Forest Taxation Inquiry. Forest Taxation Study 1926-1935, 1967 Hartzog, George B. , Director, National Park Service. The National Parks, 1965, 1973 Hornaday, Fred, Executive Vice-president of American Forestry Association. The American Forestry Association; 1928-1964, 1968 Keller, John W. , Forester, Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters. Recollections of Gifford Pinchot, 1974 Kelley, Evan W. , Director, Guayule Rubber Project, U.S. Forest Service. The Making of a Regional Forester, 1974 Kotok, I. E. , Assistant Chief, U.S. Forest Service, state and private forestry; research. The U.S. Forest Service; Research, State Forestry, and FTo, 1975 Kniepp, Leon F. , Assistant Chief, U.S. Forest Service. Land Planning and Acquisition, U.S. Forest Service, 1975 Marsh, Raymond, Assistant Chief, U.S. Forest Service. Collected papers and unedited transcript of interviews Peirce, Earl, Chief, Division of State Cooperation, U.S. Forest Service. Salvage Programs Following the 1938 Hurricane, 1968 Pomeroy, Kenneth, Chief Forester for American Forestry Asso ciation. The American Forestry Association; Operations, 1968 Ringland, Arthur, Regional Forester, Region 3, U.S. Forest Service; Secretary of National Conference on Outdoor Recreation; founder of CARE. Conserving Human and Natural Resources, 1970 Roberts, Paul, Director, Prairie States Forestry Projects, U.S. Forest Service. Forest Service Issues and Legislation to 1951, 1974 Shepard, Harold B., in charge of Insurance Study conducted by the Northeastern Experiment Station with Yale University. The Forest Insurance Study, 1967 Sieker, John H., Chief, Division of Recreation and Lands, U.S. Forest Service. Recreation Policy and Administration in the United States Forest Service, 1968 Swift, Lloyd, Chief, Division of Wildlife Management, U.S. Forest Service. Wildlife Policy and Administration in the United States Forest Service^ 1968 ill DESCRIPTION OF SERIES Interviews: A Documentation of the Development of the U.S. Forest Service 1900-1950 This Resources for the Future interview series on the birth and development of the Forest Service began as a sudden disturbance in the ever-active brain of Ed I. Kotok in early 1964. One wintry day in early 1964, as we were putting away the tape recorder after one of our last ses-" sions together, I mentioned casually that I would not be in the Bay Area for the summer: I had to go East. Ed's eyebrows shot up. It was obvious that a final piece had fallen into place in a mental jigsaw that he had been carrying around for some time. He said that there were quite a few of his retired colleagues still in Washington, D.C., some of whom were the original "Pinchot boys." If only, he mused, the Oral History Office could find financing for an entire series on the Forest Service, maybe from a foundation like Resources for the Future. Henry Vaux, then Dean of the School of Forestry at Berkeley, was the logical one to turn to. He gave advice and counsel on a priority system for selecting the men to interview. From deep in his perspective of special ized knowledge of forest policy, he saw the opportunity to preserve informa tion that would otherwise be permanently lost.* At best, the tape-recorded memoirs could reveal, more frankly than annual reports and official letters, some of the political and economic facts of life that influenced the develop ment of policy in the agency. The actual decision-making process, told first-hand and linked with the official rationales and actions on particular issues, could be useful in appraising contemporary policy questions and their multiple alternatives. Today, as in 1905, forest policy is a field where special interest pressures are in a state of varying equilibrium with the public interest. To see the policies and decisions of the past materialize, to witness through the administrators' eyes the expected or (more often) the surprising effect of those actions in the past - such a visible continuum could provide a depth of experience for those who are presently wrestling with the economic and political disequalibriums of resource management. Horace Albright, a veteran interviewee of oral history operations, lent his encouragement to us and probably his enthusiasm to his friends on the board of Resources for the Future. We contacted three top-priority potential interviewees to see if they were willing to indulge us in our tape recording scheme, and we received a yes, a no, and a maybe. This changed to two yeses and, in place of the no, a substitute interviewee equally as val uable. By late spring, a modest grant to the Oral History Office marked the beginning of the series, Henry Vaux agreed to be Principle Investigator, and we were off. See appendix, Letter from Vaux to Fry, March 20, 1964. iv Structure of the Series The series, with a working title of "The History of Forest Service Policy, 1900-1950", began and ended as a multiple use project. Its major aim was to provide tape-recorded interviews with men in the Fotest Service who during most of the half-century had been in policy-making positions. The series also served as a pilot attempt to try the relatively new technique of oral history as a method of gathering primary information within a specific subject field (one which might be defined here as the origins, operations, and effects of policy in public administration). The method, in turn, was hung on the superstructure of a list of retirees who were considered to be able to contribute the most to that subject. Each major interview contains the standard stock of questions on Service-wide controversies of the past: the attempts to reorganize the con servation agencies - specifically, to transfer the Forest Service out of the Department of Agriculture; the efforts to get passage of federal legislation that would have regulated timber management on private lands; the competition with other agencies and with private owners for land acquisition determina tions; on -going issues, such as competing land uses like mining or grazing, which often reflected years of patient negotiation with and bearing up under the pressures of well-organized special interest groups. Each interview covers as well topics that are unique to that particu lar person's experiences, so that tracing "policy in its origins, operations, and effects," necessitated a detective job to discover, before an interview took place, those policy questions with which the particular individual had had experience. It was here that an interviewee's own contemporaries frequently gave guidance and counsel; advice was also provided by academic specialists in forest economics, recreation, fire control, silviculture, and so on. Given questions on the same subjects, the interviewees sometimes speak to them from contrasting points of view, and thereby provide a critique of inner validity for the series. For instance, while Lee Kneipp and Ed Crafts comment on the informal power in Congress of the Forest Service's widespread constituency, other men (such as Ed Kotok) who actually had been in the field and involved in local public relations verify how the system worked. The structure of an oral history series depends on many factors beyond the control of the oral historian: the health of the interviewee, his willing ness to interview, and how much he can or will say about his career. The fluid state of our interview list caused our cup to runneth over more than once with more interviewees than we could add to our original list of three. Twice the list was enlarged - and fortunately funded further by Resources for the Future. The phenomenon of expansion was due largely to the tendencies of a few memoirists (especially Christopher Granger, Lee Kneipp, and Raymond Marsh) to touch lightly on events in which he had only slight involvement, then refer the interviewer to the man who could tell the whole story from a leader's eye view. The result is that some of the interviews on the accom panying list are one-subject, supplemental manuscripts. Results One will find more comprehensive and general information in the longer interviews of Christopher Granger (who was the head of timber man agement), Ed I. Kotok (Research; state and private forestry), Leon F. Kneipp (land acquisition and management), Arthur Ringland (field activities in setting up the new forests under Gifford Pinchot) , Tom Gill (international forestry), Ed Crafts (Congressional relations), and Samuel T. Dana (Research; forestry education), the latter interviewed in cooperation with Elwood Maunder of the Forest History Society. Earle Clapp (research, Acting Chief), shunned the tape-recorder and is currently proof-reading his own written account of his career, a manuscript that will be deposited in Bancroft Library along with the other interviews. The single subject interviews consist of Paul Roberts on the shelter belt project of the New Deal; R. Clifford Hall's account of the Forest Taxa tion Inquiry, coupled with H.B. Shepard's story of the Insurance Study. A view from without is provided by Henry Clepper of the Society of American Foresters and Fred Hornaday and Kenneth Pomeroy of the American Forestry Association - a trio who provide a fitting introduction to the series for the reader. George B. Hartzog, Director of the National Parks, comments on the relationship of the two agencies; Earle Peirce gives a first-hand account of the first time the Forest Service stepped in as principal agent in salvage operations following a disastrous blow-down on both state and private timber- lands. John Sieker and Lloyd Swift both contributed a telling picture of their respective divisions of recreation and wildlife management. Without these shorter, f rom-the-horses ' mouth accounts, the series would have sacri ficed some of its validity. There are of course still other leaders who can give valuable historic information on policy development, men who perhaps can be included in the Forest Service's current efforts to further document its own Service history. With a backward glance at the project, one can say that the basic objective of tape-recording, transcribing, and editing interviews with top men in the Forest Service was realized. The question of quality and value of the interviews must be decided later, for the prime value will be measured by the amount of unique material scholars use: the candid evaluations of leaders by other leaders, the reasons behind decisions, and the human reflec tions of those in authority; how they talked in conversation, how they devel oped trends of thought and responded to questions that at times were neutral, at other times challenging. The value of the series also depends on how many leads lie in the pages of the transcripts - clues and references that a researcher might otherwise never connect in his mind or in the papers and reports he reads. Since this series was built with tentative hopes that in the end it could justify itself both as a readable series of historical manuscripts and as a valuable source of easily retrievable, primary material, a master index of uniform entries from each volume was developed after the transcripts came out of the typewriter and landed on the editor's desk. Dr. Henry Vaux helped in setting up the broad areas of subjects to be included, and as entries were . : • • , i . vi added, the Forest History Society at Yale became interested. At present the development of the index is a cooperative enterprise between the Oral History Office, the Forest History Society, and the U.S. Forest Service. A master index of uniform headings from each volume is available at the Oral History Office and at the Forest History Society. By-products One frequently finds that the oral history process is a catalytic agent in the world of research. First, it stimulates the collection of personal papers and pictures which, while valuable during the interview in developing outlines and chronology, are later deposited either with the transcript in Bancroft Library or with related papers in another repository. Another happy by-product comes from the more literate who are moti vated by the interview to do further research and writing for publication. Thus, Paul Roberts is currently writing an entire book, complete with all the documentation he can locate, on the shelter belt, its whys and hows. Ray Marsh is meticulously combining both writing and recording in a pain staking, chapter-by-chapter memoir which will cover his earliest reconnaisance days, the administrative posts in New Mexico, the fledgling research branch, and his work with Congress; his stories of those earliest years have already appeared in American Forests. Tom Gill, fortunately frustrated by the brevity of the interviews, which were condensed into the short travel schedule of the interviewer, is writing a more comprehensive treatise that will no doubt be unique in this or any other forest history: Tom Gill on Gill and inter national forestry. Also, there is the self-perpetuation phenomenon-- oral history begetting more oral history. The interview with National Park Director George Hartzog has led to serious efforts on the part of the Park Service to establish a regular annual interview with the Director-- not necessarily for publication. Also under consideration is a Service-wide plan for oral history interviews of all its major leaders, which could serve as a continu ation of the series conducted by Herbert Evison in the early 1960's. Ed Kotok did not live to see the finished series. Just as Lee Kneipp never saw his finished manuscript, and Chris Granger's final agreement, covering the use of his manuscript, was found still unmailed on his desk after his death. All other contributors, however, were able to devote hun dreds of man hours to the reading, correcting, and approving process required in finishing a manuscript. Although Ed did not get to read and approve his own transcript, all who knew him will agree that the series stands as one more symbol of his propensity for plunging in where few have tread before. (Mrs.) Amelia R. Fry Interviewer - Editor UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION March 20, 196!* KELEY 4, CALIFORNIA Mrs. Amelia R. Fry Regional Cultural History Project ij-86 General Library Campus Dear Mrs. Fry: The significance of the proposed project for securing Information from certain selected people long associated with the development of the U. S. Forest Service rests on two facts. On the one hand, there are a email number of men still alive whose personal experience and memory covers virtually the entire history of the growth and development of the Forest Service since 1905. If we are to secure the best possible insights and understanding of the history of the Forest Service as a conservation agency the recollections and mature viewpoints of these men who were associated with the Service throughout their careers would provide unique and invaluable source material. The time remaining during which this information could be collected is obviously limited. A second juatification is found in the feet that to date there has been no comprehensive historical evaluation of the role of the Forest Service as a conservation agency. Ise has published a critical history of National Park policy under the sponsorship of Resources for the Future which serves as an initial evalua tion of the National Park Service. About 1920 Ise published a study on forest policy but that is obviously now confined to only a very small part of the significant history. A series of/views such as are suggested in the present proposal could provide both new source material and the inspiration for a critical historical evaluation of the Forest Service. The results would be of the greatest importance to the field of forest policy. The Forest Service pioneered both the articulation and the implementation of the concepts of sustained yield and multiple use as policies for natural resource management in the U. S. It instituted numerous innovations in the organization and administration of programs of handling federally owned resources. It developed on a largo scale new techniques for cooperation with state and local units of government in such natters EG fire protection and landowner'' education. It pioneered in a number of respects in the development of research as a functioning guide to operational policy of the government. Each of the contributions just enumerated are of the greatest possible significance for forest policy and for important implications going far beyond the natural resources field. The project here proposed would throw much light on the way in which each of the innovations noted above developed and would contribute greatly to our understanding of them. Very sincerely yours, Henry J. Vaux Dean vii INTERVIEW HISTORY Edward I. Kotok's Who's Who entry duly records that his forty years with the U.S. Forest Service was primarily in research, except for four years in the forties as assistant chief in charge of state and private forestry work; another exception was his retirement in 1951 in order to go to Chile as the first head of a mission set up by the new Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The record also shows how, after getting his M.S. in forestry at the University of Michigan, he began as a lowly forest examiner on the Shasta National Forest, became a supervisor of the Eldorado four years later, was put in charge of fire control for the entire Region Five four years after that, then was made director of the California Forest and Range Experiment Sta tion at Berkeley for fourteen years — until he joined the Washington Office in 1940. In 1944, he became assistant chief in charge of research. However a record of his service may read, one wonders if his major con tribution to the Forest Service was his ability to organize and administer re search during its formative years of development — impressive as that was — or if his indelible trademark was his propensity to bring to any task an innate sense of the political environment, its limitations and its potential. Perhaps the political milieu had always seemed crucial to him, ever since he'd had to pose as a sick child at the age of four to enable his anti-Czarist father to travel across Russia and escape. And later, when he arrived in the United States at age eight, a political sensitivity was again necessary for social survival. He learned the new language, he related to children from diverse immigrant groups, and when fluctuating family fortunes dictated moves from one section of New York to another, he experienced a succession of neighborhoods varying widely in economic level. On the other hand, perhaps his belief that support from the larger com munity is indispensable came as the result of his entering, in 1910, a thorough ly Pinchotized Forest Service. As he explained in 1964 in a speech delivered on the Berkeley campus: "...In this [1910] climate of public lands disposal, the pioneer American forester initiated and formulated indigenous American forest policy, namely, Bring the facts before the American Public. Startle them with the truth. Have a plan for action. And Congress usually approved. Thus the American forester, in contrast to our European colleagues, recognized that professional foresters in America would have to be special pleaders, propa gandists and educators if the country's need for proper handling of forest lands were to be fulfilled., ,."* *Handwritten speech in Kotok supplementary papers, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. viii With his contribution to research and his eager participation in wider public affairs, he still had energy to defend the Forest Service in contro versies. For example, see his debate with Horace Albright over the latter 's article on national parks vs. forest service lands, Sierra Club Bulletin, April-May, I960.* Within the Forest Service, he -joined with Earle Clapp in defending his agency against transfer to the Interior Department, and he would like to have seen federal regulation of cutting on private lands. And still he had energy to spare. At the time of our interviews, he was also leading regular community meetings on United Nations affairs; in a public debate with the local U.N. antagonists, he won a victory so sweet he was still bouncing and chortling over it at my next visit. Kotok's interviews were the aftermath of a series of four special graduate seminars he held at the School of Forestry at Berkeley in the spring of 1963. After this office taped his lectures, which were on the history of the profes sion, the School suggested that Kotok's own history be taped. After a planning session with Kotok, counsel from forestry dean Henry Vaux and others, and research at U.C. and in the old Region Five files, we held our first session June 18, 1963, in the Kotoks' Walnut Creek home. Even though their house was in downtown Walnut Creek, its charm was its aura of the forest. Inside, perpetual shadows from heavy beamed ceilings and rough wood paneling were dispelled only by moderate-sized windows and by pools of light from lamps. In the den where we interviewed, indoor plants curtained the windows. Light glinted off copper and brass, and objets d'art represented both hemispheres. Outside, beyond the garden, the creek gnawed at the bank, the better to deposit the soil in the Pacific, and the noisy construction work to contain the erosion sometimes competed with Ed's voice on the tapes. Ed usually met me with his hands bristling with notes for the day's session. He sat in a round, half-enveloping chair woven of split bamboo, each intersection of which raised its own voice as if in happy relief when he shifted his weight — a chorus faithfully recorded by the microphone. A photograph would have won a prize: the round, encompassing chair, the round little man with a round, round face surrounded by a fringe of white hair and haloed by the circle of light from the lamp on the redwood wall behind him. But a still camera could not have captured Ed. As he talked, he sometimes pulled his fingers through strands of white hair when not gesticulating to emphasize words or moving his glasses up to the top of his head and down again. The chair seemed to be constantly on the verge of not coping with his energy. He had an impish grin when he delicately implied a maneuver best not stated bluntly, or when relating a successful bureaucratic coup that was the result of long plans and effort. When he thoroughly enjoyed a bit of irony, a grin would break through and his eyes nearly disappear. He followed his notes carefully; he usually had a theme he had thought out beforehand which he was intent on *See Additional Materials List, p. 333. ±x developing in the interview. We were interrupted only when Ed's flow of prose hit a sudden block — usually a name — whereupon he would call to Ruth for help. If Ed could supply the first letter, she inevitably sang out the name from the kitchen. We always had lunch in their dining room, which was brighter, more windowed than the study. We three mixed rapid-fire conversation on current events with plans for the next taping session. Ruth's own perspicacity became apparent, and we agreed that a session on foresters' wives was in order for August 14. Part of her interview is an effort to make more visible the activity that lay behind a single item in the Region Five Weekly Bulletin of 1917:* a club was to be formed of wives of men "in some way associated with the forest either as employees or as users," for the "general betterment of all social and civic conditions." The other section of her interview deals with her woman's per ception of Chilean society and FAO. Another interview which was running concurrently, as a result of Ed's urging, was that of Ruth's brother, retired Regional Forester S. Bevier Show, whose health was extremely fragile. His life ended before we could finish the interview, so Ruth, an experienced free lance writer, wrote an introduction to Show's transcript,* and Ed further complemented it with the session on Show's contributions to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. In the meantime, Professor Paul Casamajor agreed to sit in on Ed's October 16 session to ask questions as a part of the research for a book on the history of the school of forestry at the University of California. Ed came to value the oral history technique as a painless way to summarize a career, and — partly because I was going east for the summer — he began formu lating ways in which his retired colleagues in Washington could be so recorded. Much of our time was spent on making his vision materialize, with transcribing of Ed's interview and of those on the larger project postponed several times while new grants were pursued from Resources for the Future. In 1966, Ed suddenly died, without having had a chance to go over the transcript himself. Other sources of funding were probed but without success. In 1974, the Forest Service suddenly rescued the transcript with funds to complete the Kotok and several other in-limbo forestry interviews. The trans cript was carefully audited with the tapes, both for validity and also for those occasional Kotokisms that were a delight to his friends and colleagues — his personal mutations of English phrases. It seemed that at times Ed's brain processed ideas too rapidly for precise use of English phraseology. *March 3rd issue. **S. Bevier Show, National Forests in California, Regional Cultural History Project, 1965. : • ' • . . ' : . ' • , : ' | • . • • ' • ' ' " • ' • • ' • ' : . ' • • i - : ' ' . • ' ' ' , • • ' . . • • • .. . | • , . : • Also filed in The Bancroft Library is a typewritten manuscript by S. Bevier Show on the history of fire control in California. There is also his manuscript of perils and pranks of himself and Ed as young forest rangers before World War I. Both contain much about Ed Kotok in California, before his energies and abilities expanded to national horizons. Amelia R. Fry Interviewer-Editor 10 December 1975 Regional Oral History Office 486 The Bancroft Library- University of California at Berkeley INTERVIEW I The U.S. Forest Service and International Forestry; The Formation of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization; The Role of Foresters in International Relations; The FAO Mission in Chile; Foresters Trained for Community Leadership; Example of Kotok in Eldorado National Forest; Second Echelon Battle Against Transfer of the Forest Service to the Department of Interior. (Recorded June 18, 1963) Kotok: In discussing the international aspects insofar as American foresters participated, it might be well to speak a little about European forestry and how its international interests arose. It is well to remember that the European forestry, and by that I mean 'forest lands set aside for permanent timber production (it generally included hunting privileges) dates back to the time when royal estates were set aside for the king and the nobles, and the very nature of ownership insured perpetuity of use in family and plans for permanent management. Thus Europe started with the primogenitor and the entailed estate, which insured continuity of ownership and continuity of management. We in the United States from our very beginning eliminated the aspects of primogenitor and entailed estates, which are forbidden by law. Thus the character of ownership in itself was a perfect mechanism for insuring continuous use of land for one purpose. Fry: We do allow inherited property. Kotok: No, no. You can't leave, in perpetuity, land with any entailment saying that you should do this and that. Only during a certain period. We have no entailed estate. And we don't allow that [only] the oldest son shall inherit. That was the mechanism. The oldest son inherited, and he had commitments to follow what his progenitors had decided on. That was one reason why it was so easy in Europe to under take forestry, and as I tried to develop in my thesis, until we had a mechanism like a corporation, which is endless in life, forestry was difficult under single-family ownership. The father was not certain that the child would follow what he set out to do; you do not commit the next generation what it will do. Fry: In other words in the United States, then, this has to be either under corporate arrangement or governmental. Kotok: Corporate or public. Now I come to the next case, if you're re ady . Now as far as public forests are concerned in Europe, they really date from the time of Napoleon. He took over all the royal and noble lands in France and converted them to public forests. That was the beginning actually on a big scale of public forests in the world — public in the sense that the state owned them, not the royalty or the nobility. Now insofar that one considers that the king was the state, then we're in the area of semantics. Fry: Yes. [Laughter] Kotok: Now I raise these questions about the character of the development of forestry both in Europe and the United States as background for how the international aspects developed in forestry. Early in the 1900's the European foresters, which meant largely under the guidance of the French, the Germans, and the Scandinavian countries, initiated international congresses of forestry in which the British participated, and of course the British invited their colonial representatives, and the United States joined early in these congresses. The ones I specifically recall: in the thirties one was held in the — twenties rather--one was held in Hungary in which the United States participated, and one was held before the Second World War in Italy, in Rome, in which the United States participated. So there was an attempt then of a meeting of minds. Fry: Did you attend any of these meetings? Kotok: No, I did not. When the League of Nations was set up, under the pressures from the Scandinavian countries a section on forestry was established. A man who was a participant in the secretariat of the League of Nations in the forestry division was one Igon Clasinger, whose nativity is difficult to define because originally he was a Pole. When that part of Poland became Czechoslovakia, he was a Czech, and then later when the boundaries were resettled he was a Pole again. So no one really knew what his nationality was. But he was a member of the Secretariat in the League of Nations. The League of Nation's meetings on forestry Americans didn't have much interest in. We weren" t in the League of Nations in the first place, but we didn't participate in their meetings. The main object appears to me of the secretariat for forestry in the League of Nations was to furnish basic data on supply and demand — market information; it was designed primarily to stabilize the timber markets. Fry: So it was an economic-- Kotok: Yes, there is nothing to show that it attempted to promote forestry internationally. The important thing to remember is that this was largely an eonomic grouping largely supported by big lumber barons of Europe, particularly the pulp and paper companies that were trying to maintain prices, imports, exports- things of interest in trade. Fry: But they were not interested in forestry? Kotok: There is nothing to show that they—they probably tried to promote internally information regarding forestry, but the main objective was economics. They dealt with by-products in forestry which was beginning to develop, how they would modify market conditions. I mention Egon Glasinger because he'll appear a little bit later as I develop my theme. So there was this League of Nations and its forestry section. Then about the thirties there was another movement by research men in forestry in Europe to hold a convocation, and they formed an association on a very informal basis. They met at set times; papers were read. It brought the workers in forestry together, but it had no guiding principles to set it up as an authorized organization representing governmental units. Fry: These were the scientific symposia? Kotok: The scientific groups, that's right. During my regime I was asked to contribute for their expenses, and I got the first approval from Congress that we could include small expenditures to support this research organization. Our contribution wasn't very great; it amounted to less than a couple of hundred dollars a year, but we contributed that, and we paid for the publication of papers to facilitate meetings. Fry: Did you get to go? Kotok: No, I didn't go purposely; at that period in my career I preferred to give others in my organization, the younger men, a chance to be participants, rather than the chief participating in all activities, and I followed that principle as far as I could. Then the next point of interest that we might record deals with the beginnings of the United Nations. Those of us who lived in Washington were fully informed of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in which the first consideration was given to the formation of the League of Nations. Fry: Let me place you right at this point. You were in Washington, weren't you, in the Forest Service in State and Private Forestry? Kotok: Yes. Then I went into research. But the important thing to remember is that this [was an] international organization and possibilities of a United Nations} again following somewhat the formula of the League of Nations, foresters recognized that here was an opportunity perhaps where we could form an inter national agency tied in some way with the League of Nations or the United Nations or whatever international agency might be set up. So that foresters in and around Washington were talking about it. Fry: How had the congresses worked out? Had they fallen by the wayside more or less? Kotok: I'm glad you asked that because I want to report the last congress. In the last congress that was held in Rome, Hitler and Mussolini had of course already arrived in power, and the fascists and Nazis captured the organization — captured it insofar as they determined what the agenda would be, who the officers were — And the American and Canadian delegations walked out of the conference. We withdrew whatever support we gave to it. Fry: Who were some of the Americans? Kotok: One of the Americans was Sam Dana. Well, he played the most important part; he was the head of the delegation. Tom Gill was in it, and Chris Ratchford represented the Forest Service. Our delegation was made up of a few members of the Forest Service, very few, but mostly of members of forestry schools and occasionally a state forester. The forestry school men took major leadership in the international field at that time. Fry: Did this dissolve the international congresses, then? Kotok: The congress died a natural death when we walked out, and there was no support. Then the war came on, and of course it went to pieces. Now we knew there was an opportunity of building another international organization representing forestry interests. At about the same time Secretary Wallace, who was always interested in the food problem and who furthermore was a great believer that the world ought to have as at the time of Joseph a world granary to take care of the needy in time of need, was intrigued with the Kotok: possibility of an international organization that would deal with food and nutrition. He also held that if we could cure the ills that came from undernourishment, that many of our international problems could be more readily solved. Another man (now Lord Orr) who appeared on the horizon about this time is John Orr, who was a famous nutritionist in Great Britain who held the belief that the ills of the world could be traced to malnutrition. He went so far as to say that even in countries that had enough food, bad diets were just as harmful as starvation itself. And he joined forces with Wallace in promoting the idea that this was the opportunity to start an international organization that would deal with food and agriculture. They sold that to the president, and the decision was made to set up an interim commission to study the possibilities of starting a world organization on food and agriculture. This antedated the establishment of the United Nations; this was in 1944. Fry: This was a presidential commission? Kotok: No. This was a commission in which the allied countries authorized the convocation of an interim commission in which delegates from each of the allied countries would participate and consider the feasibility and the practicability of establishing a food and agricultural organization. The leading men for originating it probably credit can be given to John Orr and probably Wallace. When it was established, it was my good fortune to be placed as a member on the interim commission. The American members represented the major fields in agriculture. Forestry was not still in it. Fry: Oh, it's not? Kotok: No, I'm anticipating. I'll show you how we bought in. We, the foresters around Washington, had a very fine relationship; we met often, we had common problems to discuss, and our section meetings of the society were very active in participating in the more difficult problems that confronted forestry nationally and internationally. We knew that Food and Agriculture was starting, and a small group of foresters called a conference. At the original conference — I don't recall all who participated, but among the prominent ones were Tom Gill, a forester who was a member of the Pack Foundation which helped support certain activities in the forestry schools; the chief of the Forest Service, Lyle Watts; myself; and of the forestry schools Dean H.S. Graves, ex-dean of Yale's forestry schools. We conceived the possibilities of starting a division or joining up with Food and Agriculture. Fry: Were you appointed to the commission before anyone had an idea of putting forestry in Food and Agriculture? Kotok: I jumped ahead a little. I'll get to it. Now in Washington at that time with the same idea of forming an international branch in Food and Agriculture was Egon Glasinger erstwhile of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and League of Nations and waypoints . He was in Washington with the Czech delegation in the Czech embassy. He was promoting the same thing, and he came in contact with us. So Igon routed around other areas where he could get support, and he worked with the Norwegians. In the Norwegian embassy there was a man named Felstat, who was a lumberman from Norway, and he joined forces. Fry: Was he in Washington? Kotok: He happened to have been in Washington, and then we got his support, corresponded with him, and we met. We devised then a means of how we could win in and have a place on the interim commission that had already been established so that we could be in the commission and consider the aspects of forestry. Well, that took a lot of manipulating. One important member in this interim commission that was already appointed — but forestry hadn't been included yet--was a man whose name escapes me now from Australia. He was charged with the organizational aspects of the interim commission dealing with such things as the area and field that each subcommittee would deal with, facilities made available to the commission, and the housekeeping requirements to make it work. He was a very able and capable man; he later became a very warm friend of mine and warm supporter of forestry. But at this stage of the game he held strongly that if you diversified and included too many things in the Food and Agriculture, its major objective of raising food and stabilizing diets would be lost sight of. And he had many supporters. By good fortune, however, the chairman of the interim commission was Mike Pearson, now heading the Canadian government. Fry: Before you got on it? Kotok: Yes. He was chairman. Our task then was to get our friend Roy Cameron down here quickly to begin working on Mike Pearson. Fry: Explain a little more to me how Roy Cameron fits in the picture. Kotok: Roy Cameron was chief of Forestry in Canada, and our contacts with the Canadians were very close, and we had met with Roy on many occasions. So for these meetings with Mike Pearson we used our strongest bet--Dean Graves, although we briefed him strongly. Before we knew it, we were accepted and given a place on the interim commission with no promises that we would be in Food and Agriculture but that they would consider whether forestry should be included and on what basis. Fry: So Dean Graves worked with Mike Pearson? Kotok: Yes, to set up the provision that we would be invited into the commission, and then I was selected on the interim commission. The Americans in forestry on the commission were Tom Gill, Lyle Watts, Henry Solon Graves, and myself. We had clerical help and others, but we were what we would call the voting members. The countries that were represented on the interim commission were our allies, those particularly that had fairly strong repre sentation in Washington at that time. We were still at war, you remember. Fry: By strong representation, you mean--? Kotok: They had here either embassies or the temporary governments that were set up or whatever the mechanics. Among the countries that participated, of course, Canada was a strong member. Great Britain-- We had a British representative, but he wasn't too active in the forestry interim commission. I don't know why, but the British group didn't have a forester, so they left it entirely to us. They didn't contribute very much to our early considerations. Fry: Did John Orr share--? Kotok: John Orr represented Food and Agriculture and in his interim commission he dealt with food and nutrition. Fry: Was he in this commission? Kotok: He was in this interim commission. He represented the food. He was a very important man. The interim commission was made up of divisions, each one dealing with a subdivision of agriculture. We came in as part of the agricultural picture in forestry, and we had our interim commission; then there was another interim commission that had marketing and another one that dealt with the various fields that agriculture touches in its development. So it had an Kotok: economic section and a scientific section that dealt with research in agricultural aspects, for example. I was going to give you the list of some of the other European countries. Fry: Yes: Canada, Great Britain, -- Kotok: Felstat represented Norway and was an important member. The other ones that I recall as being very important were the French, and they had a strong delegation. They participated with us on the interim commission. One man I remember very well, a capable man who spoke perfect English, Pierre Tervier. Other countries that were invited in had delegates, but the actual duty work that was done was by the names I've given. We sat there for one whole year almost, thrashing out step by step what a forestry section would have to do as a participant in an organization to be established and called a Food and Agriculture Organization. We considered its charter, its responsibilities, how it would be manned, the jobs it would try to do, how the recruitment would come from the various countries, and a thousand and one questions to be answered to those who still, in the general interim committee-- the big committee--would decide our fate—whether they would let us join or not. Now in those major meetings we were only allowed to send one representative, and we sent Dean Graves, who was chairman of our com mittee, and he did a remarkable job. He held his fire; he never showed his hand. He took briefing from the rest of the group pre paring for the meeting with great care; he knew his homework before he appeared at a meeting, prepared to answer all questions that might be raised. He had one ace in the hole; if they didn't allow us to join, we would immediately begin to formulate an international organization of forestry on its own. But we never had to use that threat. We had to make one concession, and we were happy to make it. Our friends in the fishery divisions in Canada and the United States and Norway became interested, and they made a provision that they too should be permitted to form a division in Food and Agriculture, and we were very happy to back them insofar as we could in joining the fold. Fry: They represent a considerable supporting element, don't they? Kotok: That's right—well, among the Scandinavian countries and then also in Canada. So they joined forces with us in having the products Kotok: of the forests and the products of the sea for food and housing added to the list of agricultural commodities, you see, that Food and Agriculture would join. The sea does furnish an awful lot of food. Fry: Yes, seems quite logical to me. Kotok: Yes, but they didn't have it at first. So that's the way that worked out. So then after this interim commission- Fry: You mean that was your concession? Kotok: Actually we didn't concede anything; we helped them get in. We had no power to concede — the general committee would. But we did everything we could to make sure that the main American delegate who made the decision was instructed by the State Department and the Department of Agriculture to have fisheries enter in. Obviously, the voting was by countries, and each country had one vote on the final decision as to the forming and the kind of food and agriculture organization [it would be] ; our task was to be sure that the State Department delegate who carried that re sponsibility was fully informed as to the aspirations, desire, and hopes of the forestry group and ultimately instructed that he would support our entrance on the conditions that we set up as criteria for entering into the organization. Fry: Who was this in the State Department? Kotok: I don't remember. He was very amiable, but I can't remember his name . Fry: Did everyone from the forestry section of the interim committee help to instruct and educate this man from the State Department? Kotok: No. We worked that very carefully. We met him, but the one who did the instructing and so on was Graves. Graves carried the contacts. Too many cooks spoil the brew, and we were very careful. No one on the interim commission undertook any job without full instruction and knowledge of the head of our delegation. We were very meticulous in carrying those provisions out, so frequently we were given assignments. I was given, for example, an assignment because I got close to the French to iron out differences of opinion. I went out with Tervier, took him out to lunch, felt him out and told him how we felt, we hoped that they could concede, etcetera. You 10 Kotok: were given assignments. My assignment largely dealt with analyzing and digesting our proposals and subjecting them to critical review as to meeting the overall needs of the United States in such an organization—the part we should play. And after preparing that, for the language we used Tom Gill, who is a writer by profession. He did the final editing to get it into form and ^character that reflected the American point of view. Fry: Said exactly what you wanted to say. Kotok: Well yes, then we would go over it word by word, but Tom Gill was the draftsman of the final report. Fry: You probably have your final report somewhere, don't you? Kotok: Oh yes. That one we can probably get. Fry: Might be good to include it here. Kotok: I'll see through Tom Gill if I can get it. That would be an inter esting report; I don't know where it's ever been filed. It may be in the Forest Service. Fry: Maybe there's one in Forestry Library already. Kotok: I doubt it, but it might be. Fry: Could you give us some idea of what the most difficult issue was to resolve? Kotok: One of the issues that we had to resolve was this: Since our country would have to pay its way, how far we wanted to influence the main interim commission as to finances. We spent considerable time thinking of finances, too. And then what agencies in government would pay that part of f orestry--would it come out of forestry funds, or would it come out of a general fund from Congress? And we had to debate which way we would work when the final draft came up for congressional consideration. Then we had to consider or suggest a plan how delegates to those conventions would be drafted from American foresters. Would the State Department have the final decision? To what extent would the U.S. Forest Service have a decision? Would the Society of American Foresters have a part in it and how far the other forestry groups? So we set down certain guiding principles, and they've been followed. The delegates aren't all from one agency of govcrnment--that they are representative, that the schools are represented, that it would take in important lumbermen in some 11 Kotok: conferences and even include labor. We made all these provisions. Now to argue that out, we had to not only argue with ourselves as to the American point of view, but we wanted to set certain principles that the Europeans would include in theirs so it wouldn't be one-sided, and theirs would have the same area of coverage. Then we had to meet with them because they had ideas on coverage. So we had to iron out--yes, for example, the Scandinavian countries wanted more strong representation from their industries. The French wanted more from the government. You see, the French in forestry are government -minded; they have no private forestry tradition. Fry: Because of this long tradition? Kotok: Tradition, and the state forests and so on. The Scandinavians have a strong tradition of private forestry. Fry: Is it rather highly controlled? Kotok: Yes, by big companies, most of them. Then there are small owners that form collectives. You see, they had the collective—cooperatives , as we call them-- that came to us, and they led the world. They joined forces, and so they had a lot of power. Internationally, of course, you have to argue at length on points, but we wanted an American position for ourselves. We wanted a general position that would cover the international aspect. Then there was a lot of discussion on how they would recruit- - from what countries, what wage scale they would have. Knowing the competing wage scale for other positions, we wanted to be equal with them, but we wanted to have a say when the diagram for positions was set up so that we in forestry had similar opportunities for growth. There was also consideration on what would happen after the war—what provisions there would be for getting other countries in. There was even a beginning then; that was the remarkable thing. I think Tom Gill was probably the instrument in urging that; we had a job to be done in underdeveloped countries, and the forestry group would have that job. It wasn't merely an organization to protect those that have forestry like the old League of Nations in trade; it had other tasks to perform. And the French who were there had wide experience in their colonial Africa, so they came with rich experience of already developing in underdeveloped countries. So 12 Kotok: between the French and Tom Gill, who was internationally-minded, that one had a very prominent place in our agenda, and we pictured then the job that had to be done. Tom Gill was probably the best informed on Latin America, then, and he gave us what he knew about Latin America and the job to be done there. Then the French knew about Africa, and from India we had one man with rich experience there. We did get finally one Englishman. So it rounded out a picture of jobs yet to be done in the underdeveloped countries. But we have to be honest with ourselves - there was no conception that these colonies would become nations them selves. If that concept was there, it didn't show. Oh, the emerging nations idea-- I've got to be honest with myself. I don't recall that that came up at all. The only emerging nation that came up was the establish ment of Israel. Please refresh my history. What was India's status at this time? It was during the war, you see, 1944-45, that India got its independence. So it was just becoming independent? Just becoming — it had growing pains. Was there an "undeveloped" Southeast Asia? Southeast Asia was then in the hands of the Japanese. We hadn't gotten the Japanese out of there. They had captured Indochina and of course the French or the Dutch didn't hold out. They had left. So we had these colonial powers without colonies. Fry: Was there any thought, too, which was prevalent later as in the Marshall Plan, of helping the undeveloped or downtrodden nations, and beating the Russians to the punch? Kotok: There was no concern about Communism as such. Russia was our ally; she had to win if we were to win. Fry: But she was not in this conference? Kotok: No. We didn't have that in this conference. The reason was that the Russians had no forester in their group in Washington. Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: They had no forestry representative' 13 Kotok: They had no forester in their group in Washington. They may have had them in other interim commissions; they probably did--I couldn't tell you. But they didn't have them in forestry. We had foresters considering forestry problems with the most competent ones that we could get from the allied nations that were in Washington. That was the only way you could work. The war was on. You just didn't call a conference. Fry: I see. Kotok: The most important decision we had to make was who we would select as the first chief. Each country made its proposal, and then the conference was held in 1945 in Quebec — of Food and Agriculture — to which I was very happy to be an American delegate representing forestry. It was like coming back to old times, because here was Mike Pearson, chairman of the whole conference. He was offered the job at that time and could have had it probably to head the whole organization. But then it was decided to take John Orr as the head of the FAO. Fry: Why did Mike Pearson turn it down? Kotok: He wanted to remain in politics in Canada, but he could have had it if he wanted it. He conducted that conference remarkably. There was one incident worth relating. Of course, we had all the allied countries represented; only the allies were permitted to participate—each one having one vote. Russia had an enormous delegation, and they had some very capable foresters. They sat in with us, and we got very, very well acquainted. They were cooperative; they contributed to the thinking. One day when the plenary conference was called— we had plenary sessions and also committee sessions- Pearson as chairman of the conference announced that the Russians had walked out, and they left without saying goodbye to any of us. Pearson tried every means he had at his disposal through the British Government, the U«S. government to have them come back, but they walked out of FAO. Fry: On what grounds? Kotok: No one ever knew. It was one of the saddest things I've ever seen. Here we had been living with them for a week on the closest re lationship, and they walked out without even saying goodbye — by orders . Fry: You had no hint of what the difficulty was? 14 Kotok: No, never did. Fry: You mean probably there wasn't any? Kotok: Whatever the motives were, they pulled out. That was the first bombshell that fell in the Quebec meeting. At this Quebec meeting in our American delegation, we had two congressmen and two senators. Fry: Who were they? Kotok: Young of North Dakota. I'll tell you. I'll fill the names in later. There was a senator from Oklahoma and a congressman from Virginia--! won't give you his name because unfortunately we had difficulties with him. He didn't know how to take liquor, and it was my job to take care of him--sit up with him. We had also in our delegation, because of nutrition, the Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Parran. He was important. He helped me with the alcoholic. Anyway the decision we had to make at that conference was who was going to be chief of the new division, and since there were going to be so many Americans in other divisions, we felt quite certain that we had to get a European for that division. The French delegation had their chief forester there at the delegation, and his name was Marcel LeLoup. We talked him into leaving, really, the very fine job he had in France, but he could take his retirement so it worked in very nicely. He took his retirement from the French Forestry Service, because he was in the foreign service and they only had a short period to serve, you see, for their retirement. He had been in colonial service. He had lost an arm during the First World War. So he was a hero. So we got Marcel Leloup to accept . The second man in command was an American, S. B. Show, who was then regional forester in the California region. So he retired from the Forest Service and took the job at our urging and solicitation. One other character that's quite important: The French had a purchasing commission made up of very capable men, and among them was one we got to know, those of us in forestry, Jean Vanzant. We got the Food and Agriculture Forestry Section to take him over since he dealt with purchasing material for the war. I got to know him later; he was also very important in working on the Marshall Plan. Vanzant went in there to do whatever jobs he could to help in the new section. He was an important factor. He had a great deal of influence on the French Embassy. First of all, he was a member of the resistance force, and his uncle was 15 Kotok: very prominent in French politics. Most of the foresters of the French group, I would say, were on the leftist side — by leftist I mean not communist by a long shot, but they believed in liberali zation of such laws that France had dealing with social questions and a liberal policy toward their colonies, which they still considered might be theirs. So they were very liberal; I consider that the French in our delegation were probably the most liberal. Fry: By liberal in forestry, do you mean--? Kotok: Well, liberal I mean insofar as forestry has a social impact. Not liberal in the science of forestry, but forestry has an enormous impact on rural life and in other fields of endeavor. Fry: And they were more sensitive to this? Kotok: They were the most sensitive group there. Realistic, but very sensitive . I would say those that had the more aristocratic outlook were Scandinavian. They believed in the big ownership, you see, but the ones we happened to have gotten represented that. It was a personal point of view probably. So you have to distinguish between an official point of view and a personal point of view. Fry: The Scandinavians didn't have the idea of social responsibility? Kotok: They had this: That every owner had a social responsibility to keep his lands well. That they had to a high degree. But I'm talking about labor relationships and underdeveloped countries and so on in which they didn't have much experience. They had no great feeling for it. [interruption] Fry: You were just explaining the position of the French and of the Scandinavians . Kotok: What I'm speaking of is the social impact of forestry not only on the economy but the ways of life, you know, populations. Since the French had colonial experience and relationships to colonial populations had to be considered by them, it was more obvious that their interests would show whether pro or con. But they were on the liberal side. They felt that there was much to be done to improve the state of the native populations. They showed that early. One other international organization ought to be mentioned now, because the Americans had much to do with its establishment. That was the Pan American Union. It dates way back, but the American foresters interested our government as representatives in the Pan 16 Kotok: American Union to develop a section on forestry. So there was a section on forestry. Now, the Pan American Union came to life during the war because our relationships with Latin America were important, and obviously our interest in Latin America with the Good Neighbor Policy had been established. So there was a rejuvenation of the Pan American Union. That antedated its conversion to the Organization of American States. We as foresters kept in contact with it feeding it such information that the head of that division of forestry wanted. The requests were minimum. There wasn't really much done, but with this revival we asked our main delegate to the Pan American Union to put a shot in the arm of the forestry section. There was much to be done in forestry. We suggested that the Pan American Union in its conferences hold meetings of foresters of these countries within the Pan American Union agenda. The first such meeting in which forestry had a prominent part was in 1945 (we're still at war) in Caracas, Venezuela. I went as the American delegate in charge of the forestry delegation. The conference there tried to raise two questions: To what extent the Pan American Union itself could within the Latin America countries promote and stimulate advance ment in forestry in which the governments itself would have to take a prominent part? Secondly, we raised the quest ion- -knowing that Food and Agriculture would have a section in f orestry--how each of the Latin American countries, through its participation in Food and Agriculture, should make sure that its delegates would also have a forester to participate in the forestry division. Those were the general questions which we covered. I was there during the revolution, and it's interesting to relate that I ran into a number of [University of] Michigan graduates [in forestry]. They had a Michigan Club actually there that had taken law, medicine — different things. And we had a Michigan Day that they had for me. They kept asking me very interesting questions. How did I like the minister of agriculture whom I'd met? How did I like their president whom I'd met, and as a careful international delegate, my answers generally were, 'Very much," or innocuous answers. As I would talk they would laugh. Most of them were in the younger age group—the revolutionary age, in their early thirties probably. Finally they asked me where I was going tomorrow night. I said, "I don't know." Our group hadn't decided. He said, "You're not going anywhere. You're going to stay in the hotel, and we're going to see that you are there." And that's all they told me. 17 Kotok: So I reported that to our embassy, and they laughed. I didn't know what it was all about. That night there was the revolution, and there were my Michigan group protecting me in the hotel. It was a bloodless revolution. The next morning when we woke up there was a change of government. But the ignorance of our embassy startled me. Fry: This particular complaint is coming from many quarters. Kotok: But I'm giving an incident. I'm bringing them information, and they laughed it off. And these were the revolutionaries. Fry: These were Venezuelans who had graduated from Michigan? Kotok: They were native Venezuelans. During the war, you know, we had a lot of Latin Americans, and it was a very interesting thing- -Michigan encouraged them to come there, and forestry had a lot of them. I later met all sorts of foresters that I became very close with that had studied during that period that we had given grants. And Sam Dana, whom I mentioned, was internationally -minded , and he got a lot of them to take forestry. Fry: Were they government foresters? Kotok: Some were lawyers; yes, one was a forester. But we met there as graduates of Michigan. So the Pan American Union came in, and they had a forestry division. In Costa Rica the Pan American Union—now the Organization of American States—started an experimental farm, and they added to it some forestry work, and we helped and guided them. Fry: This would be right down your alley, wouldn't it? Kotok: They wanted me at one time to go and teach there, but I couldn't see it. So we had this one in Caracas I'm relating now to the Pan American Union. The next meeting of the Pan American Union we had that dealt almost entirely with forestry was in Teres6polis, Brazil, in 1948. Then we held a later one in Uruguay in 1950 [ ?] and in Chile in 1950 [ ?] . I was the head of mission in all of those for forestry. Fry: Uruguay was when? Kotok: 1948. Now, the problems that the Pan American Union considered were complicated because the branch that dealt with forestry wanted 18 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: to maintain its autonomy and was not particularly happy about the development of the forestry division in Food and Agriculture as it affected Latin America. There was a conflict of interests. I was interested that you had the Food and Agriculture question as one of the main issues in your early meeting in 1945. Well, we considered it, but we didn't allow it to modify our general agenda. But the point I'm getting at--the Pan American Union with its section on forestry was concerned with building up of another international one that's going to deal on the same continents. So there was this rivalry. Our position then as the American delegation was to carry water on both shoulders encouraging the Pan American Union (now the Organization of American States) to continue its activities in forestry nevertheless to be an organizational participant as they could in Food and Agriculture forestry as well so that we would get maximum coordination. Whether it fits in here or not, I want to cover another thing that has to do with my meetings with Pan American Union as part of my relationship with State Department, otherwise. Digressing for a moment, during this same period I was also an American delegate to Food and Agricultural Organization's meeting in Quebec; the next one was in Copenhagen in Denmark in 1946; in Czechoslovakia dealing entirely with forestry in 1947; a meeting in Switzerland dealing with forestry alone in Geneva in 1947; and then the last one was in Montevideo, Uruguay. I combined the functions both in the Pan American Union and also as a delegate to Food and Agriculture. On the same trips? Some were the same trips; some not. Naturally I got pretty well acquainted with the State Depart ment personnel that dealt with Food and Agriculture, and I got to meet some very capable people, naturally. They used me in a very interesting way—whether they judged right or not doesn't matter. They thought that I could get closer to people than some others, and they would use me to feel out a delegation as to its position. I got very close to the British; they took sort of a fancy to me, and also in the Latin American countries I was more readily in rapport with them than some others. But that's the machinery that all delegations use. 19 Fry: In other words you would try to find out their positions ahead of time. Kotok: Yes, not spying but to break the ice. Generally when we had these FAO delegation meetings, I would run a daily paper for the group, and I got a kick out of it. For example, I would report one meeting which met and met and met and met: "No hits, no runs, no errors." [Laughter] Fry: Did you have very many of those? Kotok: No, that's the only one I can remember. Fry: This daily paper of yours went to the American delegation and also to friends in other delegations? Kotok: No. Fry: Just you boys? Kotok: I would have the little sidelights. There would be nothing else newsy-- just laughing at ourselves. The most important thing that I found was not to take yourself too seriously at these conferences. Lots of things happen; lots of mistakes are made. You never have a perfect day, but you have to size it up en toto. Of course, within our own delegation we as foresters had a say as one member of a delegation. There were others. We found in general that the State Department performed a great function in giving us instruction on how to take position—position papers. So before our delegates went to a conference, they made certain that we had a position paper which practically covered the area of authority that was vested in a delegate--how far he could go and what answers he should give to questions that would be raised which we were opposed to. There were many little tricks of the trade that one could learn, you know, by those capable in that manipulation of conferences. Frequently, however, they took stupid positions, I thought. Fry: I was wondering what you did when the State Department took a position-- Kotok: The State Department's say was the final say in all conferences. If they said no, that ended it even when the Secretary of Agriculture attended. He'd have to win them over. He could only appeal to the president. In other words the Secretary of State has the final say as to the position an American delegate will take at any conference which is as it should be. Otherwise there would be 20 Kotok: disorder and chaos. Now you have to convince them within our own bailiwick, you know, of the position that we thought was wrong. Frequently I differed with them; sometimes I was wrong, sometimes I was right. I found that of all the delegates that I had contacts with, no group came better prepared or worked harder than the British. They worked late into the morning hours preparing for every contingency that would come up. Their men were better able to get up and state their positions. Vocally we were not as skilled as they were. There was hesitancy, not clear cut, not precise. We didn't know how to dodge an issue as well as the British could, and they skillfully knew how to manipulate the mechanics of meetings . Fry: Ahead of time, as they were being set up? Kotok: And during the course of the meeting what position you take, because after all, you follow certain rules of law whether Robert's Rules or whatever. You have to know the mechanics of controlling and running a meeting, and how you could raise your objections. Fry: Were the Americans less experienced, or did we not have communi cation? Kotok: I think they had a richer experience. I think in the main the British sent more competent delegates. I think their civil servants came with greater experience than ours. We just didn't have it; I mean you don't acquire that. We just didn't have that. We didn't have as many people that went to conferences. Fry: Yes, this was new. Kotok: It was new. I am merely mentioning that. It wasn't an easy task as an American delegate. I told the story already of that Pan American Union meeting where I was the American delegate. I could only confer through the State Department; if I had doubts, I could cable, "What position do we take?" I could go through the American Embassy in Rio de Janeiro, and they helped. They sent me a consultee; the embassy was splendid. I ran into an ex-forester that was a big shot in the embassy. That helped too. He helped me buy jewelry for my wife. [Laughter] Well, anyway, we went to this conference — to show you how things can develop—and the Cuban wanted to bring into the agenda questions dealing with shipping, which was not a forestry question and had nothing to do with our agenda. I, of course, objected that we had to abide by the agenda, or if someone wanted to bring up something 21 Kotok: new, each delegation had to be given twenty-four hours notice so as to prepare a position and confer with its government at home. He persisted. So I got word to the embassy, "How do I get out of this dilemma?" They said, "Keep on talking. Don't let it come to a vote." I talked until two o'clock in the morning. Fry: A filibuster then? Kotok: Yes, we filibustered, kept asking questions, deferring the vote. That's exactly it we filibustered till two o'clock in the morning. Then when it got that time, they wanted a vote. We said, "We never vote after midnight." We had a rule. There was a rule that no votes be taken after midnight. Then I asked this Cuban why he did that. It showed our difficulties with Cubans. I said, "I thought that we were helping you. We're good friends." He said, "I did that in order to show my people back home that I'm free of American influence." A meeting was being held in Florianopolis [ ?] which is quite a little ways from Rio de Janiero, and the president was calling a special meeting for the delegation. Since we are by Latin initials Estados Unidos, we were the first country. I had to head the delegation that would be presented to the president. And I was at Florian&polis [ ?] ; I hadn't figured on going, but the embassy sent posthaste a car with a special driver to get me to the presidential meeting place where the Pan American delegation was to be greeted. I remember we went hurriedly through shaking hands, and one of the other American delegates who was behind me-- our delegation consisted of four--came through and turned his head. I said, "Why'd you turn your head?" He said, "I hadn't seen the president's face when I passed him." [Laughter] So there are embassies that are very helpful. I could relate another one that disturbed me a great deal. I was in Czechoslovakia when the revolution was on its way. Fry: This was right after the war? 22 Kotok: Yes, and I had met with many foresters and other people, and they invited me--Czechs--to go to a meeting of students (most of them Communists). I went up there with a translator, and the speeches for Communism were being made broadly--they figured they had 25 to 27% of the vote. This was before Masaryk was killed, before he committed suicide. I was there. He was supposed to have committed suicide. Fry: You think he was pushed out the window? Kotok: Damn right. Well, whichever way he died, anyway I met him. The other parties in Czechoslovakia were all separated, so even 27% collectively, they had a lot of power even without the Russian help. So we went there, and a number of us reported to the embassy our viewpoint, what we found there- -that the Czech Communists influenced Czech student bodies. We got no reaction from that; they thought it was just a passing thing. I don't think they recognized what was happening in Czechoslovakia—not that we could have changed anything. But those of us that came there as visitors and reporters observed things that startled us — startled us in that the youth had been captured to an idea, an imaginative idea, and there was nothing counterbalancing it. Fry: Kotok: Then we found another element that was rather sad in Czechoslovakia. The Sudetan Germans of course were Hitlerites. They brought on probably the difficulties. Without a Sudetanland question, probably that Czechoslovakian question wouldn't have arisen. But the Czechs then drove all the Germans out of Sudetanland. We visited there, and it left a lot of unfinished business. The mechanics of running the country there—the land and properties and so on--was rather ragged. The Czechs hadn't had the experience. We remarked about that to our embassy. They'd have to organize there because it would be a sore spot. We found also unresolved problems between the Slav-speaking people and the Czechs. I merely mention these things. One didn't get the impression that our ambassador and the embassy staff were cognizant of things that were happening under their eyes. We charged that then to the possibility that probably they didn't move among the right people—only the better people. Talking among themselves. They went to cocktail parties and so on. 23 Kotok: But I travelled with the student body; I went to their conferences. In fact, I went to one festival they have in which they dance around a big fire and throw lighted torches into the fire. There I was much older, and I joined the kids and whamped the fire and got ray feet all wet in this meadow. I didn't see any embassy folks there. I had the time of my life. Fry: You mean when you went to the embassy to report this, you got a cool reception? Kotok: Well, you see, I couldn't go to the embassy and, "Now look here--" I would find an opportunity when I was conversing with them. I never acted as a reporter. I don't want to be critical. The only point I want to make is this: That American delegates with proper attention and with capable State people, prepare for these conferences, not by hit-and -miss, but with great care and with skill. There are problems that arise, however, in which we show our lack of experience. And I mention merely the British as counterparts, you know, in that same area—that they appear to come [?] --because of greater experience. And I'm reporting now fifteen years ago, so we've got to take that into consideration. [Everything] indicated that they were better prepared for conferences However, in spite of what I said about the British, I will tell you about a conference I went to in Brazil. And of course in the Pan American Union also the Dutch were permitted in (all those that had islands). The British delegate took many foolish positions. I went to his ambassador and told him if he would keep quiet we could protect the British position. There were attacks at the colonies, you know, that the British were holding. It wasn't in our agenda, and I would keep it out without raising the question, but the stupid Britisher wanted to make a speech. His ambassador called him out and put in someone else. So they have stupid men, too, or unprepared men. He permitted an issue to come up that I could have kept out because it wasn't on our agenda. We weren't there to consider how colonial possessions were to be disposed of. Fry: Right. Kotok: I'm giving these relationships as one who has seen international actions from a forestry angle. It's interesting. Forestry training as given in American institutions has some values that we shouldn't lose sight of. We not only learn to deal with the land, with rural environment, but we learn also to deal with those who till and those who work on it. Therefore, 24 Kotok: a forester finds it by training easy to communicate with and to understand those who make a living in rural areas. Fry: This gives you a good basis for communication in any country. Kotok: That's right. That's the point I want to make. In contrast—and I don't want to add any sections to the Ugly American- -it was true that the original trainees for the State Department from the proper necktie schools in the East perhaps were better to handle affairs of state at the upper echelons of government. Whether they could get the feel of the country I doubt. Fry: How much do you think you were able to influence State Depart ment policies? Kotok: In my own field I would say considerably because fortunately in my case the men and women we had to deal with—There was one woman particularly who was very able in Nutrition. Mrs. K. : You mean Ursula. She was State Department, not Nutrition. Kotok: Anyway she could understand what we were talking about, and she saw us in action, and she gave us a good send-off. On the other hand in one conference I attended the State Department delegate appropriated to himself responsibilities beyond those that were needed and hampered our work. But that was the accident of an individual who wanted to make all the decisions. How many decisions could you make between yourself and say Ursula? A wide field. Generally it was like this: A position we would take was the American position discussed before the whole dele gation and approved. Within the limits of that position I had wide play. However we tried to foresee questions that would come up and take positions. If a new position came and we didn't have time, first we were advised, "Delay, defer." If you couldn't then you'd have to use your own judgment for good or bad. Then you were up against it. Fry: Without any chance to confer with the State Department? Kotok: Or with the delegation head. You see the fiction is that the head of the delegation really controls. He does within the limits that the State Department has prescribed. The head of the delegation has the final word, but he can always go Fry: Kotok: 25 Kotok: back to the Secretary of State; no one else can. Fry: You can. Kotok: I couldn't unless I was head of the delegation. That's why when there was no one above me I went directly to the embassy and asked instructions. And I used the facilities, but I never had to refer clear back to Washington. Fry: Is it true that if you knew far enough ahead of time about the position you wanted to take on a particular issue which was not in line with the State Department position, could you work up through the Department of Agriculture to influence a change? Kotok: That's right. If it affected the d epartment very badly, our own department, then we could take it up with the Secretary of Agri culture, and he would take it up with the State Department. Normally when you went to a delegation there were limited agenda; it was approved before you went. No changes in the agenda could be made. Fry: So the large issues were pretty well set up. Kotok: On the minor issues the best advice of the State Department was, "Let it ride. Don't take on a fight for somebody else unless there's a dividend in it." For example with this stupid Britisher I advised his embassy. We could have saved him, but if he wanted to sink, I never raised my voice, I just watched him. And there was a Dutchman sitting next to me, and he agreed with me. He said, "He's stupid." I said, "A stupid Englishman?" Fry: No such thing? [Laughter] Kotok: And there the elements: The selection of our delegates that the State Department is concerned about, proper briefing, proper behavior, protocol—And there are rules of conduct in international affairs. We can't all do what Khrushchev does — take off our shoe and bang the table. There was a decision to be made in an FAO conference held in Washington where the FAO headquarters was to be. Our own State Department was very anxious that the headquarters be in Washington. The European countries obviously wanted it in Europe. There were a number of bidders: Geneva, Switzerland 26 Kotok: wanted it, and The Hague wanted it, and another one that wanted it was Rome because, as I related, the Institute of Agriculture, an old international organization, was in Rome. Lubin, an American, started it. Well, we went there to be present at the meeting and do what we could, and the State Department made two mistakes. First they suggested a committee to be set up by FAO to investigate the American locations --whether it be inside or outside Washington. Then the senator of Maryland wanted it very much at the University of Maryland, so they sent this delegation with a Haitian on it, a colored man, to the University of Maryland, which was segregated. Conceive of the chaos that occurred. Mrs. K. Kotok: Mrs. K. Fry: Mrs. K. Kotok: Well, I was asked to work among the Latin American delegations to influence them to vote with us. My wife was there and she got to know the Haitian; she could have convinced him. And then we stupidly took the position, having fought for it, "Oh, don't do anything; let it ride." And we lost it. They bottled up the Secretary of Agriculture just as if they'd tied a noose around his neck, Charlie Brannan. Just broke his heart, They told him to keep quiet, and I mean he had to keep quiet while voting went on and so forth. Ruth could have gotten the Haitian and a couple of others, sure you could; he said so. I' m He said so to me. The point was I was representing—as a member of non-governmental organizations cooperating with FAO--I represented AAUW as a delegate. And I didn't get a chance to talk to the Haitian until after the vote had been taken. They had him bottled up. Oh, it's slick, my dear. What do you mean they had him bottled up? How? The group who didn't want it in the United States. The Europeans got hold of him. Oh yes, thereby hangs a tale. But now I have dinner on the table. [interruption] On my mission as American delegate to the FAO conference in Montevideo, the FAO forestry section decided to have a special meeting of its own in Santiago, Chile. I continued my trip then from Montevideo to Chile, and while there the State Department asked me if I would advise them whether it would be profitable to add some forestry and agricultural work on the bilateral 27 Kotok: program in Chile. At the same time the FAO group asked me whether it would be advisable to set up an FAO program in Chile. The basis of asking me for this information was that by happenchance I had gotten acquainted with some men in the forestry department in Chile who were graduates of the University of Michigan. Fry: You met Michigan graduates everywhere! Kotok: These old ties sometimes pay dividends. Furthermore, I had gotten to know some of the Chilean newspapermen who introduced me to some of the politicians then in power. My own work in this regard was merely to sound out my Chilean contacts --whether their government would be interested in advancing forestry and agri culture through AID programs and whether they would put up their share of the funds needed to run such programs and also to provide opposites to continue the work after the missions were completed. In all cases I had received such favorable reports that I recommended to both FAO and to the State Department that missions would be profitable in those fields. The U.S. government had already two programs in Chile- -one military and another in health. So to round out the program was no particular problem. I was asked also by the State Department whether there would be conflicts if there was a bilateral program and an FAO program. I recommended that with the right men to head both, there shouldn't be conflicts, but it should merely enlarge the facilities. Fry: What did you mean by bilateral? Kotok: That means two countries together. Fry: From both United States and Chile. Kotok: Yes. This was in 1950. On my return home I was pressed by FAO to go down to Chile and take charge of their entire program as Chief of Mission which would include forestry, fisheries, and public health. This was the first time they had designated anyone to head a total mission as head of mission. Under that condition I was willing to accept. Up to that time FAO had working missions, each one responsible in the specialization of their field. So there would be a mission in food or in forestry, but the two would have no collective business. Using this central organizational plan then for Chile, the major responsibilities of the Chief of Mission were direct contacts with the government, arranging for plans, finances, and direct 28 Kotok: contacts with ministers in particular fields of work as forestry, agriculture, nutrition, fisheries; contacts with the official representatives of these fields in the country; contacts with these civilian organizations that did have or should have had interests in the fields in which we were working. With this broad authority the chief of mission had an opportunity to cross section his contacts through rather a large spectrum of the important people within the country. I thus had the oppor tunity to know personally not only the president of the republic, the ministers with whom we dealt in their fields, the presidents of the important institutions of learning—the University of Chile, Italica University, and others—but in addition the chief of mission had the opportunity to travel throughout the country from north to south with his own specialists sizing up the problems. But more importantly he met the provincial officials and the important people within each province, the local powers^ which was not only helpful but gave a little more intelligent appraisal of the difficulties of putting into effect any program that might be proposed governmental ly. One other important international agency with whom we worked very closely was in Santiago—the Economic Commission for Latin America, ECLA. Dr. Proebish, a distinguished Argentine scholar, was head of it. After I'd been there about a year, Proebish wanted me to join ECLA in forestry, but that didn't appeal to me at that time. Fry: You mean as a professional position? Kotok: Yes, on his staff. ECLA's influence in Latin America in some respects fell short because the mechanics of implementation after important studies were made were left to happenchance of the countries accepting it. At that time ECLA worked under many handicaps. Fry: Was it primarily research? Kotok: They made studies. Its purpose was to hold conferences to consider mutual problems and to determine ways by which economic development could be effectuated in these countries and how trade, commerce, and industrial development could be encouraged to the profit not only of the entrepreneurs but bringing up the standards of living of the general population. Its aims were high. One can comment now that it was rather unfortunate when the Organization of American States was developed, and later when our own program, Alliance for Progress, came in. it was J'irst 29 that Nevertheless Kotok: considered that Proebish's group, ECLA, would have a primary function of coordinating the work of the wise men who might recommend programs. As it later developed ECLA's work and Proebish's leadership in it was lessened because of the objections of some of the strong Latin American countries including Mexico and Argentina. So that instead of giving to ECLA a major responsibility of coordination and working out programs from the general to the specific, the power of this group had been left entirely consultative and advisory. Fry: Was there any particular reason why Mexico and the other countries were not anxious to have ECLA coordinate the work? Kotok: The chief reason assigned for trying to prevent centralization of power was that these countries preferred that decisions be made in the segment in which their own interests were predominant. In other words they were afraid of vesting in an overall group authorities in which they might not agree. It's a part of the power play in any organization between the units of it and central authorities that we meet now in the United Nation problems we meet in our own Congress. So those were the problems. I merely wanted to comment that Proebish and his group had important contributions to make; they have made them and they can make more . It's interesting to note that Che Guevara, now the second man in Cuba, was a member of the staff of Proebish--an extra ordinary student and a very capable contributor actually to some of the studies that were made regardless of the fact that he was then a Communist and is now a Communist. Fry: I thought perhaps there was a feeling that ECLA was too much under the influence of the United States. Kotok: I don't believe that charge could be made because while Proebish's second man in command is an American, Professor Louie Swanson, Proebish was a typical ground Latin American Argentinian, and if anything, the Argentinians probably looked, not askance, but with great care at any offerings made by the United States. So Proebish by training and experience would not have had that fear. I think the fear was one: Who do you vest power in to make decisions as to distribution of funds? The reason, you see, the final authority of the distribution of funds that might be available from banks and from otherwise would be vested in the group that has to decide whether this country would get it or that country or for what purposes. And these countries did not want to leave to an outside group the determination how much 30 Kotok: money they would get and for what purposes it would be used. In other words it was a fight for internal control of policies. Fry: Yes. Kotok: One could argue on two sides. There were good points about it and poor points. The poor point is that this way you have to buy off too many to dissipate. Decisions could have been more logically conforming to the needs of the total than going piecemeal. Mrs. K. : Another point is that no Latin American country will take advice from another Latin American country no matter how highly ranking. Kotok: Oh yes. In my meetings as an American delegate to various conferences particularly dealing in the Latin American countries, I found that usually there was an aversion by one Latin American country to accept advice from another. It went so far as this: that in recruiting for FAO skills for Latin American, we found it advisable not to hire any Latin Americans to work in Latin American countries. We sent them elsewhere. They preferred experts from Nonlatin American countries. For example, we could have gotten very good foresters from Argentina, but the Chileans would no more think of having an Argentine. So we had to get them from France, from the United States, and from Great Britain. Fry: Kotok: We needed a fishery man, and there were some very good ones in Mexico. No, but we got one from Spain and one from the Scandinavian countries, which had some logic because they're experienced. One could go right down the list. They have the feeling, "We're as good as the next Latin American country." So one seldom makes comparisons when in Latin America between one country and another as to its capacities, its learning, or its schools, or anything else; they're all on a par. Well, now we discussed in a general way another subject that we can take up for a while: What unique qualities or training or specialization that foresters have that they were able to win support in local communities--they could win support of legislative leaders in the state legislature and the Congress. Good. Perhaps the answer isn't a simple one because there is no mystery about human conduct and human behavior. One can note, however, that there were certain things that foresters were trained in 31 Kotok: and learned by experience, particularly those foresters who worked in public employ, that gave them certain advantages in these human contacts. First of all foresters had to live within the territory of their work, which took them away from big capitals and cities and placed them out in the country where folks live, where folks work. So our assignments were to small villages to live at county headquarters, and we were encouraged from the very beginning to become part and parcel of the community life. Fry: Well, it seems to me you would have a disadvantage because you wouldn't be where the large concentrations of constituents are. Kotok: That's correct. I'll meet that a little bit later. But first we start off initially that we live among people, we work with people . Fry: And you had a job of selling to do. Kotok: We didn't feel that we had a job of selling to do. We felt we had a j< to do and in doing it well, and — another thing in helping people, whatever their problems, we would make friends and our selling job, of our own job, would become relatively simple. It wasn't out there preaching with a gospel; it was out there by good efforts and community effort. And I can give you an illustration. As a young man in the early twenties, I was assigned to the Shasta National Forest in charge of timber sales and research as a member of the staff of the forest supervisor. With the very policy that we had, we lived in a town of 250 or 300 people; the bawdyhouse and the saloon were the most important factors in the community because the lumberjacks wintered there. Siskiyou County as a whole was an old county with some very prominent families very proud of its antecedents and their '49 background. Here I enter, an Easterner, into this environment, been trained to fit in with it. I found that the Masons were the most important organization; I was asked to join them, and I joined them. The Masons were one of the stabilizing forces in that community; all the important people in Siskiyou County- even Catholics--were Masons. Stabilizing to this extent, that they tried to keep clean government, to help the needy because there weren't very many mechanisms by which the needy could be helped . I became an important officer in the Masonic group. Through that contact I got to know the key men not only in the little town 32 Kotok: of Sisson [ ?] where I was headquartered, but in Yreka, the county seat. I could call the judges and all the important people by first names; I knew the chief managers of the most important lumber companies who were Masons of the McCloud Lumber Company, the Lamoine Lumber Company, the Weed Lumber Company (the three large companies) on a first name basis. It facilitated not only the business of transacting forestry with them, but it went beyond that. I use that as an illustration that we were encouraged to participate. During the period I was there, an epidemic broke out, and it was during the winter. The outlying ranches and vicinities had no food; the Forest Service organized independently "care packages," as we would call it now, to bring to those families. We collected it; we got people to contribute. We took sleds and dragged them by hands leds to these outlying areas. It was part and parcel of our training. That we were doing there foresters were doing in hundreds of other national forests. So it was easy for us on the lower scale that we started in the smallest community--a county seat isn't so small — to know who's who and to become on speaking terms with them, not to consider forestry but to consider the problems of the community. Fry: Would you say this was a conscious policy of the Department of Agriculture or the Forest Service in Washington? Kotok: Yes, and it started off with the first Chief of the Forest Service with the little statement, "The greatest good to the greatest number in the long run." That implied economic welfare. And you should always be conscious we were taught of the local needs and be responsive to it. I'm using that step-by-step, using my own career as an illustration, of the consciousness of foresters in community affairs and their ease with which they did business with those that count in government. I'll give another illustration how this develops. My next job on my own was forest supervisor in Eldorado County on the Eldorado National Forest. I was a supervisor and my field then was wider; it included not only Placerville, the county seat, and the little villages of Georgetown and Plymouth, etc., but it included the outlying districts that depended upon use of the Eldorado National Forest. So I became acquainted with who's who in Sacramento and Stockton. I knew the Breuners that were an important family. I became a member- -having been an engineer once--of the engineer's club and would go down to their meetings in Sacramento and got to know all those in the State Highway Department. I got to know politicians and even the governor, Stephens . 33 Kotok: Then there was a problem to determine how the main highways were to be built across the Sierras into Nevada, and there was a consulting committee from Nevada and California that was to meet and recommend to the state legislature and to the governor which would be the main highway from the west side to the east side into Nevada, starting from Sacramento. And the governor put me on the committee, and I represented, you see, the interests of both Placer County and Eldorado County. I was put on there because I had participated in the things of the community. We decided, the committee, in its great wisdom instead of having one highway [number 80 & 50] , that there would be two highways. So we recommended two highways and that's what happened. You couldn't resolve the problem. Placerville wanted it through its place, and Auburn wanted it through its place. That's why there are two. Anyway I'm using that as an illustration of how we developed the contacts. Fry: I wanted to ask a question. Were there any special groups- Chambers of Commerce--in these locations--? Kotok: Yes. I was a consulting member of the Chamber of Commerce, and they recommended me to the governor. So when the Farm Bureau was started in Placer County, I was a charter member of it. I made the first speeches going around the county with Dr. W. H. Walker [Mr. Crocheron?] ,* first head of the Agricultural Extension in California, our pretty big boy. He was a remarkable fellow. He had a little small mustache, and I remember bringing him there, and they said, gosh, they expected a big hearty farmer- looking fellow. Placerville wrote to me recently and noted that I was one of those who went around setting the Farm Bureau. I went from village to village with the farmers. The Farm Bureau is a long way from forestry direct, but it did mean how the rural popu lation would live. We fought with the Farm Bureau for better roads in the county, for better schools. Then when the war came on I couldn't go, and I had a very prominent part to play in the war effort on the food committee trying to get more production, not only meat in the national forest, but elsewhere, and I was on special committees. So we *March 1969 edition of Farm Bureau Bulletin contains a history of that agency that shows a Mr. Crocheron as the first Cali fornia head — and Dr. Walker without a mustache. 34 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: learned to participate in community affairs from the very beginning. In my capacity as supervisor of course I was interested in legislation as it affected forestry in general and the delegates in our legislature or the congressmen. I made an effort to know them, and they made an effort to know me because they thought with my contacts -- You were influential in the community. Yes, that I had a voice in community affairs. So it wasn't a question of merely seeking those that were elected; they were seeking us frequently for advice and guidance. So we intimately knew, then, the state legislature that represented our territory, and we knew the congressmen. So the first one we knew was Judge Raker of Modoc County. Then came Harry Englebright, a Republican. The first one was a Democrat. And to us it didn't matter to which party he belonged. We worked, as it were, on both sides of the aisle, as the politician says. Now what did we do with these congressmen? Normally we gave as much as we received. They sought our advice on public feeling on certain questions, and we treated them with great respect by not gossiping about their requests and giving them candid answers even if it affected our own work. If there was adverse feeling toward a measure that we tried to promote and that the congressmen ought to know about before he made a decision of his own, fact. we didn't hesitate to inform him of that So you served as a sort of pulse feeler for them? Yes, because of our contacts. Now I could relate a story of one supervisor in the Sierra that I got to know about very well. He had an Indian population surrounding the Sierra National Forest. Nobody was taking care of the Indians, and he became their white father and fought for their rights to get better schools, to get proper schools, to get work. A lone voice in the wilderness. Even the Interior Department, which had responsibility, had failed to meet the needs of that population surrounding the little village of North Fork. So it was in the nature of the job that we learned to live with the country, to work for the country, and so forth. And through the process of time of course we got a reputation that here's a group, not as foresters but people, individuals whose 35 Kotok: interests are wide, reasonably well-informed , interested in the local problems of community welfare. Fry: Now you've not answered my question, have you, on what to do with large population centers? Kotok: All right. Now the large population centers you asked me. Well, then, we get it down on other levels. When I became supervisor I was able to contact and get to know the leaders in Stockton and Sacramento. What were the reasons for those contacts? First there were roads to be built, and then I was interested in the main highways from Sacramento. Secondly I tried to interest both the cities of Stockton and Sacramento in a camp for the underprivileged and got them to build it. So there was a community of interest. Then I did more; I tried to get some of the leaders in Sacramento to take advantage of leasing land for summer homes along the American River. Fry: What about down in Los Angeles? Kotok: Well, there was another reason there. I have a whole section on that later. Another thing happened that broke in our favor- -we were talking about contacts. Immediately after the war the state Chamber of Commerce reorganized and offered a job to an ex- forest supervisor, Norman Sloan, who was a well-trained forester, and he had that capacity that we try to get in foresters of being able to meet with people on all levels from the lowest to the highest. Foresters have also been trained, you know, not to be afraid to meet with the heads of corporations or to meet on equal terms. That is, we've learned the protocol of behavior before big and small alike. Sloan built up the state Chamber to a remarkable degree rejuvenating it, got financing, and it began to show that it had become a power in the state. We as foresters got Norman Sloan to set up a section on conservation. You see, there were different fields of activity within the Chamber- highways, manufacturing—and then they had one on conservation. The man we suggested to head it was a fellow named Charlie Dunwoody, who was a promoter in Southern California and had become interested in forestry on a program that we had initiated in Southern California that I'll develop a little later. So here we had then a state Chamber of Commerce, a forester heading it, so well received by the big capitalists ind industrialists of the state, and we had a conservation section interested in promoting forestry in California headed by a man who had gotten his first fever for it in actually participating in a program in Southern California. 36 Kotok: Charlie Dunwoody was worth his weight in gold to us at that particular period. Therefore at the annual conferences of the Chamber of Commerce, we had a forestry program in which the foresters would present to the industrialists and capitalists of the state—their beliefs and programs that ought to be undertaken in this state. Fry: These were mostly in the realm of fire protection? Kotok: Oh no. Fire protection was just one thing, but these were the things that we considered that forestry has to consider. First the protection of land against fire and diseases. Second its development to increase industrialization. Third to maintain its forests as a continuing principal so that we wouldn't minimize the principal and to encourage, therefore, and to support increased programs for development in public forests and secondly to encourage private industry to embark on a real forestry program. So it included the whole gamut of things that foresters everywhere had been striving for. Fry: And the state Chamber of Commerce bought this? Kotok: Supported it, supported it wholeheartedly. Then later we had some difficulties, but in the beginning we starred. Those of us that attended these conferences were men in the higher echelons of the Forest Service, men of greater experience and knowledge. It was my good fortune that I was a participant in these Chamber of Commerce meetings and played some part in development of their programs and influencing their actions. I was very close to Norman Sloan so I could of course talk to him on a person-to-person basis, and this was very helpful for him to know what we were driving at and to find out from him how far they could go. So all of a sudden we had, first, a place to speak statewide; secondly, we had a place to meet. Third, we had a place to influence judgment of leaders in California. Now I'll give you an illustration of how far we could go. This happened much later, but President Roosevelt recommended that the Forest Service be transferred on Ickes ' advice to the Interior Department. Foresters didn't want that. Fry: Why? Kotok: There were a lot of political reasons. First of all we had come from the Interior Department originally; the Interior Department 37 Kotok: was a disposal rather than a protective agency. We felt more nearly at home in the Department of Agriculture because we dealt with forests as a crop and therefore biology and all the allied sciences upon which forestry depends were in Agriculture; and third we were fearful that the protective elements that had been built around forestry in the Department of Agriculture might be politically strained in Interior. Interior was more politically minded. Fry: It was? Kotok: It was, and always has been because of the nature of the job, a disposal. You're giving away things like land. One preserves and the other gives away. So the philosophy—It 's changed considerably of course in Interior. But anyway that's the way foresters believed. Now we couldn't fight openly obviously. The Secretary of Agriculture was opposed to it, but he couldn't say anything. Therefore it was only those daring who were willing to walk the plank in forestry who by hook or crook could counteract the president's action. Fry: Who led this insurgency? Kotok: This insurgency was started by a number of men, but this is the important thing. Perhaps it had its beginnings in the West, and among them was probably the then regional forester in Odgen, Rut ledge, and Show in California. Generally the heading was by regional foresters because, you see, they were the administraters of the National Forest, and they had their contacts. Those two were probably the leading men. There were others who joined. But who took up the fight on an independent basis was the state Chamber of Commerce of California. It raised funds in all the states and sent Dunwoody back to Washington to fight it. Fry: In all the states? Kotok: In all the western states. It raised the money—had a kitty to support that. So Charlie Dunwoody went back to Washington to fight the reorganization. Now by happenchance we had been assigned Show, Price (an assistant to Show) and we were back in Washington, and Dunwoody was back there. Ickes smelled a rat, and they were pointing their fingers at the Californians who were there. Well, Dunwoody grabbed all his special papers that he'd been working on and left Washington so the FBI wouldn't subpoena him and so on. INTERVIEW II Second Echelon Battle Against Transfer of the Forest Service to the Department of Interior (continued); Congressional Contacts; The State Chamber of Commerce in Politics and Forestry; Anecdotes of Cabinet Members Visiting California (Recorded June 25, 1963) Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok; Fry: The attempt of the administration through Ickes's desire to move Forest Service into Interior brought up an old fight. Secretary of Agriculture Wallace was prevented from participating directly in this move because the President himself desired to meet the request of Secretary Ickes . Do you know whether the President actually asked Wallace to lay off lobbying? Yes, it was a direct order, so far as I know. I have no written proof of it, but I'm sure the President had requested him. This also prevented the chief of the Forest Service from taking too active a part, but the second man in command in the Forest Service, Earle H. Clapp, even with the danger of actually losing his job, carried on the fight to prevent this transfer. The President was greatly disturbed. Ickes had reported the activities of some members of the Forest Service in preventing this transfer, and Dunwoody's presence in Washington was also noted by Ickes. Dunwoody's task was a simple one: He through the California delegation in Congress and with the aid of congressional leaders that such a transfer would raise a political boiling pot similar to that which took place when Gifford Pinchot fought Taft on another issue. When was this ? The beginning of the administration, the early thirties, the first term of the President. It was So that the building up of a Department of Conservation as such hadn't really come under serious consideration yet. 39 Kotok: Well, Ickes from the very beginning had in mind to build up a conservation administration. To secure that you may recall how I related how the Soil Conservation Service was placed in his department and then taken away from him. He had already secured the moving of the Fish and Game from Commerce to his department. So there were a number of moves that he already had made trying to build up the Conservation Department. To round out this picture- Fry: You mentioned Pinchot- - Kotok: The reason I raised the Pinchot--When Pinchot had this fight with Taft, which dealt with the transfer of land in Alaska, it was a fight against the Interior Department which was promoting this transfer of coal land. This again had the similar image of a transfer of powers from Agriculture to Interior. Fry: Did Pinchot help in this fight? Kotok: There were other conservationists including Pinchot--Graves , Dana--they all were opposed to any transfer which could involve the Forest Service from Agriculture. Fry: Graves involved? Kotok: Graves was passed away. Graves was of the Pinchot administration. The main thing to remember about this: Matters got so troublesome and hot and fearing to be called before a special congressional committee, Dunwoody left Washington; Show left Washington; and I didn't appear in the office during this strife. I remained at the Cosmos Club. Fry: How long did you have to stay there? Kotok: About a week till this trouble quieted down. We knew that the FBI or the Secret Service was searching, and in order to make sure that Earle Clapp was protected I took all his papers that touched on this transfer problem from his office with me presumably to the Cosmos Club. That night with a group of other foresters we went down to O'Daniel's Fish Grotto to eat, and I left the papers behind a ventilator by mistake. I found the next morning that I had no papers. Word reached Clapp that I had lost the papers, and there was considerable worry in Washington. I didn't show up around the office, and I put an ad in, and then we retraced my steps to every place I had been in the last two days and finally found the papers all stored behind the ventilator much to the relief of myself and the others who were involved in this episode. 40 Kotok: There is an important thing to mention regarding this event. Coldbloodedly and objectively one must state that when a bureau proposes to take a position opposed to the administrative chief of government, namely the president, it is highly questionable whether the ethics of the bureau can be justified. Nevertheless, those who participated in this fight were willing to gamble with their jobs and their position in government in order to support their positions regarding the issue at stake. Fry: Did they think they could keep their jobs if they had remained silent and it had been transferred to Interior? Kotok: Transferred, but there was a chance, the same chance as Pinchot had and walked the plank during the Taft administration, and if the President had known who and what and could have justified it, [he could have] well asked the Secretary of Agriculture to dismiss the persons that were in the government service that were involved. I want to proceed a little bit further to show how this mechanism that members of the Forest Service used in winning public support. In a fashion foresters have been creatures of American forestry from the very beginning. The very nature of the job required- Fry: A certain amount of evangelism. Kotok: Yes. A certain amount of it came in the very nature of the job. Foresters had to convert public opinion, had to convince state and federal legislators that forestry required a new direction, that forestry required public support in order to safeguard our rich inheritance that we had in forests. So foresters in California to which I'm directing most of my attention proceeded on that basis to win friends. In Southern California where the groups were very much concerned with the protection of their watersheds, from the very beginning of forestry, Supervisor Carleton way back in 1910 and '11 had organized city groups that raised funds to supplement federal funds for fire protection, and since water organizations there were enlisted in this fight in protecting the watersheds. During my period I was happy to be a participant in setting up a conservation group in Southern California that organized to support forestry measures. This started in the late twenties when I became director of the California Forest Experiment Station. 41 Kotok: We needed their help, too, in order to begin organizing our work on the Dimas Experiment Forest. This of course was a test of effective means of protecting watersheds against fire and against the subsequent erosion that might occur after fire started. It might be well to mention some of the men from Southern California who participated in (his group: Sam Morris, head of the Pasadena Water Company later became professor of engineering at Stanford and later transferred to the Los Angeles Water District; Herbert Oilman of the San Dimas Water Company; William Rosecrans, a director of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, a very important man in Southern California, prominent as well in the national Chamber of Commerce, who was in charge of their conservation section. This group met frequently, discussed problems, decided on lines of action and without their support it is doubtful whether the expansion of the work of the California Forest Experiment Station itself and that of even the national forest administration would have had such fine support in Congress. Obviously, congressmen in Southern California were aware of this local interest and reflected the views and the wishes of their constituents particularly since these were leaders of important segments of interest in Southern California. Therefore, it was relatively easy to have secured contacts with Harry Sheppard, the congressman from San Bernardino, who happened to be a member of the Appropriations Committee that dealt with forestry and agricultural appropriations. He proved to be a most valuable ally. He not only supported us in the hearings but indicated to us the areas which we should stress before the committee that we appeared before and gave us other guidance through the ups and downs of pressing for appropriations before congressional committees. When the Democrats were in, Clarence Cannon of Missouri was chairman of the General Appropriations Committee, and we found him rather a difficult man to convince. The short period that the Republicans were in we had as chairman, I think, John Taber of New York, who also proved to be one who was opposed in a general way to increases in what he called "unnecessary activities of government." Nevertheless in spite of those obstacles, with the strong friends that we had on that committee, we were able to hold our own and generally progressively increase the appropriations both for forestry research and for national forest administration clear through the war. I'm speaking of the period now when I was involved actively from the time I started as director of the California Forest Experiment Station in the late twenties clear through to the time I left in 1950. 42 Kotok: Fry: Kotok; Fry: Kotok : It is interesting to relate how contacts are made with congressional delegations. Another man that I got to know very well while I was in Washington was a congressman from Minnesota named [H. Carl] Andersen, who recently didn't run again for office because he was involved in some charges that he had received money in support of legislation—political funds. Andersen during the period when the Republicans had the majority in the House was the second man in command under Dirksen, now Senator from Illinois, and Dirksen was rather lukewarm toward the Forest Service. But Andersen as next in line in the Republican layout actually wrote the bills, and I recall one incident that it might be well to note. We were seeking an increase of about $300,000 to $400,000 in forest research, and in the hearings before Dirksen it appeared that we weren't making much headway. The Democrats on the committee including our friend Sheppard from California, Witten from Mississippi suggested that we keep pushing, and perhaps a break would come when the bill would be finally written up. Early one Sunday morning while I was at the Cosmos Club I got a call from the House, from Carl Andersen, who was writing the bill, (see how names come back after a bit) that he would like to see me at once—that he was writing up the bill that would be presented to the whole committee on Monday. When I arrived there I was utterly surprised. He wanted the detail as to where and how we would spend $350,000, which he was adding to the bill. Actually it exceeded the amount we had originally asked for in the committee. My task then was to hurriedly recall what our plans were without having my notes there and set up a schedule for expenditures to the various experiment stations throughout the United States distributing the $350,000. This was probably the first and largest increases made in research. This was about 1947, wasn't it? There was a large increase in '47. Yes. It is startling to see how in spite of apparent difficulties, general public opinion finally is felt by congressional committees. Enough to make you believe in the democratic process. There's no objection to it. Questions and answers. I want to relate another incident to show the changes in points of view of members of Congress. When Dirksen was running for senator from Illinois, I was in Southern Illinois on official business. I happened to run into him, and up to that time he'd been rather lukewarm with me. As soon as he caw me he approached me, put his arms around me calling -ne by first name, and said, 43 Kotok: "Oh, I'm sure glad you're here. I want you to meet my wife and daughter." He was taking no chances; perhaps I might have an influence on some votes in Southern Illinois (which I don't believe I had). But the reaction of politicians naturally can be forecasted; they want to be on the winning side, and they're taking no chances to make enemies which may thwart them in their campaigns. I was there on official business. Following this up later, as senator I found him a strong ally in increasing funds again for forestry research particularly since we wanted to do some important work in Southern Illinois, which really had been considerably behind in its program of rejuvenating once fine forest lands that had been denuded, had been burnt, had been mined. The scars were to be found everywhere in Southern Illinois. We were not trying to sell forestry; we were trying to sell Dirksen the necessity of rehabilitating land so that the economic base of that particularly poverty-stricken part of Illinois would reach a potential where it could carry its weight in economic needs . Senator Hiram Johnson was an important member in the U.S. Senate, not only by seniority but by his own effective work. We were able to reach Senator Johnson again through friends in California and among them perhaps the most important were the McClatchy papers. Mr. McClatchy himself with the Sacramento Bee and then the Fresno Bee. I'm trying to recall the name of the editor of the Fresno Bee who lived in Berkeley for a time; it'll come to me a little bit later; maybe my wife will remember it. But through the editors of these two important country papers, we were able to have free access to the senator to present our needs. It's rather interesting to note, too, that the Fresno Bee and the Sacramento Bee had a representative (one of the younger McClatchys) in Washington, and those of us that were called on special assign ments to Washington naturally always made contacts with the young McClatchy, who was exceedingly helpful. It wasn't just a matter of introducing us (I had already known Senator Johnson before), but I came with a special request from the McClatchys that he give consideration to what we were presenting. It wasn't merely an introduction; it was certification that we represented a true need of the state. So it isn't a personal contact in itself that's valuable but his constituents back home, the important ones in support of the program, that the technicians were proposing before Congress and that the press was going to back it. The Bee papers were quite important in the back country outside of the two urban centers for congressional support, particularly one who ran statewide like a senator. When Senator McAdoo was there 44 Kotok: for example the same way we ma.de contacts. I had had the pleasure of meeting Senator McAdoo when he was in the Wilson administration; so my contact with him was a natural one because I had met him when he was Secretary of the Treasury and the railroads were under him, and I met him and his wife, a Wilson daughter, at Tahoe during the First World War. Senator Downey, who came in on the New Deal in California, was easy to approach and was willing to support all programs that had the support of the administration itself. However, Downey was very helpful when we tried to secure during the war additional funds for fire protection on California national forests and private lands under protection of the state. Senator Downey appeared before Undersecretary of War McCloy pleading our cases. I recall this meeting with McCloy, who appeared to have considerable knowledge about fire protection, and my natural question was, "Mr. Secretary, how do you know so much about fire protection?" He said, "Why shouldn't I? I was a forest fire guard and a lookout in a national forest during my college days." So these early contacts appeared to have made an impression on him, and we did secure considerable additional aid. At that time the fear of firebrands shot out from Japan by special kites [balloons] was threatening the West, and there was fear about incendiarism. During the war fires could seriously impair the economy of a community in many directions. One, it would disturb traffic; secondly, it might put out light and power lines; and even more important it would use up manpower fighting fire that ought to be working on war activities, disregarding the loss of values of timber and watershed. But continuing on these personal contacts, I may go back a little bit to my contacts on the state level. Our general process of making sure that the key men in the Forest Service within a given region are known by their legislatures -- Fry: Can we back up and talk about Congressmen Englebright and Pittman. Kotok: Sure I'll give you Englebright. Congressman Englebright in his first congressional district covered more national forest land than any other congressman in California. It stretched through Siskiyou County, Modoc County on the north, all the way down to Mariposa County in the south. The whole Sierra area, Sierra Nevada area, was practically in his district. Of course from his standpoint it was important that he know something about the problems of the national forests, and likewise he recognized that each one of the forest supervisors was an important factor in 45 Kotok: public opinion within the counties of that particular national forest. My original first vote was in Siskiyou County, and I voted for a Democrat named George Raker. My next vote was actually for Harry Englebright when I was in the Eldorado, a Republican. But regardless of party, foresters play both sides of the aisle. We never made forestry a party issue. Harry Englebright became interested in forestry problems knowing that my contacts as an individual closely tied in in a number of counties in my previous experience. He noted that, I assume, and became interested in programs that I proposed. So it was easy to have made a personal friendship with Congressman Englebright and his wife, whose family I had known very well. Englebright then became, as Whip of the Republicans, an important member of the congressional delegation when we needed help. Fry: Were you ever allowed to campaign and help deliver votes during an election? Kotok: We never were asked by any congressman to participate in a political campaign. However, they recognized that we would bring to the attention [of constituents], very properly, when we received support [from] a congressman on any appropriation or legislative act that we had before Congress. To that extent we had no hesitancy in bringing to the attention of his constituents the work that the congressman was doing on behalf of the region and the community. Fry: A largely oral bringing-to-attention. Kotok: Yes, or we would note in interviews --We would discuss-- I remember in a very hot campaign in Southern California that Sheppard had--Sheppard never asked us for any help, but he said, "If you're down there, I wish you would tell them some of the measures now before Congress that I'm working on." And to that extent we conformed to his request. This was a Democrat. To the same extent I brought attention to what Harry Englebright, a Republican, was doing in Northern California. We played it according to Hoyle set up by the rules of conduct of Civil Service. Congress said we could not be participants in political action, but we did owe to the Congress as a whole and to individual congressmen to note their actions on measures before them for consideration in laws to be enacted or in appropriations to be made. The important thing to note is this: What I'm relating of California's situation could be duplicated in other regions where foresters were working. Some were greater success than we had here; some were less a success. The sum total was a constant building up of recognition in Congress that forestry was important not only for a region but had important national implications. So the total 46 Kotok: effort of foresters was building a broad base of congressional understanding. Frequently we would meet an individual congressman who for one reason or another would feel quite differently about forestry, violently opposed to some measures. Fry: Like [Clarence] Cannon? Kotok: Well, Cannon was not opposed; he was for holding down appropriations. The nature of his job was to hold down. I'll relate a little story about Cannon later. But these violent oppositions that sometimes would arise sometimes there was some partial merit in their position as it affected their own particular district or something. We were able to weather these storms because we had built enough friends in Congress itself to meet this opposition, and it was rarely that those in Civil Service had to meet these charges publicly. We were speaking of Congressman Cannon, who is still to this present date chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a powerful man in Congress because of the position he holds as chairman. When the Democrats were in we were having a little difficulty securing from Cannon full approval of a program, not that he was opposed to forestry, but he was looking [for] ways and means by which he could reduce the total budget request from departments. I assume that the function of the chairman [of the] Appropriations Committee is: One, to hold expenditures down to the maximum. One can't quarrel with that point of view. The administrative agencies have the task then to convince the Appropriations Committee that their needs are justified and are in line with the general policy of the given administration in control. However, when the Republicans were in and Dirksen was the chairman of the subcommittee on appropriations in forestry and Cannon was no longer chairman of the whole committee, I received a request from him to meet him in his office. He wanted to know about some items we had put in that dealt with the development of additional research in the Missouri Valley including his own state. It was a substantial item; I don't recall now the total amount. I sat there for about three-quarters of an hour and briefed him, gave him notes. When we appeared before the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cannon, who had a right to appear before that committee, when our item was reached asked for the floor and proceeded to give in detail from memory word by word the major contents of my memorandum in my briefing, figures and all. 48 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: congressional delegations with congressmen, than his bite. His bark is worse Fry: Kotok: Someone else said Taber never quite saw the whole picture. He's a very human being. He enjoys barking. You were going to cover Senator [Key] Pittman. Another personal story might be told. Senator Pittman of Nevada was very conscious of being a westerner, and all matters before him he measured to the degree in which they involved western interests. Some of his Nevada friends charged him with being more Californian than Nevadan. But he was cognizant of the fact that the economic tie between Nevada and California was the basis of his own state's welfare. It was largely California capital developing it, and it went back clear to the old Virginia mining days to the Comstock Lode. However, Pittman's interest in the West was not only pressure from California groups but also from the Utah groups since there were some national forests that were administered from Ogden, Utah, of Region Four of the national forest districts. There was a strong Mormon colony in Nevada, nnd the Utah influence through the Mormons on the enator probably were operating. In this fight for reorganization Dunwoody had early found his publicity work as a member of the state Chamber of Commerce - -It "s important to know the secretaries and all the clerical help that count in anyone's office including senators, and Dunwoody would always make good friends with the secretaries. His expense account permitted him to carry nice boxes of candies and flowers, and he did many favors for the secretarial group in any way he could. He used this approach of course to Pittman, and Pittman was probably one of the key men that had the Democrats in the Senate take a careful look at Ickes ' s request for the transfer. Times changed in a half century because it was some of the same western groups that were opposed to many of the things that the first Roosevelt wanted for the national forest system; where some of these western senators had been opponents, we now found these senators our strongest allies of the conservation movement in their states. And they felt that keeping forestry under Agriculture- Well the reason- -Perhaps it might be well to explain why the foresters felt so strongly that it should remain in Agriculture. I think I 49 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: did make some comments before, but I might -- We hadn't really corrected it with Ballinger and Pinchot. We might tie it up. Classically each department can be identified by its major activities. The major activity of agriculture dealt with promoting better land use whether on private lands or on national forest lands. The Interior Department from its agency. It was to find ways and means through various acts of Congress could ownership. The Homestead Act, mining which provided how public lands could of view whether it prevailed or not ac people heading the Interior Department This is what foresters believed; this believed. One was a disposal; one was very inception was a disposal by which the public lands be transferred to private acts, and various other acts be disposed of. This point tually among the administrative is of little consequence, is what the general public a developer. During the Pinchot administration briefly we can say that Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior, was charged that he was trying to dispose of coal lands and all that went with it in Alaska. Then came the scandal and the breakup and so forth. Again, disposal as against not. As the story has been developed more recently many have come to defend Ballinger and figure that Pinchot and his group had not given the full story. Be that as it may the same story reoccurred again during the Harding administra tion when Fall was Secretary of the Interior and when Greeley was chief of the Forest Service. Fall regardless of the Sinclair incident with disposal of oil rights had [presented] before the president a plan to dispose of the coal lands again in Alaska. This was in addition to the Teapot Dome scandal, then. Yes. And the president asked the Chief of the Forest Service, Greeley, to take the trip with him to Alaska. Greeley never told the story in print; he did tell the story verbally. Mrs. Harding was very much concerned about the whole episode, and she begged Greeley to put all the pressure he could on the president to nullify the request of Fall. Greeley related that he was frank and candid with the president, not only indicating to him the economic folly of such an act but all the political consequences of such an act. Whether Greeley 's private papers, now in the library at Yale, contain further of that I don't know. I hope they do. That story has never been fully told. It ended up in Harding passing away in San Francisco. So the thing was buried with Harding, and Fall was buried because of his acts. 50 Kotok: This feeling of a disposal agency was a continuing one from the very beginning when the national forest system was taken out of Interior. There were other acts of aggrandizement as we called it. There was no justification for example of taking the Soil Conservation Service, which dealt entirely with agricultural problems, into the Interior Department. There were other areas in which we had great differences with Interior Department. The Geological Survey was a bureau in the Interior Department. By law before lands could be added to national forests by purchase or whatever acts Congress permitted, the Geological Survey had the responsibility of certifying that those lands were needed in order to round out the watershed needs of the area. When under the Weeks Law when purchases were made in the East, the Geological Survey had to make that certification, and all other such acqui sitions had to be certified. The early Geological Survey looked at that responsibility with great care and normally supported the requests of the foresters for inclusion of lands in the early period. Later there were parts of the Geological Survey, when the strife appeared between the engineering groups and foresters, as to the effects of forest cover on runoff and erosion; the Geological Survey appeared to support the engineers against the foresters. [End of Side One] I was trying to give the image the foresters built up regarding the Interior Department. So I was talking about this conflict between the Geological Survey that later developed in support of the Army Engineers and the conflicts with agricultural groups and the foresters to the effect of cover on runoff and erosion. Another area where conflicts arose was when the Interior Department (of which the Park Service was a member) and the Park Service began to charge that the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture were fighting the programs for increasing park area like the Colorado area- Fry: You mean that the Park Service was charging that foresters were fighting this? When they weren't? Kotok: Foresters were not fighting the development of a park system. What we were opposed to is niiiv-willv accepting a proeram that thp Park Service put up what they wanted for parks without considering other questions which the Forest Service was interested in--the total land use. We were concerned as to the best land use and the areas they selected and what effect it would have in the development of a logical forestry program for a given region. So the charge that foresters were opposed to parks has no foundation. We were opposed to every plan being accepted simply because the Park 51 Kotok: Service wanted it or special privileges for parks. The matter is now being resolved by the development of a new department in the Interior Department which will work with each one of the federal bureaus in examining with care the overall needs in recreation whether in national forests or parks on the merits of the case. In toto then there were fields of endeavor in the Interior Department that were frequently in conflict with those of the Forest Service, which was in the Department of Agriculture. The sum total of it was of course foresters didn't want to belong to that kind of an agency. It's questionable whether its welfare would have been harmed or improved. No one can say, but men react not from emotion but from belief built up through a series of acts that precede a final judgment. All of these things that happened between Agriculture and Interior didn't appear as a promising home for the Forest Service. Fry: Ickes charged Wallace with the fact that the field men were slugging it out, both men in Forestry and Interior, whereas in Washington people were pretty friendly. Kotok: My own experience with the Park Service during the period that I was in Washington when Newton Drury was heading the Park Service was one of greatest amiability. We regularly met the high staff men in the Park Service, and I think we were on ways to solution. I'm not so certain of the present incumbent [Conrad Wirth] of the Park Service, and I speak that with frankness and no rancor at all. I think he has excessive ideas of the field in which the Park Service should operate—an expansionist, and not only that, but his position must be right and the other fellow's wrong. You get the impression. Knowing Conrad Wirth as a person (a very able one) he can make up a very convincing case, but he has not been willing to subject it to a review by an impartial group. But now the mechanism has been set up where this can happen. The areas of contact that foresters built up with the constituents of legislators both on state and local levels, I might review them a little bit on the state level. The state Chamber of Commerce slowly but surely grew in importance in California under the Sloan administration, who was director of the state Chamber of Commerce. The area of interest widened. Its board was drawn from the most important leaders in the state representing a cross section of all major industries and major activities. The Chamber was divided into divisions, each one to deal with specialized activities. Charles Dunwoody was its first director of Conservation. He dealt with all matters in conservation, renewable and nonrenewable [resources], mining as well. He was selected because he had had the experience of being a member of that small conservation group which I referred to before 52 Kotok: in Southern California. So he came with a very strong interest in conservation without knowing much about the state. But he was a good learner; he learned considerably about the state and its problems --oil , too, but his specific interest was in renewable resources (there was a subsection that dealt with the nonrenewable ) . The Chamber of Commerce had another mechanism which was quite important; it had sub-offices in two or three important parts of the state which did local services in relationship to the general program of the state Chamber. Another important division dealt with highways and roads , and the one who led that was Jerry Carpenter. Of course the national forests were vitally interested in development of the main arteries of transportation, and the tie-in of federally supported highways to the main arteries affected communication of the national forests. So our work was very close with Carpenter and Dunwoody. Each one of these divisions also appointed technical committees to advise the director of the division. I was fortunate in being one of the technical advisors, which included the state forester, some county foresters, and the regional forester as well; we formed the technical committee on forestry on conservation. We helped them prepare the agenda for their annual meetings, which were quite important, and regional meetings that were also held. Normally the technical advisors would carry the responsibility of preparing the papers that were to be discussed before the meetings. Fry: Was everyone on the advisory committee a forester? Kotok: Well, it included in the special group a lumberman and also the two members of the associations the lumbermen had here — the Pine Association and the Redwood Association. But it was generally made up of professional men who had special training in that field. Fry: About this time the Save-the Redwoods League and the state parks movement was beginning. Did they have representatives? Kotok: Yes, the Save-the Redwoods League had a representative, a technician and Newton Drury's brother, Aubrey, who passed away. They were professional men. These annual meetings, these regional meetings, were very important. It was a platform where foresters and other technicians could present for public review programs, problems, and the part the community would have to play not merely in helping formulating the programs but in trying to get legislative action to effectuate them. The power of the state Chamber grew during the period of the Roosevelt administration even when Sloan passed away and a new man 53 Kotok: came, but it grew because it drafted to its board outstanding educators — Bob Sproul was a member (President Sproul) , Klineschmidt from the College of the Pacific. This gave to the Chamber of Commerce an opening to use the skills in our universities to pursue the development of problems under consideration by the Chamber as a whole. There was criticism of the Chamber by many liberals that it responded chiefly to the beck and call of corporate interests that had the major contributing memberships in the asso ciation. We as foresters weren't confronted with that conflict because no problems that we posed represented any conflict between corporate and noncorporate interest. Because at that stage most of the lumbermen had already become reasonably converted that forestry was a thing that had to come, that had to take place, and those that were in the corporate structure had already been engaging in forest management. That's merely an aside comment on what the liberals felt. We found no conflict. The state Chamber then became not only a place where we had a forum to present our problems to the leaders of California economy, but furthermore we could use the machinery of the state Chamber itself to appear before legislative committees particularly on the state level to push for forestry programs that the technical advisors had recommended. Dunwoody spent considerable time in Sacramento when the legislature was meeting supporting forestry programs. I shall relate one incident where this support brought some difficulty. When James Rolph was governor of the state, Dunwoody representing the state Chamber [interruption] Stole Smith representing the pine region thought we would pay our respects to the newly elected governor to secure his sympathetic interest in forestry problems. Thus we represented the professional, and we represented the industrial group, and we represented the state Chamber group. I can well recall me coming into the Governor's Office. He greeted us heartily--for us a hundred percent. But he said he wanted us to go see Herz, then his director of Highways, but his political guidance—It was important to win Herz over. The three of us approached Herz and I can recall him— a sort of a short little man with sparkling dark eyes, who looked at us, and he told us, "I'm not interested in forestry. All I'm interested in is arc you for Jimmy or against Jimmy?" And that ended the interview. [Laughter] Rolph was favorable, but he was pushed around a great deal. At that time the Redwood Association had reorganized, and a man by the name of Black was heading it. He was a forester, well trained, very active in the Chamber of Commerce, and really helpful. But he felt that the State Forester, the then incumbent, was not capable 54 Kotok: enough and was easily pushed around by the forestry group. Black had a very favorable position with the governor representing the liberal branch of the Republican party, and Rolph followed frequently the advice of Black. Black decided to push that the governor should ask for the resignation or transfer of the State Forester, Merritt Pratt, and Black had a candidate, a forester, whom he considered more favorable to the lumber industry than the incumbent. Dunwoody pressed the governor, when he found out that this was brewing, that he oughtn't to take that action. The governor then asked Dunwoody and Black to appear before him in person to argue the matter out. The story is told secondhand that the governor finally after listening to both of them wound up saying, "I think both of you are lying." Nevertheless Dunwoody forced Black to retract his recommendation to the governor by bringing pressure on the governor from important members of the state Chamber of Commerce. I'm bringing this in to show the political importance of the state Chamber when an issue was at stake because the governor was really prepared to go ahead and ask Pratt to step down. I came into this picture in another way. I was then chairman of the Society of American Foresters, the California chapter, and I was also a member of the national council. The then president of the Society, a Yale man, was very much concerned that Merritt Pratt, who was Yale man, was being charged for incompetence by Rex Black, who was a Michigan forester and a lumber representative. I was asked as chairman of the section to start an investigation of Rex Black whether he was guilty of unprofessional conduct of a forester underhand charging another forester with incompetence. I carried on the investigation as requested and found that the charges were not substantiated. The right of Rex Black to question the performance of a state official was a right that could not be challenged as unprofessional; it was the right of an industrial representative to question the acts of any state official. There were many who had question as to Merritt Pratt "s capacity-- his carrying out his --Foresters in the public service, however, were not concerned whether Pratt was or was not capable, but the fact that Black was trying to shove down the governor's throat a forester who was favorable to the lumber industry and probably opposed to public forestry. On that question one could argue but couldn't charge him with unprofessional conduct. So I reversed the charges as to facts and reasons. I wound up personally in rather a bad position. Black for years considered that I had brought the charges against him, which I didn't, and then when the council met I voted against the chairman not sustaining him on the charges. So on the council ground, the 55 Kotok: president of the society held it against me forevermore that I couldn't be trusted. But those are the earnings of services in carrying a job in any organization. Fry: Were either of these people important enough to hinder your services ? Kotok: No. They became friends of mine when I needed them. They were helpful though we differed on many points. Except the chairman did. He kept me from getting my fellowship for many years; all the Yale group voted against me till we got a change around. Then I got my fellowship. But I didn't care one way or another. The Yale-Michigan lineup. I challenged the president on some of his technical advice as well. So our conflicts were professional. He carried it beyond that, but he had a right to his point of view, and 1 had a right to mine. Fry: I guess in those days lobbying was almost a dirty word. Were you actually called on to testify? Kotok: This is the way we in the public service would conduct our business to safeguard that we weren't charged with outright lobbying. Through these contacts we made that were so important, we would secure a request from a committee that was holding hearings to appear in a technical, professional way. In view of the fact that the legislation we were supporting or appropriation was based on facts adduced by professionals in the public services, the area in which we dealt we had every right to be heard before appropriate professional committees. The other area in which we could honestly appear was at the request of an individual legislator who wanted information. We could, however, and that wasn't considered lobbying, appear before those that we knew and explain without committing them as to their vote on the issues at stake. Here's where friendships created while we were in the lower echelons of control as rangers, supervisors, came to our aid because we could go back to the assemblymen and state- senators and tell them we hoped they would look favorably on this and this. Lobbying in the sense that we were opposed to it; lobbying that we thought was dishonest if you bought the favorable action—as for example when a corporation would hire state senators and assemblymen through law offices with high counsel fees that we called a little bit dishonest. However, the right of a public official to seek support of the programs that he recommended and were accepted by the administrative agencies of government that was not considered undesirable or illegal or out-of-taste lobbying. 56 Kotok: But a state officer in the forestry service could not fight what the governor had approved because he was the executive head no less than the chief of the Forest Service could fight what his own Secretary of Agriculture- Fry: But you as a Washington employee had more freedom. Kotok: A public employee, a Washington employee, had every duty to be sure that in considering the measures before the state legislature, they were fully informed of its implications and effects it would have on a program. Fry: Whether or not it was opposed to the governor's wishes. Kotok: That's right. We could appear, but we never had to during my period; we never had to fight the governor excepting that incident where I gave that the governor nearly fell into a trap. As a matter of fact we generally supported what the State Forester had presented in the regular machinery through the legislature. Fry: Did the State Forester ever go through you when he needed to oppose something? Kotok: We had one contact with the State Forester that was very important. In view of the fact that the State Forester received subventions from the federal government (under the Weeks law and the Clark - McNary later) we had a right to see that the adequate matching money, the adequate performance on the federal contribution, was being made by the state. This aid was given to the state not to increase the budget but as an incentive to meet its own problems ultimately. Anyway, all of the public foresters --that is in the Forest Service- kept close touch with their state legislator. In my own experience I was very fortunate to have known some very intimately. One state senator, Henry McGuinness came from Siskiyou County, and Henry had known me as a cub when I was in the Shasta National Forest. When I knew him he was a bartender who on his own learned the law and passed bar, and he always said, "I am the only lawyer who learned his law behind the bar." [Laughter] Henry was a very capable state senator, and I would go to see him about legislative matters in the state, and he was very honest with me. I remember a piece of legislation dealing with increasing fire protection needs, and Henry said, "I must check with my constituents . " Knowing him well I said, "Who are your constituents?" 57 Kotok: [Henry replied,] "The Southern Pacific Company. They contribute to my law firm considerably." But Henry did support me in spite of of his constituency. Another time through my wife's relations I knew a Stanford senator, a Stanford runner, Skipper Nelson. I came up to him, and he was very nice to me, and I put this up to him and he said, "I want to support it, but I'll have to check with my constituency." Again, "Who is your constituency?" He said, "Murphys and all the others in the redwood industry. They're supporting my law firm." [Laughter] So we ran into those obstacles, but when the chips were down I found Murphy [Nelson?] was very helpful. In spite of these constituency pleas the general public feeling could overcome frequently these special lobbyists because, you see, the industry didn't want to expose itself to disclosure. Later for example, during my career I worked very hard bringing the Southern Pacific under fire control. I worked with the vice- president, and he was a fine friend of mine and supported us in general legislation although originally there was a conflict. Fry: Did this have anything to do with the fact that the Weeks law was so slow in getting started on a state level? Kotok: Yes, because they didn't give this other supporting money. So there was no program in part. There were a lot of other difficulties But anyway, what I'm trying to develop here is that these contacts that foresters had made during their periods of service through the encouragement of the top side in participating in community affairs gave them close contact with important legislators on the state level. Some of these relationships continued as warm friend ships for many, many years. The important thing was not that they merely changed the vote favorably for foresters, but that by a slow process of attrition these state legislators themselves became aware of the importance of forestry and became instead of looking askance, became ardent devotees of the conservation movement as a whole. Period. You asked how the Soil Conservation Service was retransf erred to Agriculture. I already related how Tugwell in his utter disgust with the conflicts within the Department of Agriculture had suggested 58 Kotok: to the president placing Soil Conservation in Interior. Later the Agricultural Committee dealing with appropriations were concerned as to where department appropriations would be considered, and the Agricultural Committee was worried that Soil Conservation, which specifically covered agricultural problems and agricultural land, should be handled by an Interior committee. This perhaps entered into the decision as to why the transfer should be made. There was also a slow build up of groups like the Farm Bureau and the farmers' associations and the Grange, the Farmers' Union, who were also concerned with it being in Interior. They wanted to have it under Agriculture. Perhaps the most important reason for the transfer came from the agricultural colleges. In their conferences one will find notations as to their dissatisfaction with Soil Conservation being in Interior. Fry: Why? Kotok: The agricultural colleges had the Extension Service, and the Extension Service dealt directly with the Department of Agriculture, not with Interior. So you have the problem of the contact point. There was also a conflict between the Extension Service and the Soil Conservation Service; there was a conflict of interest—both serving the farmers, both advising. So that was natural—ironed out ultimately defining more clearly the areas which Soil Conser vation would deal with in farmer relationships. So it all culminated in a good argument that the Soil Conservation Service belonged in Agriculture. Ickes's statement that if he hadn't been away he might have prevented it is his guess. My own judgment is that the congressional pressures to make the move were so strong that the president himself could not have resisted the congressional pressures to make the change. Fry: I understand from Ickes's diary that he sent telegrams to the; president and everything else. Kotok: Another thing, in this fight Ickes finally stood up and made a personal fight out of it. Ickes's conception of having a big conservation department was his only justification of getting in Soil Conservation the same as he had gotten Fish and Game, and he wanted Forestry and other. This argument about having a conservation department will rise again and again in government. Fry: Do you think it was a good plan as a compromise measure to break up forests so that the forests which should not have any cutting on them would be in the National Park Service in Interior and 59 Fry: those which could be cut would be under Agriculture? Kotok: Well, that's a hard question to answer directly. This is actually the way foresters conceive the problem should be handled. Pinchot himself had recommended that there should be a separate department for parks removed entirely from any pressures for industrial use of products within a national park. Foresters still believe that the Park Service should be independent. Whether it should be in Agriculture or in Interior is immaterial to the basic question that it should be an inde pendent bureau. The conception that foresters have is that there are three categories of land that we now have in the United States under public ownership; we have the parks which ought to remain as a separate bureau inviolate against any use; we also believe that the national forest system as constituted now should remain as a bureau preferably in the Department of Agriculture because its ties are much closer with other activities in Agriculture than Interior; the third area is the other public lands, some managed and some not managed. Part of it is under the Taylor Grazing Act. That's range lands though it's now in Interior. Foresters believed, and we so recommended early, that the Taylor Grazing Act lands should have been in the Department of Agriculture. If there is any move to be made they are more likely to go to Agriculture than the reverse because the Taylor Grazing Act means that we've dedicated range lands for permanent use for range purposes. The foresters lost in this fight trying to keep it in Agriculture. The then Secretary of Agriculture Wallace didn't fight hard enough for it as against Ickes's desire, and the men that the Forest Service put up to represent the Department of Agriculture point of view--0ne man named Sherman got sucked in, one might say, by Jerry Carpenter, who was a representative of the Interior Department brought in as such but actually was a lawyer who represented the western livestock industry. Carpenter became the chief of the Taylor Grazing Act, which he wanted and probably had made some arrangements with Ickes . This is a suspicion one has. Carpenter was a very skillful manipulator, and those of us who were close to Sherman knowing what was transpiring felt that Sherman accepted certain agreements Carpenter had made and then undercut him so as to move into Interior. There is another group of lands — the unappropriated — that isn't classified by an act for disposal. Nobody has any quarrel with that. The Bureau of Reclamation in Interior--! don't remember why it went to Interior and not Agriculture. But again it was a senator from Nevada who was the leader, who was charged by Nevadans that he was more a Californian than he was a Nevadan. And he was responsible actually for getting the Reclamation Service established. The reason it was established in Interior perhaps is 60 Kotok: because a large part of the land area that was then in public domain was in the Interior Department. The national forests did not form the great bulk. Another reason, most of the public domain that wasn't in the national forests (although the forests contained the areas of origin of the water) was in the arid regions of the West. Those were probably the things that the committee which made the final decision had to weigh. The land areas were in Interior; therefore they had the administration of them. There was perhaps another reason, too. The Department of Agriculture in those early days did not have a water department that dealt with husbanding water. There were studies in irrigation but not much. Actually the water department, the Geological Survey, that dealt with water was in Interior. It was on the basis of the findings of the Geological Survey as to water availability, water impoundment, which came naturally to the Geological Survey and not to the Department of Agriculture. So that was another strong reason why it went into Interior probably. There were many reasons, and if you examine them all you come to the conclusion that a congressional committee was justified to accept it. Of course this brought the Interior Department actively into the management of water supplies and land use. As far as the Forest Service was concerned, except for the tie-up with the Geological Survey on water, our contacts with Interior were minimal. We had no conflicts of any kind on the water question. Fry: I was thinking of Reclamation particularly because it was such a pork-barrel type of institution, or at least it turned into that in its dam building activities. Kotok: When you speak of "pork-barrel" of course all appropriations have an element of pork-barrel in them. Once an appropriation is suggested by the executive branch for the consideration of Congress, each congressman and senator is concerned what part of the pie will be cut for his state. To that extent the division of a pie consisting of federal appropriations is of concern to each legislative representative and it has an element of pork- barrel. It's beautifully illustrated for example in a more important one--River and Harbor Development. The problem exists all the way from the source of the Mississippi down to the Gulf of Mexico and in all parts of the country. In view of the fact that you can't cover them all at one time, the 61 Kotok: political strength and the bargaining strength of one group against another is in the form of pork-barreling for each particular district exercising all the political skills that the legislator possesses. Normally it involved a trading position giving up on one point and winning the point that the legislator wants. So I don't consider that pork-barrel actually means skulduggery. As I interpret it in American politics, it's the division of an appropriation between various sections of the country; frequently the ones that have the political power will win over those who lack that power. Therefore the selections will not be completely based on the merit of comparative projects . Fry: Then because this department, Reclamation, was able to help out so many congressmen and senators, I thought perhaps this was to the disadvantage of the Forest Service in this battle to keep the Forest Service in Agriculture. Kotok: That's true, but the congressman is pressed by many special groups within his territory. I mentioned the Chamber of Commerce in California that is important in some political fights. I mentioned that Southern California group which had a lot of power. It isn't merely what he can get in the development of water and harbors, but there are other issues that loom equally as important for the legislator to be pressed on. Foresters had a tougher job to sell their wares because all they had was promises of a future of improved forestry conditions, and those that dealt with the Interior had positive things to give right now. So the task of the foresters was always more difficult. We gave them hope, and they had to have faith, and then would come the blessings in the future. Fry: You were able to help them in massing their political strength at home. Kotok: That's right. Without organizing a campaign, and I hope I've given that impression, foresters by their training, by the nature of their jobs, were always preaching and believed in the things that they preached about with such fervor that the message carried. [End of Tape] To relate how foresters in doing their job have opportunities to meet important people and some of the things that grow out of those contacts—Going back to the time I was supervisor of the El Dorado National Forest, Secretary Houston, who was then Secretary of Agriculture later becoming Secretary of the Treasury, 62 Kotok: was visiting California, and it was my task to pilot him from Sacramento through the Eldorado and Tahoe National Forests. When I say pilot I was responsible to see that the meeting places provided for where he was to speak were prepared and also transportation and places to stay. While it was a minor job, nevertheless I had an opportunity to get to know Secretary Houston firsthand. I recall bringing him into Placerville that I said to him, "Mr. Secretary, you are now approaching a town, Hangtown, as known that claims that the gold that came from the mines of California saved the Union in its fight." The Secretary answered, "It isn't so. I had a doctoral thesis that covered that question, and it was proved beyond a doubt that the gold from California had no effect on the final outcome of the Union." From that little confab we became a little bit more intimate in our questions and answers that we talked about, and that continued for a long while even after he became Secretary of the Treasury. Fry: Do you mean on this one topic? Kotok: No, in other areas. It was the origin of a friendship. I might say, too, that it was during Prohibition then, but the Secretary did like a little drop of whiskey for medicinal purposes at breakfast, and we saw that he always had a drop of whiskey for his medicinal purposes. Now I can illustrate another meeting with an important secretary, This deals with a time when I was in the San Francisco office in charge of fire. I was in the office there, and a long- legged man came in looking for something, and I asked him could I be of any service to him. He says, "Yes, I was looking for the regional forester, Paul G. Redington." "Oh," I said, "he'll be in a little later, other service to you?" Oh, he said, "i_«.i . . , •, , ni n let s sit down and talk. Can I be of any "May I have the pleasure of knowing who it is?" He said, "Yes, I'm Secretary Meredith." So that little beginning opened up a friendship that extended for a few years . Then I had another opportunity that doesn't come often to men in the field. Secretary Hyde during the Hoover administration 63 Kotok: was making a trip for political purposes to California and Oregon, and he wanted the Forest Service to act as host and guide him, take care of his needs and his party. His party also consisted later of his wife and daughter. At that time the Bureau of Public Roads was also there, and it wanted to take charge of him. They came with a big Cadillac they had just bought for that purpose, and the Secretary was very much concerned that he should [not] be running around in a big, big Cadillac, so he decided he wouldn't ride in the Cadillac and allowed his wife and daughter to ride in it, and he rode with me in my humble broken-down Buick. [Laughter] Well, I piloted him from Northern California down to San Bernardino where he took a train east again. My task was to arrange meeting places. The Secretary asked me what party I belonged to, and I told him I was a Democrat with complete honesty. He said, "I'm glad you told me that." He asked me what I thought Hoover's chances were in California, and I told him that my wife, who was a poll taker, had come out with the answer he'd get badly licked. And the poll she takes is with the baker and candlestick maker. My own observation was, there would be great difficulty. The Secretary commented that he thought the political advice that the president was getting was not very wise. It's no use relating in detail whom we criticized. I think it would be unfair without substantiation, but he criticized among them even the great Secretary of the Treasury Mellon, and he criticized the Calif ornian who was in the cabinet, Ray Lyman Wilbur. Fry: He felt that Hoover was not getting the facts? Kotok: Not given the right political advice. Fry: The insularity of the top men? Kotok: He was critical of Hoover's action that he took with Coxey's army of the Gl's that went to Washington to crab at their treatment; he followed the advice of General MacArthur, and they gassed some of the Gl's that were there. The California delegation, with whom I visited during that time, (I happened to have been in Washington) --Mrs . Kahn (Congress- woman Kahn) and Congressman Harry Englebright and Congressman Sheppard--We went down to see the Californians who were there, and we were startled at what they had done. Fry: You went down to see the California veterans? 64 Kotok: Veterans who were in that troop that were out there on the mudflats . Fry: You saw them where? Kotok: We saw them after MacArthur had them driven out and gassed out. Fry: Were any hospitalized? Kotok: No, but they felt pretty bitter at action of that kind. The right to object they felt was inherent. But the president was informed that this was a mob scene and so on. I see there's a reference to that in an article in today's Herald . Fry: On Mississippi? Kotok: It relates to marching protestors. That was one of the early ones. Coxey's army was the earliest one that we know of his torically, this march of the veterans. And the Republican delegates felt bitter about this, about the action of the president and MacArthur on the Gl's. I relate this merely as getting to know people rather than this particular incident. Fry: But your particular incidents are valuable for us, too. Kotok: Hyde was a remarkable speaker. I listened to one or two of his speeches, and then when his wife and daughter came I had to take care of them, so I would take them out to a movie or something during the speechmaking. The Secretary would always say, "You missed my best speech." [Laughter] "Well," I said, "I took care of your wife and daughter." They, the wife and daughter, had many demands. Fry: What does the wife and daughter do, by the way, on a trip? Kotok: [Laughing] They hindered him mostly. But we took care of them and tried to entertain them, keep them busy. The other thing about Hyde's trip, we took him from San Francisco through the redwoods up to Yreka, and it was hard to get the Secretary interested in forestry as such. I tried it a number of ways. He would discuss with me economics, politics, at length; some way or other he thought he was feeling out the pulse of public opinion through me and perhaps was merely exploring the areas where political complex existed. I suspect it now, I didn't then when I was on the trail. But we started to come 65 Kotok: through the redwoods, and it was towards dusk when we came into the pine groves in Humboldt County, and we were in an open car so that he could see the scenery, and it was cold so we put a blanket over him. And he wanted us to slow up at a snail's pace. I had already arranged a meeting where there were about 500 people to listen to him in Eureka, and it was difficult for us to get these people. And here they were waiting. We had to send an emissary immediately up there to get someone to keep talking until the Secretary would arrive. He was struck with the beauty and almost shrine-like worship that he had for what he saw which left a deep impression on every one of us. Here shivering under a blanket with an open top to the redwood groves , craning his neck, and not a word passed for twenty, thirty minutes. An inspiring spectacle. Fry: That was your 5000 words on behalf of forestry. Kotok: That's right. It made a deep impression on him. Now I merely mention that the Secretary was questioning me outside of my field because he believed that foresters were awake to other issues than mere forestry itself by our reading, our contacts, and so on. He felt we were sensitive to the other influences that were operating in the community. He continued as a warm friend of mine; we corresponded. He was very gracious and thankful for all I did. This is what he told me as to my party; he said, "Don't change your party. If you're going to make changes make them within your party." He said, "You see, I made a grievous mistake. I supported LaFollette and Johnson when they ran as Mugwumps against the Republican party. I always regretted it. Don't be a Mugwump." He was a strong believer in the two-party system. Then I recall I chided the Secretary that he didn't support some increases that the public employees were trying to get, and he made a statement that nobody should get more than $5000 in public service. I questioned him about thaf, and we argued amiably enough, and I couldn't help to retort, "Mr. Secretary, you know we don't all own Buick agencies." He then owned, you see, a Buick agency in Missouri. But he took it in good stead. He said, "You dug hard, boy." Every evening after he spoke there was one thing that I had to do. I had to sit with him while he drank milk, and I drank milk along with him, and we would play a game of bridge. It was one way he relieved himself from tension. He was a 66 Kotok: fairly good bridge player and very critical of his partner if he failed to meet the requirements of a good game. So I had to be a bridge player along with other things. During the Roosevelt administration Wallace was coming out to California. At that time a group was subpoenaing him for a certain kind of legal action against the Department of Agriculture. So he was trying to keep out of circulation of subpoena servers. I found that he was here, and I wired the chief of the Forest Service if I could contact Wallace so I could join his party. He said, "By all means." So with that clearance I found out where he was staying. Fry: Was this in Roosevelt's first term? Kotok: Roosevelt's first term. He was staying with relatives naturally from Iowa somewhere in Southern California. I went down there, and I finally found his secretary, Paul Appleby, and asked him if I could see the Secretary. He said, "No, you can't. He's too busy, and I don't want you to interfere with that." Having met that obstacle I secured the help of a member of the state Chamber of Commerce in Riverside, who was handling a meeting that the Secretary was going to have to find out where the Secretary was. He gave me the address, and I went down there and introduced myself and said, "Anything we can do to help you, Mr. Secretary, I'm here." He said, "Fine, you pilot me down to the meeting." Mr. Paul Appleby didn't like it very much, but the Secretary said, "I 'IP going with him. " So we traveled down there, and it so happened that Wallace related to me how in his early college career he had thought of going into forestry and finally decided to go into agriculture. Of course he wanted to go into publishing afterwards taking the Wallace paper. So we discussed general things very little about forestry. So the Secretary asked me as we go to the meeting—he said this was what he wanted from me. First what were the questions they were likely to ask him. Again you see, out of my field. Secondly he wanted to know who's who after the meeting; who asked and why. There are a lot of fortuitous things in life, and it so happened that the chairman of the meeting was none other than the Dean of the College of Agriculture, Hutchison. So of course it made it easier for me through Hutchison's showing his interest, not only in me as a person but of course he had to meet the Secretary. 67 Kotok: In this meeting, which was a private meeting, they wouldn't allow anybody in, and the Secretary brought myself in and two other foresters. And as we passed the door you had to get in there with permission. They wanted this a private meeting to protect the Secretary. These were very critical questions that the agriculturalists were going to ask him. He said, "These are my cousins, and I have a lot of cousins in Southern California." [Laughter] So we were permitted in to sit there. I informed the Secretary from just reading the press and knowing some of the men the kind of questions they would ask. They dealt generally with the agriculture program, controls and other matters, and I pointed up from some of the things that had come to my knowledge what the questions would be. This little briefing probably helped him to orient himself ready for the questions . Then of course I invited him to take a trip with me. We had approval for the establishment of the San Dimas Experimental Forest, and I asked him if I could pilot him. He said, "Delighted." Again I met him very early in the morning, and he took along a cousin of his, a woman, who was a very noted writer. I didn't know that the Secretary was a little fearful of riding on the slope side of a mountain road. So while I took him up there indicating this and that point of interest, I was afterwards informed by others who were looking at him that he had his eyes closed all the time. [Laughter] Nevertheless he went up there and asked very pertinent and germane questions regarding the experiment—what we were proposing to do, our expansion program, the use of the CCC boys, some of the construction we had underway. It was a very profitable trip for myself, and I think the Secretary, who was always interested in research, was particularly happy to find that we were trying to hit this very difficult field, the basic questions dealing with stream flow action on mountain areas. This little beginning with Wallace continued throughout his career in government as I knew him, even including the time that he was vice-president that I visited him and asked his information and guidance on some problems, and he continued his interest in f orestry--his great belief that foresters were devoted public servants not seeking personal aggrandizement. Fry: What was it you went to see him about? Kotok: I went about another question on forestry that we had in the course of the period of the first administration, you see. He was 68 Fry: Kotok; Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: let off, and he became vice-president, then Secretary of Commerce. I continued my contact with him throughout. He visited again in California, and he called me up that he wanted to see me. So in all areas through contacts, we made friends with important figures . Did you help him in his presidential campaign? None whatever. We never helped anybody in presidential campaigns. We never took part. You couldn't. No, no. First of all, the Hatch Act was operative and foresters absolutely obey that. We would fire any man of the Forest Service that broke down the Hatch Act, no if's and and's about it. When was his campaign? '48? Well, you see, he ran when I was out of the country. I knew Wallace was Secretary of Agriculture. I knew him as Vice-President , I knew him as Secretary of Treasury. When you were getting research funds, I think he was Vice-President, Yes, that was before the Truman administration. During the Truman administration he was Secretary of Commerce, and I got to know him there. Actually there were one or two jobs that foresters and commerce did together dealing with imports and exports or forest products. So I kept up contact with him clear through. What I'm trying to indicate is that foresters through the avenues and channels that are available to them have frequently been given the opportunity to know in pleasant contacts many of the important leaders of the Department of Agriculture and other governmental positions. What I was trying to peg was: mutually concerned? On what issues were you and Wallace The most important thing on what Wallace actually was interested in: When he visited here and I told him about our forestry genetics problems, his interest of course was enormous because by training and avocation he was a geneticist. His questions on that were very detailed and way beyond my own capacity even to answer. But he was interested in that. He primarily was interested in forestry on two scores as far as his contacts with me would indicate: One, that we're really trying to do basic research and that we were attacking it with firmness and a program of vision. On the second score in which he was interested 69 Kotok: in foresters is the devotion that we had for the public interest and stake in the forest lands, both private and public in the United States, and what it would mean to the development of a sound land use and economic welfare of many communities where forest products are so important. So his interests were those. My discussion with him, then, with Wallace generally he would ask what program we were working on. I never discussed politics with him as I did with Hyde, never. I never discussed politics with him. He never solicited any questions on it. Later I'll give you my contact with Tugwell, who was an important factor. Fry: Good. I wonder if you could give us some contrasts between these three or four secretaries whom you've already mentioned as administrators of forestry programs. Kotok: Wilson I only met once. Here are the secretaries to start off: Houston, Meredith, then came Hyde, Wallace, Wickard, Anderson, Brannan. A lot of secretaries, isn't it, in a lifetime? Started actually with Wilson. I knew them all well personally, every one of them. [End of Interview] • . i, • • \ • ' • • • ' - ••• ' ' • • ' 70 INTERVIEW III More About Congressmen; The Rise of Corporate Forestry; Professor Emanuel Fritz; Botanist Willis L. Jepson; Congressman Martin Dies; Henry Wallace; The Presidents; Senator Wayne Morse; Rex Tugwell; Carl Alsberg (Recorded July 3, 1963) Kotok: I want to cover again about the important members of Congress who gave leadership and guidance to the conservation movement. Through my talk I have mentioned names, but it might be well to restate the problem in toto. In the early days support for the national forest system depended largely upon New England senators and congressmen. Of course there were others from other parts of the country but mainly the New England group were the power that supported the conservation movement. Politically the western congressmen were fearful of the local pressure groups, both the stockmen and miners, in taking too active a part. But as time went on this picture changed. We found later that conservation was of wide interest from East to West, and a great many middle western and western senators took up the leadership in conservation. Among them we might well mention Senator Borah of Idaho, the older LaFollette from Wisconsin, Senator Sheeler from Montana, Senator Norris from Nebraska, Senator Murray from Montana, and a later time Senator Young of North Dakota. I mention the senators rather than the congressmen because the thrust for conservation generally originated in the Senate and not in the House. Later Senator Aiken from Vermont and Senator Margaret Smith from Maine could be added to the list of those supporting conservation. Then with the development of forestry in the South, largely due to the fact that second growth timber was not available for the market after the first cut had already been used up and pulp and paper companies began to develop within the South, southern senators and congressmen found it to their advantage to support conservation movements. There among the prominent members of Congress who were helpful in conservation, the following can be mentioned: Senator Dick Russell from Georgia, who was in a powerful position as chairman of the Appropriations Committee; Senator Stennis from Florida; and an innumerable number of congressmen (we don't need to mention them) who found it profitable to support conservation 71 Kotok: because the forestry business was an active and important one within their congressional districts. So the picture changed. Now at the present time the conservation support in Congress is not identified with one particular region or with one group of senators but is probably found throughout the United States in the congressional delegation. I might illustrate the change by one of warm support by utilizing what happened (to illustrate by what happened) with Senator Clair Engle. Senator Engle was elected to Congress following Congressman Harry Englebright, a Republican, (Senator Engle coming from Northern California and with a background for light burning and general opposition perhaps to forestry from the mining industry). He appeared at first as if not opposed to support of the national forest system, critical in many respects sometimes without cause. The local forest supervisors in the northern counties had tried to interest him in the problems of their particular forests which were in his congressional district, but it took a long, long time to make him at least silent where he had been critical before. Fry: This was when you were supervising forests--? Kotok: No, this is the time when I was in Washington; this transpired in the late forties. When he was running for the Senate and light burning was an issue that was introduced as a political issue in California in the campaign, we suggested to Engle, who was still congressman, to hold a hearing on fire protection, light burning, and the whole protection problem in Southern California to be held in Los Angeles. He followed our suggestion, and his committee, which then was in Interior Department but handling the forest service budget, called a hearing in Los Angeles. Fry: Was this the budget subcommittee? Kotok: Yes, the budget subcommittee of — Appropriations Subcommittee. My assumption is that Engle saw in this an opportunity to appear in Southern California, and the advice of his conservation friends and what transpired in the hearing, which was loaded with those that were violently opposed to light burning and for fire protection-- his reaction was what could be expected; he was responsive and then became immediately an outspoken supporter of the forest program as proposed by foresters in California. I'm not saying this critically of Senator Engle; I'm merely indicating that political exigencies control actions of our legislature as they naturally should. Engle saw that conservation and adequate fire protection for the State of California had warm public support particularly of Southern Calif ornia--an area in which he was not known. 72 Fry: You said his subcommittee was an Interior Department-- Kotok: Yes, I had already given the fact that during a change in the fifties, there was a change of assignments, and for budgetary purposes, the forest service budget appeared in the Interior Department. Its legislative program, however, was still in Agriculture, but it is not so in the Senate. The Senate remained the same; it's in Agriculture. That move that was made in '52 was made in order to divide the tasks of the budget committees, which were unequal. As a matter of fact this change for the budget that foresters feared going into Interior proved to be very valuable because the Interior Committee leaned over backwards to be fair to forestry that had been transferred to its jurisdiction. I was back in Washington from South America, and I was asked to intercede with Congressman Cannon, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to see if he wouldn't keep forestry in the agricultural budget, and I met with Senator Cannon, and he told me that it was impossible because there was this task of dividing the work of the budget committees more equitably, and he felt quite sure that the Interior Committee would treat the budget requests of forestry probably even with greater interest than the Agriculture Committee, which was concerned with so many agricultural crops, that by the time they got down to forestry, it would be a third or fourth cousin. Fry: Yes, and you did have a little bit higher priority, I guess, in Interior? Kotok: Yes, we had higher priority in the Interior, and one can report that the Interior budget subcommittee has treated forestry far more generous than ever was treated by the Agriculture Committee. And it's obvious because tobacco, corn wheat, livestock, loomed [ ?] much greater in the interest of the Agriculture Committee than would timber and forest products. Fry: Well, there's probably greater pressure from those areas there. Kotok: Well, they're representative of the outright agricultural groups. Fry: And so many people have an interest in those. Kotok: And the Interior subcommittee is representative (many of them) from the West in which national forests are an important asset. Fry: Yes, that's true. You don't have to educate your Nebraska and Iowa senators about forests. 73 Kotok: Well no. I mean for example the Iowa congressman understands corn; he might not understand about the requirements for timber of forestry. On the other hand, no Oregon or Utah or Colorado or California congressman (some of them are members of that committee) --You would't have to explain to him what forests are and what timber is. But there is another reason why that's important . Normally, the placement of congressmen as they enter into Congress and the selection of committees, they're given a reasonable choice, and most western congressmen in their initial one if they cannot get on some more important committee, always seek to get on Interior in preference than getting on to Agriculture. Fry: Well, it's one that has a lot of good support. I'd like for you to tell us something about these earlier ones like Borah and LaFollette, Wheeler, Norris . Kotok: I mention Borah, LaFollette, Wheeler, Norris--men of stature, men of daring, and Johnson (I should have added to that list Hiram Johnson, I missed that) --They were important in many ways. First of all, they were liberals; secondly, they were not penny pinchers; they weren't budget balancers. Liberals in this sense I mean; liberal, for example, all of those that I've mentioned supported better treatment of labor, better land use. They supported later the CCC movement, and in spite of a good many of them being Republicans that I mentioned (some of them are Republicans), they supported in the main the president's program. So they were liberal in the sense that-- Fry: You mean Roosevelt's? Kotok: Yes, Roosevelt after the Depression. So they supported that. They also were conscientious objectors to many of the things that has proved that they were right in—objecting to hysteria and mud-s lingers , this whole problem of minority groups — they represented lower class interests — and legislation that contains their names. Fry: Does all this go for Borah? Kotok: For Borah as well. Excepting some of them, Borah was for peace. They were the non-violence group and also for peace. That represents Borah and the older LaFollette and the younger LaFollette as well later. There was one tie with these, what I call, liberals who were fighting the tied-up machine in both parties that were 74 Kotok: generally controlled by the urban center political machines- Tammany Hall or the Pendergast machine, a Kansas City group, their enclave in the cities. And they represented the rural areas, the underdeveloped areas — that extent. Now it so happened that Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the forest service, was closely associated with all or these leaders that I spoke of. He worked with them on the broad political front, not only on conservation but on the whole broad political front. We call today the liberal movement illustrated for example in what Hiram Johnson did as governor and supported them as senator—working hours for women and children, minimum wage laws and the whole social front which we now accept as a matter of course. So this group then wore the ties that foresters had. It's interesting, too, that they welcomed foresters to meet with them, to discuss with them their problems. It was my good fortune as a Calif ornian of course to have known very closely Hiram Johnson. Fry: Yes, I guess I have a note that he was important because of his contact with Senator Murray. Kotok: There is one thing in the Senate that I observed. We speak of the Senate having a "club;" what we mean by the "club" is this: There are certain rules of behavior—relationships of one senator with another senator — that is either observed or not observed. Members of the "club" observe these rules. Furthermore, regardless how they may stand on any issue, these senators that we call in the "club" confer with each other as to the best way out of a dilemma, even though they may be on opposite sides. Now all of these senators that I mentioned were members of what I call the "club," even including Borah, who was the greatest conscientious objector. Fry: Borah always seems so unpredictable to me. Kotok: Yes, he was predictable- Fry: I mean unpredictable. Kotok: No, he was predictable on most issues because we knew where he would stand on personal rights, and so forth and so on. He was against war; he was for peace. Borah didn't believe that we needed to have entered into either the First World War or the Second World War. But disregarding that area, there are so many legislative things that the Senate has to consider that Borah-- 75 Kotok: This group that I mentioned was open-minded to see the other senator's point of view and would reach compromises, and that is absolutely necessary to get legislation through either house. Fry: Now Johnson and Murray- - Kotok: Well, by seniority—there is another thing that happened. By seniority and they were reelected so often—These men that I mentioned all had high seniority and were chairmen of important committees. So therefore they had a power beyond that which the average senator would have. Since other senators would have to have their bills before them, they secured support for the measures that otherwise might not have been secured. So this intricacy of government has indicated how the action on conservation [went] . I think I told the story about how Hiram Johnson secured for me an additional appropriation for forest influences. Fry: Yes, we touched on that last time, but exactly how he was persuaded to do this or how he did it I don't think we covered. Kotok: Well, I had an opportunity to go to Washington. I'd already secured the help from Southern Californians to inform Johnson of their interest in order to initiate an increase to work in forest influences. So my appearance in Washington and asking for an interview with the senator was relatively easy. And through his secretary, who was very well informed, Mary Conner, a very capable woman, she arranged for some notes and had me talk to the senator directly. And after a few minutes the senator said he'd see what he could do to add an item in the budget. Fry: This was for research funds? Kotok: For research funds for forest influences was the initial step. And I think I related that I was out in the anteroom while the item was being discussed on the Senate floor. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator McNary from Oregon, was handling the bill, and I understood then that Senator Johnson asked to offer an amendment, and it would take him about an hour to discuss it. Senator McNary said he'd accept the amendment if he wouldn't make the speech. [Laughter] So the amendment was accepted, and we secured an additional appropriation of $100,000 of which California got $50,000. So the Senator was worth 50% of the total appropriation. 76 Kotok: And then I received a note. It was sent out by Mary Conner. Of course she could walk on the floor. And she came out, and I got this note which I've kept ever since. It says, "Got your damn item. Hiram." [Laughter] Well anyway, this relationship of committee now--McNary did that not only because he had high regard for Johnson, but it was important for McNary to keep Johnson on his side for matters that would appear before Johnson's committees. So there's this interrelationship — Fry: Back scratching. Kotok: I wouldn't call it back scratching. You never can get complete agreement on all things; therefore it's give and take. Now a senator or a congressman that wants one thing very much will have to give in to some other item toward which he would be cool or even negative if he wants his item. Now the other one who wants his item may be just as well justified fighting for his item. So when we speak of this trading and so on, it's the natural way if you're going to go ahead. Or you can buck each other and neither one get anything. So it's a give and take. Now there's another reason why there are these differences. One legislator may be very well informed in one area and not informed in another. So in the area in which he is not informed if he accepts the one who is proposing something in the area that he is informed, the reverse may be on the item that the senator's interested—where he is informed in. This is a complicated sentence of mine, but you get the idea. But I want to ncte once for all — but there is — any viciousness of trade. Let's take for example what even a president has to do. That's happened clear through the following the congresses since 1910. A president must recognize where the opposition is in the legislature, and he must know when and how to compromise. It isn't buying votes, but it's trading for what one wants and what the other wants. If he blindly bucks in order to justify himself before the electorate itself, he'll frequently be licked. The recent illustration is the court-packing of Roosevelt. He gained nothing by it, I mean, by not being cognizant of the opposition. Let's take today. The present incumbent in the White House has to get certain votes for his main legislative program. He cannot outrightly fight the southern Dixiecrats on all fronts. Now to the extent that he compromises in those fields, the ultra-liberals would say, "He sold us out." But those that know the machinery 77 Kotok: of government will recognize he may not be able to get his whole pie; he'll have to be satisfied with half a pie or sometimes half a loaf of bread even. Fry: Do people who are in positions to talk with and perhaps influence legis lators--are they ever able to serve as intermediaries for this trading? Kotok: Well, those would be that control a large group of votes. I'll give you an illustration. In the biographies, for example, of Farley and other men that were in politics, they give illustration after illustration of being intermediaries because they were the head of a party. I assume the same thing could be said in the Republican Party when they were in. (Intermediaries from those on top.) Other groups that have power of course organized labor through its regular representatives. The farm groups have had enormous power—the Farm Bureau, the Grange, and so forth. So they act as intermediaries in the respect that in order to secure what they want, they will try to get the two sides together. But it wouldn't be an individual. Now for example, all presidents have had men who have felt the pulse of public opinion; Wilson had his Colonel House; many presidents have had Baruch- Fry: Yes. Roosevelt had many. Kotok: Roosevelt had many; he felt his pulse over many pulses. Louie Howe was probably the most important. So each president finds, I assume from what's related in today's press, that the president depends on his feeling of the pulse on his brother, the Attorney General, who probably has more ways of getting public reaction than the president directly. So there always have been men that the president sought advice on critical problems where the decision means much to the country and to the program that the president is proposing. Now men on lesser echelons also had part problem was in a discussion. Gifford Pinchot that had high political standing of his own. a governor, but beside that he was a leader of Roosevelt Rough Riders. So he had entrees and things to both the executive branch and legis very few individuals as foresters ever had or when their particular was the only forester First he had been the old Teddy ways of presenting lative branch that ever likely to have. Fry: Was he very active in this in the forties? 78 Kotok: Yes, Pinchot was active up to the time he passed away, and his wife was equally an active politician although she wasn't as interested as much as Gifford Pinchot was in conservation; she was interested more in the other liberal movements as it affected women and children and labor. Fry: His brother Amos was pretty active, too wasn't he? Kotok: Yes, and his brother Amos--they became a family of politicians. Then they had another thing if I may mention. They had another thing; while the opportunity for anyone to rise to high position is easy, those born with a silver or gold spoon have that opportunity a little bit easier. Fry: Yes, they are more equal. Kotok: Gifford Pinchot was born with more than a silver spoon; it had a lot of gold on it. So he had the independence; he had standing within the state of Pennsylvania itself, and he was able to use his wealth to do things that a poor man could not have been able to do on his own, and he spent freely of his own fortune in order to advance the cause of forestry or conservation or public power. Public power was the thing that he was particularly interested in. So you see, another thing that tied these western senators together, might be well to mention it just now--comes to my mind, was public power. And public power, the key issue in the West — public versus private power development. And everyone of those senators that I mentioned was all strong for public power. Fry: So that in the case of Hetch-Hetchy--Yes , most of them were in during Hetch-Hetchy days, but that was really before you became-- Kotok: Oh, the Hetch-Hetchy started it. Well, I was interested, but I had no great part to play on this Hetch-Hetchy. Fry: But they were for Hetch-Hetchy from the public power-- Kotok: Oh yes, that's right. They were all of public power. So it's an interesting thing; what tied them all together then was a major issue of public power, and on that hinged the welfare of political campaigns and also of parties—where they stood on that. You know, the division between the Republicans and Democrats. Now these men were (a good many of them) Republicans , fought their own group. And to that way they were irregular and, as you say, not conformists with the major platforms of their own party. Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: So they were, in a sense, a little on the maverick side as far as the party went . Yes. I wanted to ask you about Gifford Pinchot if he was able to take an active part in the battle to keep forestry in the Department of Agriculture. I don't think you mentioned him last time. Oh yes. I related this: Actually Pinchot 's fight for forestry and Interior started off (and I related that in full) with the Glavis and the episode where the battle for the coal fields and that, and he had to resign and worked with Teddy Roosevelt to defeat Taft actually. And he became a political force from that point on. And then he worked with the Progressive party, and without the Progressive party it's doubtful whether Wilson would have been elected. The split in the Republican party did that. He helped Franklin Roosevelt. Then he helped Franklin Roosevelt because he was violently opposed to the whole Republican platform and its candidate. He was opposed to its candidate as well. So Gifford Pinchot jumped party lines to the Progressive Party even support of Democratic candidates. Did he remain Progressive, then, to his dying day? He didn't turn conservative? Kotok: No, no, no, he was Progressive to his dying day. Then his wife, in order to keep him interested because she was afraid his failing health might be failing mind as well, with the assistance of a lot of writers and so on, got him to finish up his biography, got him to finish up some other papers, and a number of things of that kind. She tried to keep him very active. One of the interesting things. They have a beautiful home in Washington, and there the Society of American Foresters would meet annually (that would be one annual meeting), and we'd have about a hundred people at this home of theirs which could hold--It had a library that could seat about eighty to ninety people, just the library itself. And they'd always serve cider and doughnuts. Fry: Yes, he was a teetotaler, wasn't he? Kotok: Yes, I heard. Doughnuts and baked apples. And we called it the 80 Kotok: Baked Apple Club, so it was called, and the Society of American Foresters started in his home originally. And we had hoped Mrs. Pinchot would have left that there to the society, but she didn't. So we used to meet there annually, and he was the host, and both of them were great hosts. Fry: Along about the thirties—Well maybe we'd better talk about the American Society for Foresters later on, but it would be good sometime to go into their evolution as the private foresters begin to come in. Kotok: There's another subject that we haven't fully covered, I guess. We might give a few more notes. I made the general statement that as the forest industry turned from individual ownership into cor porate ownership, the interest in forestry and the maintenance of forest lands increased enormously. Not having the entailed estate or the assurance that the future generations would keep their lands as they wished in permanent forestry, private owners did not have that interest, as I indicated that Europeans have, with the entailed estate, and progenitor to maintain a piece of property as originally set up by their ancestors. However, even with private ownership there were some indications that some men (I'm speaking not of California ; it happened elsewhere, too) that wanted a start in forestry. Perhaps the first one that I know of (there might have been others) is the C.A. Smith Lumber Company, which later became the Danaher Lumber Company—their holdings in El Dorado County, California. It's on the El Dorado National Forest. Smith was a northwestern lumberman and a [Great] Lakes state lumberman and had acquired quite a fortune and had this land in California. He built a mill and began logging, and he really became interested in forestry. He was a Scandinavian and knew by heritage what forestry is and what it could do. He was one of the first ones that arranged with the national forest on the El Dorado National Forest for mutual fire protection of the intermingled lands of the national forests and the company's land, and he paid his proportionate share for fire protection of their land. One of the first. It started in 1908, 1909. Then the C.A. Smith Lumber Company had to liquidate, and all the schemes that he had fell by the wayside--which is an indication, you see, it wasn't corporate; it was private and it was lost. The Danahers then bought the property (C.A. Danaher), and they, too, were an old Michigan lumber company that had cut up and had gotten out of the [Great] Lake states. And they acquired this Smith Lumber Company. It was then that I came on the scene as supervisor of the El Dorado National Forest. So it 81 Kotok: was relatively easy for me to arrange with the Danahers to continue the Smith contract for the protection of their land, and my relationship with the Danahers was very close, both in the official business and also personally with the major owners of the company. As al] lumbermen are, they were very democratic; never would they come into town (the main owners when they came from their headquarters in the [Great] Lake states) that they didn't drop into the Forest Service office to pay their respects to me as supervisor of the forest. It's a remarkable thing the general democracy of the lumbermen that they have. It's the nature of their own work, and it's the nature of the relationship of their labor and all; that's the breed of cats they are. So anyway I want to go on with my story if I may about some of the companies that became interested in forestry as part of their operations. Now after the First World War, the Danaher Lumber Company became corporate in its structure—corporate to this extent: While the family held the majority of the stock, it was on public sale, and it was diversified family ownership. They hired a forester, Swift Berry, who had been in the forest service and then was in the Tenth Engineers during the war. He worked in on the [ ?] and he worked with private forestry. So he took the job as assistant manager and forester and engineer to run the company. So then we had a forester. Fry: And you think he was probably the first one? Kotok: No, now he was not the first. The first one that we had was Diamond Company. And the Diamond Match Company was corporate, and as I stated they were partially interested in forestry, but they didn't know what to do, so they hired a forester, Frederick Olmsted, who had been regional forester. Frederick is the same f amily--that "s a cousin of the landscape architect. Frederick Olmsted, who had been district forester in Region Five to handle their properties, not only in California but they also had properties in Oregon. Olmsted worked with them and developed a plan for ownership and a plan for treatment of land including sylvacultural cutting, cutting budgets, and they made some moves in that direction. My first contact with the company then was on that fire protection, which was my first assignment, and we worked out an agreement for the Diamond Match Company without any difficulty to Fritz Olmsted for the fire protection of the company. Out of a clear sky, Fritz Olmsted resigned from the company. At that time he was receiving what would be very generous pay of $12,000 a year. He dropped the job without having another job or any means of income, even-- 82 Fry: This would be back in the twenties? Kotok: In the twenties, on the basis that the company was merely kidding the public and itself, that it didn't intend to practice forestry, that it was actually following a cut-out-and-get-out policy that they had utilized in the ownership of when some of their owners were in the [Great] Lake states. Fry: Well then, this contributed nothing or demonstrate to other companies that foresters could really make a difference. Kotok: Well no. I'll tie it all together to show how it related. I've given this incident merely to show this attempt of the corporate one, you see, the grasp of it just as soon as they could. Then they got this forester. Now whether Olmsted was right or wrong in handling that no one can tell; his conscience dictated to him that that was the move to make, and he did shake the company up. And they hired another forester that had been an assistant to Olmsted (and his name slips me now and it'll come to me a little later), and he became their forester and their manager. He did a number of things this forester. First, instead of cutting off and selling the lands, they kept all the second growth land. He did modify their cutting method—not the best silviculture, but to minimize destruction. He was for full fire protection. He was for protection against insects attack. So he therefore rejuvenated what was left of the program proposed by Olmsted but more sure-footedly than Olmsted because he didn't have the power or the daring of an Olmsted; he proceeded step by step, and it can be related that finally he got them really to organize their lands under forest management — not the most perfect silviculture, but a general improvement of their land, consolidating their land holdings, and maintained their land as a permanent asset of their capital investment. So we have this illustration. And I'm really referring to California. I said there were other things happening elsewhere. The other one was immediately after the war; Mason also came back from Tenth Engineers, David Mason, who had been also professor at the University of California. And he started then a consulting firm, and he interested a number of the redwood companies to initiate forestry, and he hired a number of graduates (Mason did) for the companies as consultants and as workers (from the graduates of the University of California). Some were his original students. Those of us who were in forestry were happy to see this turn of events and we were watching very closely to see what happening on the ground. And we were very much disturbed that while their general statements were very heartening — 83 Fry: You mean from the companies. Kotok: From the companies and from the foresters that they employed. When we closely examined them on the ground and consulted with these foresters, we found very little was actually being done on the ground . Fry: The cutting practices didn't change much? Kotok: Didn't change much. In fact in some ways they became even more disastrous. There was no improvement, let's put it this way. Well, but foresters are always hopeful. They did start a plan of reforesting, replanting (cut-over lands), and they argued that they would plant five trees where one grew before. But that's a long way of calling good forest practice. So they did start a planting program; they had nurseries and they outplanted ] ?] on cut-over lands. Fry: Was Mason more or less the mastermind or the one that the graduates always conferred with? Kotok: Yes, the graduates conferred with him. Each company had its own foresters, but Mason was the overall consultant for all of the companies with rather very handsome fees he got. Gome of us suspected — Mrs . K. : What was the name of his partner? Kotok: Mason and Stevens. Mrs. K. : No. Kotok: Oh yes it was Mason, Stevens, and Bruce. It's now Mason, Stevens, and Bruce. And now a rather interesting—The one charge that has been made against Mason, and I wouldn't want to support that charge, is that the companies hired him for another ulterior purpose: There was then pressure for setting aside as much of that virgin redwood land for parks, and the movement was very sharply defined, not only in the legislative halls that were trying to legislate in the state, but various groups with the help of the Rockefeller funds were very anxious to really save some of the redwoods. And then the Save-the-Redwoods League started with one of the Drurys heading it. But he [Mason] was hired to be the arbitrator—being a forester, being a conservationist — that he would act as the arbitrator 84 Kotok: between the park proponents and the lumber group, and Mason did participate in the final adjustment of areas that were going into the State Park Service. Fry: The State Parks bought a great deal of their lands from Pacific Lumber Company. Kotok: Pacific Lumber, but there was a number of companies. He was the arbitrator. Well, regardless of what happened anyway he settled the disputes amicably and both sides were at that time satisfied. Then the Depression came, and the lumber companies felt that they had to cut, and practically all of the lumber companies that had these foresters fired them. And thus a dream of Mason went up in the air. I relate that because it's a rather sad thing, but I think part of it is due to the fact what I first stated, was these were privately (most of them were privately) owned companies like the Hammonds. It was owned by Hammond. The Murphys owned the Pacific Lumber Company with family connections. And so it could be said practically for all of the companies. Now this change to corporate also came into the redwood outfits. The Pacific Lumber Company came much later. Fry: After the Depression. Kotok: After the Depression as they became corporate. Now as soon as they became corporate you could begin to see again a revival of interest in forestry, and the redwoods have a long ways to go, excepting two companies that entered in from scratch: One is the Masonite Company that started in the redwood; and the other is the Georgia Pacific. Fry: And these do have a long ways to go? Kotok: Oh yes, these two have really started a forestry program, these two. The older ones have started, but at a slower pace. Fry: Because they have this other tradition that works against [it]. Kotok: Yes, that work through. The old controls are still there. Well, so now there's another company. Fry: I am interested-- Kotok: Go ahead before I forget it. Fry: Give me this other company and then-- Kotok: There were two other companies I want to mention --the Pickering Lumber Company, which was on the Stanislaus. Now Pickering was 85 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: really interested in forestry. That again was privately owned. And he passed away and nothing happened. It became corporate and their interest began to be indicated. One is the Weed Fry: It became corporate after he died. Now I said I'd give one; there are two others. Lumber Company. Weed? Weed, W-e-e-d' Lumber Company and McCloud River Lumber Company, McCloud River (lumber company), both in Siskiyou County. Now my relationship with those two companies was very close because I started my career in Siskiyou County, and I knew very well the managers by first name and the owners, some of the owners. We tried hard even in those early days to get them to change their cutting methods to [be] less destructive. Through contacts with the managers we were able to get certain modifications and practices on the lands of those two companies, even in those early days. We were able to do that to show them not that their assets for the future would increase, but that it was less costly to be less destructive, that actually the destruction itself was not the cheapest way of logging. In the long run. Well, even their current practices were not. So for example one of the first things we got them to do was to lower the stump height. They used to cut with high stumps, and we showed them they were losing five or ten percent of the highest value. They argued that lumberjacks didn't want to stoop low to cut low stumps; we showed them that they were doing it on national forests without kicking. And we got that practice in. Therefore, it was slow, one practice for another; we got them to put in full fire protection. So in many directions we got these companies by personal contact, by interviews, and the fact that they also did some logging on national forest land, we got them to change their practices. Later when they became corporate, they too are now considering some simple forestry programs. I haven't in toto all the companies that are now practicing forestry in California; the number is rather large. It would be interesting to add that note. I haven't the information available. I think we can get that from the Forestry School. But it would be interesting to know. I give these as illustra tions . Tell me if this is not a valid question, but when the national foresters were available to these lumber companies, and their services 86 Fry: were free, why did they hire private foresters? Kotok: Oh, it was a number of reasons, first of all we wanted them to hire private foresters. Our consultation would be in a general way. We couldn't work out the detailed information. There's another thing. We wouldn't have available (and we shouldn't have had available) the open books of the company, where they stood. So it's a private affair, and it shouldn't be for public distribution. There was another reason we gave. They asked us for general advice; they asked us who would be a good consultant. We felt that they had to have their own man who would understand the problems, the economic and other problems of the company, to give them sound advice. However in answer to your question, we had a general consulting service, a general one that we had, and we gave this general advice. However when it came to analyzing a full property, we preferred to have them do it themselves through consulting foresters. The reason we did that in the beginning was because there was no consulting foresters, and as consulting foresters came into the picture, which was only after the First World War that we could give them consultants . Fry: Consultant, you mean private consultants? Kotok: Private consultants. They weren't available till after the First World War. So there were none. We gave in the beginning because we were the only ones; later when there was private consultants who were adequate and were able, we were very happy to see them in the field, and we drummed up business for them. Actually drummed up business . However I recall one incident where the president of the Masonite Company called for my own personal viewpoint on some property that they had in the South, Georgia and other places, what the problem was, how much land should they acquire as a base, and how much should they depend upon from getting from private owners that would bring the materials. They paid for my expenses, and I went down there and spent ten days there and went over their property with their consulting foresters. We discussed the pros and cons, and we came out with a formula. We suggested that they should not have more than fifty percent of company ownership; it would be well to encourage the private owners in the private wood lots because then that would be a source of labor (the owners of the private woodlots would be a source of labor. It would also 87 Kotok: put them in a better position with the taxing structure; a foreign corporation is always vulnerable. And if there are some timber lands in private ownership who were voters with this district, that would have an influence as to action they would take. And they followed that advice, but this was done in order to get an objective viewpoint that they feared their own foresters might not have. Fry: I wondered, too, was there any feeling, do you think, that by hiring their own foresters that they might prevent too much government regulation? Kotok: That had some influence. They went into forestry in the last analysis because it paid. However, this movement for government regulation made them modify some of their cutting practices, and I had already related on that Article 10 (I gave you the full story on the Article 10) during the war; that was a great impetus because regulation was being discussed. So it forced them to agree, and then when they started it and tried it, they found it wasn't a costly thing at all. The proof was in the pudding, in the eating of it. So this movement towards forestry is probably assigned to this. First, public agitation for a thing, for regulation; secondly, corporate ownership and a desire to maintain the equities in their lands as a permanent investment; third, the shortage of stumpage and, sure, that you had raw material, current raw material; and then the hiring of foresters that had an influence. Now we can wind up this hiring of foresters with one telling note. By this slow process and by the advice of public foresters, a number of foresters have reached key positions in the lumber industry, on their boards of directors and as presidents and vice presidents and so forth in the upper echelon of the industry. Fry: Do they remain true to their forestry training? Kotok: I shall touch on that in a moment. That's a good question. Now the important thing is that--And I remember giving to this Ben Alexander, who was of the Masonite, the big shot in the Masonite. I remember giving him this advice. He had foresters. I said, "These foresters are of no help to you." And he said, "Why?" I said, "Because you are allowing the engineers and the others to control your policy, and not the foresters. The foresters are not in the position to give you advice which your board of directors will give a tinker's damn until some of them are in high positions." 88 Kotok: And he agreed, and Masonite [Company] was one of the early ones that put in foresters in the higher echelons of the company control. And now we have innumerable companies where the foresters are in very high positions — the pulp and paper naturally are leaders in that. So clear through you will now find foresters in very important positions, and on board of directors, and so on. Now you asked the question, are they true to their faith. I'd say in a general way yes; there are a few temporary exceptions. Temporary because these very same men shifted their position. In the early positions of some of the consulting foresters, not those on the company payroll as a paid employee, but as consultant we found some of those consultants trying to lessen the claims of foresters as to destructive logging and the effect on the national economy; they tried to fight, of course, regulation and took positions (these consultants took positions) that they thought the owners wanted and frequently they missed the bet because the owners actually were willing to follow the programs suggested by the foresters. Now, but that has changed. Fry: Anytime you can give specific examples, it would help. Kotok: One example, there was a Professor [Arthur Bernard] Recknagel from Cornell; he was consultant for pulp and paper companies in the New England states. He was a amiable and affable sort of chap, he was well known as a teacher, but as a consultant the foresters within that region felt that he was neither putting on the heat or pressure on the companies to change their logging practice. Recknagel would always answer that foresters hadn't learned patience, that you can't convert lumbermen so easily to good practice. And he frequently made assertion in order to whitewash the companies who were claiming to practice forestry when they weren't. That was the outstanding example . Now to a smaller degree I think Mason sometimes took that position. On the other hand, we have a very interesting illustration; Professor Fritz, Emanuel Fritz--Now he took over the consulting job after Mason pulled out of the redwoods later for the companies. And Emanuel Fritz fought the public foresters on many scores. On the other hand he was frequently violent in criticism of the redwood lumber companies as to their bad practice and the need to change their ways. And yet he was -on the other hand fighting public foresters wherever he could. The reason for it is hard to explain. I think part of it is personal. One issue came up, perhaps, when I was the director of the California Forest and Range Experiment Station. We initiated 89 Kotok: redwood work, on which I reported, and this was to be a research program to be helpful to the companies. Our men that were placed there were very capable, and they had ready access to the lumber companies who cooperated. In fact some wanted to give us some land on which to work on. We suspect (that's the word 1 want to use) that Fritz did not like our entering into the domain which he thought was all his own, the redwoods, and that perhaps created some bitterness that unfortunately need not have happened. Fry: Was Fritz also kind of a state's righter? Kotok: Yes. Fritz's position is one that's hard to explain. I was very close to him for a time, and then he accused me of some things. Our friendship broke down. It broke down when he recommended to Stanford to start a new forestry school, and I was opposed to it. So that's how this acrimony started. But Fritz is peculiar; he has a strong following from some of his students. I was critical of the curriculum that he had in his studies; I thought it wasn't brought up-to-date, and he knew I had expressed that opinion. Of course that created some bitterness. He's a natural aginner, and the easiest ones to be against are those that take advanced points of view. Fry: And definitely defined points of views. Kotok: So therefore foresters who were generally on the liberal side became easy marks for him to criticize. In the extent that we believed in regulation, either federal or state, he would be violently opposed to it because he's an exponent for free enterprise and individual effort, and it fitted into his philosophy of aginness. And it's easier to be against liberal groups, particularly the ones that we worked with. He was active in many organizations; in the (what's our San Francisco organization that I'm a member of, and I forget the name?) Fry: The Forestry-- Kotok: No, not the Forestry. Fry: The Commonwealth Club. Kotok: The Commonwealth Club he was always active and was an officer in it and always associated [with] those aginners, the private interest groups. And the lumber groups that he worked with they were all in that same category, the Union League. He was traveling with 90 Kotok: those that belonged to the Union League Club. Fritz was also active in the Bohemian Club. He did a lot of fine work for them interesting them in redwoods and so on. But in spite of all these differences Fritz has promoted some very fine forestry practice. So en toto you have to evaluate his efforts. In some respects some often called him disloyal to the forestry school, to Professor Mulford. Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Did the forestry faculty as a whole have a difficult time-- The forestry faculty as a whole could not do business with Fritz. Particularly this was true when Mulford and later when Baker was-- So they went their own ways. In fact Fritz frequently wouldn't attend the meetings called by the dean for faculty meetings. He wouldn't attend. No one worried whether he attended or not. So the termination of his services by retirement was rather welcomed to the remaining staff. When Fritz was the editor of American Forests, I mean the Journal on-- Journal of Forestry. He was a very good one, and I helped him a lot. He would bring copy to me. He wrote editorials on articles, and we were very close at that time. His editorship was not uneventful, either, some controversy there. I mean he seemed to create- Yes, there was resentment, but in the main I supported him clear through his editorship. He was a very good editor under :yery trying conditions. He did the work free and out of hours; he gave beyond the call of duty. So I had high regard for him. My issue started off is when I found that he was undercutting Mulford and wanted a forestry school. Then I can relate this one incident. Might just as well record it. I don't know whether I did before. As a member of the experiment station of the college, having the position in it, I was put on committees by the dean of the College of Agriculture frequently, and I was put on promotion committees that considered the advancement from one grade or another of the professorial ranks. I suspect that I was put on there by Dean [Claude] Hutchison because he wanted to be sure that he had someone who would consider favorably recommendations made by the agricultural staff. Be that as it may, Fritz's name appeared for promotion to full professorship, and in good faith I supported the position. And I must admire Mulford because he had to send in his nam in spite of knowing that he [FritzJ was undercutting him. The 91 Kotok: man was above bitterness, and he thought he [Fritz] deserved it. And I tried twice, one year and second year Fritz's name came up, and I couldn't make it stand up. There were others on the faculty committee that wouldn't recommend it. Fritz always suspected, to this day I think, that I thwarted him in getting his full professorship. Fry: He thought you were one of the no voters. Kotok: Yes. I don't know because it's all secret; he didn't know that I was on the committee, I didn't think. No one is supposed to, but these are the kind of things that build up. I discussed that with him one time, knowing what he thought, and he said, "I think you're lying." That terminated that conversation. We now meet and grunt at each other; we never even speak. W3 just say , "how;" "how." That's as far as it goes. Now my son, who took work with him, he's very fond of and they are very close together. So it's one of those things the human being. He is what he is. There are other personal reasons that I will not mention why he is so embittered, and there's justification for his bitterness. Fry: I had thought Fritz he put through some legislation in the forties which involved some kind of better forest practice for the companies, or did he? Kotok: Then, later he supported the regulation for state regulation. He was a state's righter, and he did. So en toto in many places he did a lot of good. In some places I think he un necessarily made enemies. He could have accomplished a great deal more if he had been more affable; he'd been more cooperative; and if he would have lived and let live rather than fighting at points where he gained nothing but animosities. And it's too bad. Fry: I think sometimes these things have a more far reaching effect on a history of a school than people realize. Kotok: He left bitterness there in the school. Dissensions in the groups, but I know of no faculty that you don't find some dissension. It's part of it. So it's a great dean that can keep the groups together, and I was particularly surprised because Mulford was so amiable, so kind, and so forth that he leaned over backwards, and if he couldn't attain it, then the individual is really-- Fry: Fritz did eventually attain full professorship. 92 Kotok: Oh yes, but it took a long while. Fry: This makes curriculum planning so difficult. I think when professors from their various specialties have other reasons for being at each other's throat, then it frequently makes it impossible-- Kotok: The whole atmosphere of a school changes when you have dissensions in its ranks. It happened in the botany department; it was bad. That was one of the worst places. I was caught between it because we were doing business both with Jepson and with Storer, and it was bad when you're caught in that kind of a jam. Fry: Which one did you lose on? Kotok: I never lost either one, but I was always carrying a load. Storer I could be completely honest and frank with Storer but you couldn't be with Jepson. He was an older man, he was biased and so forth. For example I can relate one thing about Jepson. Wieslander, a member of the California Experiment Station staff, was one of his outstanding students. He did a remarkable job on the typemapping, collecting specimens for the university herbarium, specimens from all over California, particularly how to identify a certain kind of arctostaphylus , the way it reacted after fire. Some arctostaphylus, which is manzanita--the common name, some after a fire will send out new shoots and grow; others will die, and it was quite an important finding to differentiate between the two species. I don't recall the two species, but it's immaterial. I suggested to Wieslander to write a paper about it which could be published. I said, "Before you do it, take it over to Jepson," who knew—that was the family in which he specialized. Jepson saw this, and he wrote me a twenty page letter—it's hard to believe that a man would write twenty pages in longhand--damning Wieslander, the work, that he had done this job himself, that he, Jepson, had done this job many, many years ago, twenty years ago, thirty years ago. And in order to establish that he had done this, he reissued a magazine (because Jepson was very wealthy). He reissued a magazine, a botanical magazine, and published on that subject, so that he would antedate Wieslander's proposed article. So botanists define the right of publication (of discovery) as so great, and it's hard to believe that a man of that maturity would write a twenty page tirade against his outstanding student, who came to seek his advice about an article. But in the main I got along very well with Jepson; I had many field trips with him. He 93 Kotok: was the most enjoyable man ever out in the woods. He specialized particularly in teaching men how to identify plants in their natural habitat and growing condition and not by pressed specimen in the herbarium, and it was a teaching that is very important to foresters, who must learn to recognize things as they see them and not as a "cooked over", dried up specimen in a herbarium. [End of Side One] The only thing is that I think on the regulation, which is an aside here, among the papers that are available that are in the possession of Earle Clapp: One was a note from Roosevelt written to his Secretary- Fry: Wallace? Kotok: No, not Wallace. His secretary then was Anderson; no, not Anderson. This is later- -Wickard. Fry: You mean Roosevelt? Kotok: Roosevelt, that's right. Wallace was the vice president then. A note to Wickard to Earle Clapp. Fry: Then you think if Roosevelt could have lived through his last four years-- Kotok: I think there would have been some kind of a bill—what kind I . don't think it would have been the one probably that the Forest Service proposed because there would have been amendments. It would have been an issue, but I think they probably could have gotten it through. Fry: You were going to give us some comments on [Martin] Dies. Kotok: Well, most of us of course think of Dies (in) always in relationship to the Dies committee. It's a good illustration how a man can be an extremist in one direction and yet be a good conservationist on the other. Dies, as a Texan, was quite aware of the timber resources in the South because part of Texas has quite a big lumber industry, and Dies became interested in forestry matters and I had occasion to meet with him a number of times on measures of particularly which we needed southern interest or it affected the southern economy. We found Dies affable, understanding, sympathetic, and in spite of many believing that he couldn't be trusted, we found that his word was as good as gold so far as it concerned his conferences with us on conservation. So there we go. A man is neither black or white, or there are many sides to every individual. 94 Kotok: Dies was able to line up support of the whole Texas delegation on one or two measures in which we were (I think they were appro priation measures) in support. We were trying to build up at that time when I conferred with Dies, was on fire protection, increase fire protection and so on, and better relationship between state and federal government forestry agencies. Perhaps the important thing that I want to note is this: We as foresters were interested primarily in selling conservation and forestry to our contacts in the congressional delegation. We tried to avoid naturally, then, other issues that were publicly being discussed. We did not attempt to try to identify ourselves as rightists, leftists, liberals or nonliberals, or conservatives, and we tried to create, then, this image that this was a matter that transcended bipartisan issues or right or left issues. Insofar, however, that we owned public lands in the national forest system, it was never pointed out as private enterprises against public ownership in that area at that time. It was in the very beginning of the creation of the national forests, but that had died down. There was general acceptance that the national forests should remain intact. Now and then there would be nibbling by others trying to break up the national forest system. Most of it, as we indicated already in our story, originated from members in the Interior Department. The outstanding example was Fall. Fry: And then your opposition groups like the cattlemen. Kotok: The cattlemen and so forth. But in the main we didn't have to argue as to maintaining the integrity of the national forest system. But appearing before these congressmen, we tried to avoid, then, other political issues. Nevertheless, some of the leaders of forestry, like Gifford Pinchot (I 'm mentioning chiefs of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot particularly), Earle Clapp during his interim when he was there, Lyle Watts were extremely in support of the New Deal, and insofar as a public servant could be vocal about it, our feelings and position on that matter was known. Silcox, particularly, was selected by the New Deal, was placed there by Tugwell's recommendation to Roosevelt simply because Tugwell had the conception (and so did Silcox) that the Forest Service had gone backwards and had become ultra-conservative, had become so conservative that they were even opposed to many of the things in the New Deal, and he was to invigorate it with New Deal philosophy. That was his selection. Fry: Was Secretary Wallace behind him in this? 95 Kotok: Wallace was behind them of course. Fry: Wallace is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican now. Kotok: Yes, well I don't know whether he is or not. Wallace was a Republican and then he was a Democrat and then he became a Progressive. I don't know what party he belongs to. Fry: He is . I just found out last week. I was quite amazed. Kotok: Oh, he went back to the Republican party? Fry: He voted for Eisenhower both times, I guess. Mrs. Amos Pinchot is my source of information on this. Kotok: You're probably right because he was so opposed to Truman. Fry: And he had quite a reaction to Roosevelt in the last years, I guess . Kotok: Of course Wallace could feel bitter disappointment on a number of scores. I think he believes he was cheated out of being the vice president [to Truman], you know, by the selection of Barkley, and the shenanigans that went on with that were fully historically recorded . Now the other resentment that he had—Then he went to Commerce, and he got into the jam with Truman because of a speech that he was to have made, or did make, or was cleared, or not cleared with the President. So therefore, he felt disappointment perhaps the way he was treated finally by Roosevelt and then finally the conflict he had with Truman when he left. And then of course he joined up with the new party. So he had pulled out as participant in the Democratic party through a series of events over which he didn't have full control. So I can understand that he might be at present a Republican, and I assume though that he would not be a Goldwater Republican. Fry: I think Amos Pinchot is-- Kotok: Well, Amos Pinchot was a Republican and a very staunch Republican now. Of the Pinchot family they were Republicans all on the liberal side, and they voted for liberal candidates, and they supported Roosevelt . Fry: Yes, they were New Dealers. Kotok: They were New Dealers. 96 Fry: You mean that they never left the party? Kotok: No, they never left the party; they never registered as Democrats. They worked for the party--! talked to Pinchot about this party affiliation (Gifford Pinchot), and I got this impression from him from these talks. First of all he thought the parties of course were a mixture of many breeds of cats each party had. There were liberals and conservatives in both parties, and the alignment was therefore not clear and well-defined. And the origin of such progressive movements that were started two or three times was merely a resentment that the real liberals had no place to go, and they had to form a new party. Now having felt that the new party itself could only be an agitator but could not accomplish anything by winning in elections, that it probably would be best for each of the groups that have the liberal points of view to remain in their party and clean house within each within its party. Fry: To make two liberal parties? Kotok: Well, not to make two liberal parties, but that a liberal point of view would be well represented in both parties insofar as you couldn't divide them into liberals and conservatives. And his belief in that was that the two political party system, which has much to be said for it, could not be changed in the American formula advantageously. The mechanism of government works most successfully if you have a two party system instead of a splinter system, which can be observed in the European countries as a disadvantage in the mechanics of legislative and executive action. Fry: Do I understand that Gifford Pinchot then thought that it was better for each party to have its own jackfish in it, rather than to have each party clearly defined in left and right. Kotok: That's right. He didn't think that was possible. That's the impression I got. It might be desirable but wasn't possible. And Pinchot had learned the practical things of politics. For example, speaking of Pinchot, I recall when he became governor of Pennsylvania. I was in Washington then, and a group of us went down there to consult with him on forestry matters and also to congratulate him on his election. And he said (speaking of his election), "When the thieves fall out an honest man can get in." And what he was relating was there were so much dissensions in the Republican party, both sides not coming with clean hands, that he proposed then a new slate, and he won the election. 97 Kotok: And then we found another curious thing we talk about. Practicability and being aware of things as they are. Pinchot was severe on the State Forester of State Forestry in Pennsylvania than any other previous administration. He leaned over backwards to show that hd didn't seek the governorship in order to advance merely forestry. Fry: You mean he really gave them some — Kotok: Leaned over backwards. Gave them so hard a time; it was harder for the—And Stuart, who was under him then. I related that. Stuart, who became the chief of the Forest Service later, had a tougher time than previous incumbents had with the administration. Fry: I vaguely remember someone telling me that they didn't think Pinchot was really interested in getting to a position to run the State of Pennsylvania when he ran for governor, that he was running for governor as sort of a way to expend his enormous political energies. \ Kotok: Well, I don't know what motivates a man to run for office. I think when he ran, he put everything in it. He was wealthy. He had the money to underwrite a campaign. Fry: Did you feel he was sorry that he was governor? Kotok: Oh no. Of course he had ambition to become senator and never could make it. He tried it, and he couldn't get the nomination of Pennsylvania. You can't run as an independent. It's a two party system. But as I stated perhaps he was the only forester who during his career and afterwards was an active politician. Fry: Yes, he certainly was the king of all forestry politicians. Kotok: Well, we never had one of that kind. And the chances are that we won't. Of course you'd have to have a man of great wealth, and regardless what happens, he doesn't care. Fry: Someone you can't frighten. Kotok: I'm reminded about one forester as another that practically every forester that we've had had fairly good opportunities to reach the president directly. Fry: This is the old Pinchot tradition then? Kotok: In part in Pinchot tradition, and part because by accident of interest of the president. During the Roosevelt administration, which is a longer period than any other president, Franklin Roosevelt figured himself quite a forester, so therefore he took sort of a personal interest — in fact the budget officers used to tell me that he would go over the forestry budget and bluepencil things, ones that he wanted increased or decreased. We knew of no president that would go down to such detail, but he would do that. 98 Kotok: One time I appeared on an item that we wanted very badly, and the budget had given it to us, and then it didn't appear in the budget. And I went up to question them about it, and they showed me a note with FDR written under it; "Omit." So he figured himself. Fry: I guess it had its disadvantages, too then. Kotok: Yes, it has its advantages and disadvantages. Fry: Was this true in the twenties? Kotok: This was true of — these were the presidents that were very approachable: Of course the first Roosevelt--that was easy; Taft by necessity had to confer with the forester because he had those issues; now the Coolidge administration was the coolest one. Fry: What about Wilson? Kotok: The Wilson administration the war was on and we had to also confer because it dealt with a number of things in which forestry had an important part — first building up the Tenth and Twentieth Engineers for foreign service, and the issues of getting timber and so on for materials. So there was an opening; the war itself opened it up. In the Harding administration we had that Alaska situation with Fall, and therefore through Mrs. Fall (and I've related that)--no, through Mrs . Harding, Greeley was involved in it. So we had that. The Coolidge one was very cool; nothing happened—no hits, no runs, no errors. We just went on our own, and I don't believe the President knew that we existed then. I think we did get him to issue the proclamations, the normal proclamations, for Arbor Day or something of that type. Hoover, of course, we were able to meet with him during his period when he was Secretary of Commerce, so we had openings to Hoover, too. Although Hoover's interest in conservation was not very great because he had other headaches that were far more consequential to him. There were no particular sharp issues drawn during the Hoover administration on which foresters were needed to give the President any guidance, insofar as they give guidance through the channels of executive contacts. However, the secretaries during all those periods that I'm relating were very strong conservationists and supporters of forestry, so we had through our cabinet officers the contacts instead of the-- (I'm speaking of personal contacts.) I spoke of Roosevelt. I can relate one story about Roosevelt. He was down to his retreat in Georgia. 99 Fry: The little White House? Kotok: Yes, what do you call — that's the cure for the-- Fry: Something Springs. Kotok: Yes, whatever Springs. Fry: Warm. Kotok: Warm Springs, and the regional forester, named Joe Kircher, wired into Washington whether he could go to see the President, and we told him of course he could. So he called on the President to pay his respects as a forester to a forester, and Roosevelt took him out in the car that he had with gearing that he could manipulate by hand and didn't have to use foot pedals. And Joe Kircher was very much disturbed riding around that way, but the President said, "Get in." So he got in. The President took him around to show him some of the pine groves and his knowledge of forestry, and he asked Joe Kircher some questions about treatment of forest lands that he had in New York state around his estate. Professor Brown of Syracuse had been advising him. He said he didn't agree with Brown. Joe Kircher, who was quite politically minded; he said, "If you disagree with him, Mr. President, how can I agree with him?" And they left affably, and he asked him to come back. I'm showing you this close touch. So here a regional forester goes down, pays his respects; the President takes him out in his own car with the Secret Service driving behind them and so forth. Then when Silcox came there. Of course Silcox conferred with him frequently, and he would always advise Silcox that they ought to move over and not fight going over to the Interior Department. Silcox had to handle himself with great care. Then we had consultation with the President (some of the forestry staff) on the CCC and other activities directly with the President. He took a personal interest because he figured he knew a lot about forestry. Fry: I think Forester Munns , who worked with you in Washington, I think he visited the President some, too. Someone was telling me the other day-- Kotok: I don't think he did very much, but he probably went with groups. But the ones that went were--Silcox was very close; the Joe Kircher incident; Brown, Professor Brown from Syracuse. The other one 100 Kotok: Lyle Watts went to the President's that I know of. Sure Earle Clapp went there. I went there with a group, and we sat around on some event, but it wasn't that personal, and I don't think Ed Munns had. Ed Munns had some contacts through Mrs. Roosevelt and Tugwell and some others. That was his contact. And it looms now a little larger in the picture than actually probably was because these things have a way of growing. Now let's finish up one more incident about Roosevelt and the presidents. There's a story, and I don't recall that I related it, when Ickes was trying to [inaudible] that the Forest Service be transferred, it was one issue then that the President was trying to press the Forest Service. Another issue that was was the development of the Grand Tetons , of the Jackson Hole. It was being taken from national forest to park status. Now actually I know that from firsthand. The instruction from the Secretary and the instructions from the chief of the Forest Service to all men on all ranks that we would not in any way interfere with that logical movement, you know, the [inaudible]. We would state our case in two official channels, whatever objections we had as to the size and the limits. Fry: In Wyoming? Kotok: In Wyoming, but we would go no further. Ickes then accused that the Forest Service was carrying on propaganda against the increase of the Jackson Hole area, and he submitted to the President three names of foresters that were participating in these activities against the executive branch of government. And I recall when the information came to Watts, and Watts was called into the President's office and told, "Now you look that through." And the President was always close and warm to--He liked Watts, his simplicity, his directness, and so on, and Watts promised that he would look it up immediately. We proceeded then to trace who these men were. One had been dead ten years; one was an ex-Forest Service man who had been out of the service quite a number of years; and the other we couldn't locate at all. Watts got this information and called the President's secretary, Miss Lehand. Fry: Missy? Kotok: Missy. He called Missy. Fry: Hand is her last name. L-e-h-a-n-d. Kotok: Yes, Missy. He called Missy. He said, "Would you tell the President for me, I don't want to bother him, that so-and-so has been dead ten years, and I'm sure he'll turn over in his grave when he gets 101 Kotok: this information." And she transmitted that to the President, and the President wrote back a note. He says, "I feel sorry for the dead." And that episode was killed. Fry: Where did Ickes get such bad information? Kotok: From his men back in the park proponent. There was only one man, an ex-Forest Service man, but no one in the active group who was working against it; we stated our case in official channels, which we had a right to do, and it was our duty to do. We were opposed to some of the boundaries, and some are modified actually. Now the next episode that I remember of Watts coming back from the White House. He said, "I've got an immediate call to the White House." So he spruced himself up and got the car and off to the White House he went. He came back, and he was just roaring. He said, "You know what the President called me for? He said, 'Lyle (and he called him by first name), I want you to go over and talk to Ickes about this transfer thing. I want you to do that. And Lyle Watts, in his simple, calm-like way, said, "Mr. President, I think that idea is cock-eyed." And the President said, "Why?" "You want me, a little underling, to go to a cabinet officer. Why don't you ask one cabinet officer to the other?" The President roared, and he tapped his cigarette and he said, "I'll think it over." And that ended that interview. But as Lyle Watts recalled it; he said it just slipped right off his tongue, "Mr. President, I think the idea is cock-eyed." Well, there aren't very many--l'm giving you the atmosphere under which some of the foresters worked even with the President. Fry: Was the insubordination charge that Pinchot was subjected to ever raised in connection with any of these later? Kotok: No, not a one. The only one that was mad (and he never fired him, but he didn't elect him to the office) was Earle Clapp because he fought the President on reorganization. And therefore he didn't do anything. Wallace therefore could not promote him to the full job. So he remained there for many years as acting chief until Watts came. And I related that when Roosevelt picked Watts. So that's it. 102 Kotok: I'd like to cover (if you feel like going on) a few of these others while we're talking about mavericks. Fry: I wanted to be sure that you told us about Wayne Morse because I think he was a forestry supporter. Kotok: Yes. Wayne Morse came of course later into the forestry picture. He came before he was a senator; he was on the War Production Board. He had other duties because of his legal training. He had been dean of the law school in Oregon. So he had a number of tasks. But he was one of the legal advisors to the War Production Board and also entered into other discussions. I related that I represented the forestry interests in the War Production Board, which dealt with such matters as rationing and control of prices and other matters. I was, then, one of the public representatives on the War Production Board made up of industry and public agency representatives. We were to advise in the War Production Board. Fry: You were the forestry representative? Kotok: I was the forestry representative. And of course we had a number of problems. We had the black market in timber that we were trying to control. We had the problem of rationing of scarce materials for the small, for the large operator both, in logging and milling, logging equipment, and so forth. They were scarce supplies, gas and oil and so forth. And then we had also a smaller thing that I want to relate. We had to do with rations, the amount of food you could buy for feeding in these camps, and some group of nutritionists had tried to figure out the minimum ration to maintain good health on the assumption that most people eat too much. And therefore reducing rations, and they had some information from England to show that when they force- rationed, that British were in better health than they'd ever been because they'd reduced their rations, particularly sugar, fats, and so forth. They attempted to invoke that formula insofar as the government could influence rationing. Fry: Are you talking about just the lumber camps? Or everything? Kotok: Everything. And then therefore obviously they also dealt with the lumber camps, the amount of rations that they should get. They came up with a formula of about half of the ration that the lumberjacks were actually getting, and the lumberjacks also were fed in a family style. Lumberjacks would never stand in line to come up with a tray to be filled. They wanted it out on the table to take whatever they want with good portions. It was very wasteful, and 103 Kotok: of course the War Production Board was very much concerned how they could prevent the waste. In fact most logging camps used to have hogs because there was so much food that they could feed hogs. So they always wound up the end of the season, and they always had a lot of fattened hogs. So we couldn't be opposed to trying to invoke whatever we could that would logically reduce this wastefulness. However, to change the habit of feeding lumberjacks, who were in short supply because they could go to the other industries that paid even more and not as hazardous as lumberjacks. So we were concerned of maintaining the force if we were going to produce the lumber that they needed. And in this fight I got to know Wayne Morse because he was a member of the Hearing Committee and so on. And as a Westerner he immediately understood our problem. And he carried the cudgels for us so that the rations of the lumberjacks were not reduced or the manner in which food would be supplied at lumberjack's tables be changed. I give that as one incident. Then later we conferred with Morse on every occasion where the interests of forestry and the interests of the lumber companies-- And he was an invaluable counselor; he not only guided us how best we might be able to convince the others because all he had was merely a consulting voice, too, and he did more than that, and in my case he introduced me to Nelson, who was the head of the War Production Board. And then later the Swede, the General Motors man. What was his name? Well, he was from General Motors- Fry: We'll fill it in. Kotok: We were able then to discuss with him some of the problems. Now one of the problems that we conferred on particularly had to deal with trying to give aid to small producers, giving them technical advice how to get out the material better to insure that they did get the scarce supplies to keep them going and to prevent the material moving into the black market. We think we have too much timber at times, but when we're in a pinch like in a war, we find how scarce and how valuable these things are. So I conferred with them on top giving them our principle, and they backed us in securing a special appropriation from Congress to put out about 350 or 400 men, foresters, to consult with these small ones, not only to get a little better at forest practice in itself, but to really help them in their production schedules. And we had them scattered all over the United States in the timber regions. We generally had them work through the State Forester, too, so as to get the State 104 Kotok: Forester involved in it, and from that started initially the forestry extension services that we now have practically. That was one of the means. We gave them the taste for it, and then they developed and they found that that was an area in which state foresters can be of great help. And they are now a common thing practically in all state forestry services. But that's the way it started. In order to stretch our money, we gave them the big base, and they had to pay for the travel expenses and so on. We would pay the salary if the state would pay the expenses. And we let them select their men, and we gave only general guidance, but the control was left to each state forester. So the state foresters went into the extension forestry business on a big scale during the war. And that was an important thing. Now Morse helped me sell to the topside, and I found those men on top (as busy as they were, found time to discuss these little minutiae of the total business of the War Production Board) affable and understanding. And I remember Nelson saying particularly, "Well, you've been in the public service; you must have the public interest at heart. And I as a manufacturer must be guided by your technical advice." And it was on that basis that our relation ships were established. So we come back to another aspect that we might just as well touch on. Foresters in the historical development in America have played an important role insofar as they've been able to convince leaders in industry and leaders in government that they knew what they were talking about, the knowledgeability of their subject matter, in the integrity of their purpose and overall interest as public servants to give returns for dollars invested. And to the degree that we have been able to do that, we can measure our success. When we speak then of what is the code of ethics of foresters, whether private or public employ, perhaps we can then restate that integrity, that their advice is honest and weighed in the public interest. Fry: You're speaking of all of the field of forestry; public, private, and everything? Kotok: That's correct. I mean unless they measure up to that, we speak of the doctor's oath, of the lawyer's oath, or whatever it is. We have then, this is the unwritten code by which foresters must be guided. And the history in the older countries where forestry has been farther advanced and for a longer period, that code has guided their chief foresters in all of the major European countries. 105 Kotok: First knowledgeability (know what you're talking about, not carried away by emotions); secondly beside knowledgeability, integrity that you're giving the advice not in your interests or any special interests, for the general interest, and third that you have the conception that it has an impact on the public weal. Fry: I keep going back to some of these other names here, but you mentioned last time that you might be able to tell us a little bit about Rex Tugwell. Kotok: Well, Rex Tugwell's story. I don't know; I gave some, but I can give you this story. Rex Tugwell started his career as a teacher in the University of Washington, when I first knew him. That was during the First World War. Silcox at that time was regional forester or district forester, as they called them then, of Region One in Missoula, Montana. In the First World War spruce lumber- spruce was very important; we needed that for our shipping. So within that area of the Pacific Northwest, lumber, particularly spruce lumber and other [inaudible] lumber, was very important. At that time the IWW's were very active, and Silcox and Tugwell both became interested in this problem of discontent of the IWW's, that there must be a basis for discontent. Men don't rise in opposition just out of nowhere. Tugwell as a professor in economics was interested in the problem. When the war came on they were asked to act on a committee, interregional committee, to see what they could do to settle some of the disputes and strikes with the IWW's. That's how Silcox and Tugwell got together dealing on a forestry problem, and to the credit of Silcox and Tugwell they were able to settle that dispute. They found that in the main, the objections that were raised by the workers were based on facts that their treatment was not human, that the care of their bodies were not being taken care of. That, for example, the minimum sanitary facilities for washing and so on were not even provided; for bathing; that their bedding (they brought in their own beds) had bedbugs and therefore bedbugs became a common scourge throughout all the camps; their food was not of the best. So this resentment whether the IWW's were extremists or anarchists was immaterial; they could easily arouse then the ire of the other workers because of the conditions that existed. So what Silcox did on his part was to try to sell to the big lumber outfits, then, that it was just good business, that strikes were not only bad for the war effort but was bad economics for them. So they were to meet these illustrations. And I tell a story that Silcox related. 106 Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: This was all in the Pacific Northwest. Pacific Northwest. It had nothing to do with California. This wasn't happening in California? California to some degree. I'll explain that. I came into that a little later, and This IWW movement started before the war actually. I'll relate one incident of my own. But going back, then, there they, for example, got them to clean up so that they had decent toilet facilities, decent bathing facilities, and when they fixed it up the boss of one of the outfits (whose name I don't remember the company) called the men together and said, "Now, you bastards, I've given you what you want." And the "bastards" went out and smashed up the whole place. They didn't consider that they were bastards. Well, those are little things to show the human relationship. So Silcox got a reputation, then, as a fine adjudicator of labor-management disputes, and as a result of that experience that he had, the typographical union in New York hired him as their management- labor (he was paid by both management and labor) conciliator. And that's the tie how Tugwell got interested in forestry. My next relationship with Tugwell came in when he was going to select somebody to follow up Stuart's passing out. I met Tugwell in Washington in the Cosmos Club, and he invited me to dinner. He told me they had to fill this job, and the President had asked him to get a good candidate for forestry. Tugwell was then assistant secretary, second man in the Agriculture. Secretary of Agriculture, he was the second man. Undersecretary, he was undersecretary. He asked me for candidates, and I listed a number of names. I didn't mention Silcox because he had slipped out of my mind; I thought he had left forestry. "Well," he said, "how about Silcox?" I knew him, and I knew of his history, remarkable man if you can get him." I said, "He'd be a He said, "I can. He's willing to leave a job," which was paying him twice as much as the forestry job was to take it. And that's another essence, how men will — and he was a poor man; 107 Kotok: he had nothing but his salary to live on. So Silcox was willing to forego a job that was paying him twice as much to come back to Washington to work in forestry. Fry: Was he out of the forestry field at the time? Kotok: Oh yes, a long time he'd been out. As I say, because of his training Silcox traded into labor relations as a very successful one. So he had a reputation for that, and I think the government had used him in settlement of other strikes where they wanted to use an arbitrator. Silcox then got in there, and the President he had an open road to the President, Silcox, things in common. But the main thing why he selected Silcox, as Tugwell (I'm talking now about Tugwell) was because he thought that the whole Department of Agriculture and forestry particularly was dead and no motivation. He had a peculiar conception of the department. Fry: Tugwell did? Kotok: Yes, Tugwell did and particularly of forestry. We weren't aggressive enough; we weren't daring enough. The New Deal hadn't even touched us. In some respects he was right. Because as public servants we don't indicate our moods for public exposure so easily, and perhaps like most foresters and agricultural groups we lean conservatively, that is we don't grab at new things because by experience we've learned to be cautious. So foresters generally are cautious. So anyway, Tugwell brought in Silcox in order to clean house. Now, why he approached me, Tugwell, as an avenue for which I don't know, excepting that Silcox knew who my friends in the Forest Service had been like Coert Du Bois , who was a liberal, Fritz Olmsted, who was a liberal. So he knew where I leaned. Liberal in the sense that I was a little more daring and wanted to make greatest progress in our field. So Tugwell, then, started an acquaintanceship with Silcox that way, and being my undersecretary, whenever I came into Washington he called me up and we generally had lunch together, and we powwowed about this or that. And then he came in to visit California, and of course he wanted me to guide him. So I got the car. His wife was along, and his secretary, and about four of five of us. And I had to arrange for conveyances. I did the piloting from the northern part of 108 Kotok: the state to the south. They were interested in many things, and I knew enough about agriculture so I knew the avenue how to approach it because of my tie up with the agricultural college here. We spent some time at various places in the state. I took them down to Stanford. I said, "You ought to see Stanford." And we passed by Hoover's house, and he was afraid to remain there. And I wanted to take him over and introduce him to the president of the university, and he refused to do it. Fry: He was afraid to remain by Hoover's house? Kotok: Well, he passed by hurriedly at Hoover's house, and then I wanted to introduce him to the president of the university, and he didn't want to meet him. So that was that. I thought it was foolish of him. And then I took him around the campus. He met some people. Tugwell was shy in many ways, very shy. Then he had some family trouble, a love affair going on while his wife was there, and some of us along in the party suspected there was some tension there, and which ended up (I can note it now) ended up in divorce with his wife, and his chief clerk that they had along, he married her. I piloted them, and I got to know him very well, his philosophy. He had a taste for good things in life, too, so I took him up to the wine-testing up at Davis. He had a very important reason for wanting to do that; he believed that California wines could better be sold under vintage names, rather than imitation of European names, and he was trying to promote in the Department of Agriculture American wines. And he really did know a lot about wines, and he told me a lot of stories about testing out California wines against other wines at his own table there, and having them (these great wine tasters) and how he could fool them. There was a lot of hooey about that. So he was a backer [?]. Of course the wine people knew that, and they wanted to meet him. Bioletti was a big wine man, Professor Bioletti, so I met him. He was quite an interesting character. f So I took him up to the wine tasting thing. We wine tasted there, and had apple seed between there so I tasted it. So there was another common interest, then, with California about this wine, and I wound up and made sure that Winters would send to him packaged goods of good wines. And we always had good wines along. This is the cheapest promotion we can get on the Washington scene to promote good wines. So that was another tie-up. And I kind of fancy myself liking wines, so there was a common interest. 109 Kotok: That was another point in which I contacted Tugwell. Throughout his career in Agriculture there, why I was very close to him. Then I next met him when he was governor of Puerto Rico; I went down there on an inspection of forestry in Puerto Rico. So I went down there, and there he was with his new wife that I had known. His first wife had borne daughters to him, and his second wife brought up boys. He said it sort of evened up in the long run. They were very cordial and nice. We had a little difficulty; we had a Forest Service man down there. A Forest Service man, who was poorly informed and had made some critical statements about American policy as to Puerto Rico. It affected not only the relationship with the governor but affected other things. So I was there to smooth it out to find out what the trouble was, and we moved that man fast. Fry: Puerto Rico was almost an explosive situation in itself. Kotok: Oh yes. There was a war, you see; it was difficult. Fry: I think Tugwell was about the first successful-- Kotok: Tugwell was the first one who recommended that they elect their own governor in Puerto Rico, not have a resident governor, their own governor. And he really promoted that. What we see now in Puerto Rico you can pay tribute to Tugwell. And I discussed with him, then, the development of Puerto Rico insofar as the forest lands had a part in it, and I remember discussing with him at length that the recreation would be important thing in Puerto Rico sooner or later (and it is) and that these forest lands could be made park and forest lands. And people would be delighted to come up there from the ocean to the mountains. And it's a beautiful little island. And he took that in and had some of the experts in there discussing it. That was one. The other one they could raise a lot of their timber for their own resources, so they wouldn't have to ship it in from the Pacific Northwest or elsewhere. And they could; so they started their own forestry program. Then there was the problem of some of the land that had been misused in agriculture that could be converted to forests, rather than more misused as agricultural land. So there was a common ground, and it was very profitable. Regarding this man, and his name slips me so it doesn't matter, that we fired, he let him out fast, brought him back home. I 110 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: discussed with him about the problem but never mentioned the man, and not a word was said that we were going to take him out. And we never advised him; we just took him out and said nothing, and the new man we sent in there, we had him call on the governor, "I'm at your service, Governor. What can I do you?" And things moved on smoothly. So that was the next time that I met Tugwell in an official capacity. Thereafter I ran into him very often, at the Cosmos Club when he'd visit there. We'd renew our friendship. We discussed problems in a general way. He never was too outspoken; you had to drag out conversation from him frequently, but once he got on a subject, it flowed on without any interruptions. The only thing that I was very critical of him was he didn't respect dumbness. He had no place for men that didn't think and didn't have a thinking capacity. And I accused him in a good natured way, as one could, that he was an intellectual snob. Intolerance for something less convenient. Well, he liked intellect. I used to chide him quite a bit that men could have great feeling about things that may be more accurate than those that have the great thinking capacity that they've thought through the process of logic, but some have intuitive ways of knowing what is right and wrong. And we used to argue that point. He said to me that that's a form of animalism that he couldn't agree on, and we left it at that. But it was a very enjoyable contact the main he fully supported the program he got Silcox in of course he felt happy We knew that like all undersecretaries, position sometimes, particularly if they And there was little bit of undercurrent himself but Wallace's secretaries and so come frequently for Tugwell to the White Was Tugwell put in-- that I had with him. In of the foresters. Once and joyful about that, they have a delicate 're close to the President, feeling, not of Wallace on, that the call would House and not Wallace. After the election. Tugwell 's part was to write the speeches and so on and so forth. He was one of the political advisers on the campaign. Then he got the job as undersecretary of Agriculture on the basis of agricultural economics and so on. And he was and he is a very good economist. So he had professional standing to hold that job and political ties. So that's how he was undersecretary. I think he had higher ambitions, but that's another thing. I Ill Kotok: never heard him say a word of criticism of Wallace where I knew there was disagreement. So he wasn't making public his-- Fry: Where was this disagreement? Kotok: Well, of course in any undersecretary or secretary there are areas of disagreement. I don't know. Fry: Well, they couldn't match in everything. Kotok: No, no, no. So there were, but I never heard him say a word of criticism of Wallace. So that was that, and he never tried to seek out information about how does one feel about this man or that man. Fry: Was Tugwell for the establishment of the Department of Natural Resources? I mean Department of Conservation? Kotok: No, on that one it isn't clear. The record isn't very clear. I already related how he supported moving over the Soil Conservation work over to Interior, and that was done because of the impossible position under the Department of Agriculture conflict between the bureau of soils and the Forest Service. There was confusion there, and he says, "The devil with all of you," and moved it over to Ickes where he said he could get unity of purpose. Then it was retransf erred . So Tugwell 's move in that direction was not indicative at all, I think out of sheer necessity. Now he and Ickes were very close. Now the reason I say there must have been areas where there was conflict is because Ickes and Wallace didn't see eye-to-eye, and Tugwell was closer to Ickes than Wallace was to Ickes. So probably there were areas. The mere fact that he transferred it to Ickes was an indication. I don't think Wallace liked it, but he went along with it. Tugwell 's power then came for a long while because he had a direct contact to the White House. He was very close to Mrs. Roosevelt. That didn't hurt him. There was another group, the one that Ed Munns talks about that he had contacts with. It was Gardner Jackson, I didn't mention that. Gardner Jackson was a New Englander that had found religion in the New Deal; he was a writer. He was very close to Mrs. Roosevelt. And Gardner Jackson would ask foresters and he worked with two men that are very close, Gardner Jackson did. Two foresters; one is Robert Marshall (Bob Marshall) and the other one is Ed Munns. 112 Fry: I was writing, and I missed what capacity Gardner Jackson was? Kotok: Gardner Jackson was a newspaperman who carried quite a little weight with the New Dealers. He was close to the outer court in the Roosevelt administration. Fry: I think Ickes mentions him some, too. Kotok: Oh yes. I knew Gardner Jackson. I considered him sort of half baked on most of things he proposed. He never thought things clear through. But Munns was very close to him, and Munns always felt that he was in among the king makers. I never felt that need to be — delete that when you come to it, the king makers. But Ed Munns felt that (you could see it if you were to discuss this with him) he was among the king makers. It was true, but as a matter of fact, sure everyone has an influence, but the final determination was made on, sometimes, on a quite different basis. And Ed Munns I don't agree with him on many of his conclusions how this one man or that — because he bases his story on Bob Marshall or Gardner's knowledge. Well, there were other areas that, others that were working at the same time. Fry: I think it's like we've found dozens of people who feel they were responsible for Sproul getting started as president of the university. Kotok: Yes, I know that. I knew that. Bob Sproul was the best controller that the university ever had or is likely to have. I worked with him as controller. Fry: Oh, you did. Yes, you were on the faculty. Kotok: I was there when W.y. Campbell was there. And the old man needed a controller, and he left it entirely to him. And Bob Sproul ran the university as far as the finances went. Campbell didn't know what it was all about. He was there to get better teaching and better research. Fry: I guess it almost takes two different kinds of men. Kotok: I remember this: I had this special appropriation for the experiment station that I got the state to put in, and Mulford got a little peeved about it. He wanted it on the university budget. So I said, "Let's go up to the controller and talk it over." So I went over to Bob Sproul, and Bob of course was very practical. And Bob said [whispering], "Oh, let him talk about it. 113 Kotok: You've got the money. Hold it." I told him. I said, "I don't care; you want to put it on the university budget, it just shows on the university budget. This one doesn't show." And he's getting all of the money, practically. The only thing is --So Mulford wanted it on the university budget and for me to okay it. I said, "No, if it's on the university budget, you'll okay it. If it's on my budget, I ' 11 okay it. I don't want to have a thing to do with it once it's on the university budget unless it's assigned to me. But Sproul was practical. So he said, "Sure, keep it." So we kept it. And then later Mulford crabbed so much. And then when Bob Sproul became president I said, "Let him take it. I don't care." And they lost the money finally. It got lost. The Forestry School for me used to be able--I supported with that extra money graduate study and research; there are about seven or eight doctorates wouldn't have come without that. And I supported them. I gave them work during the whole year. Fry: This was with the grant that came in through the-- Kotok: State funds, that was just sweet money. I could write anything. I could hire foreigners with that money, and I couldn't with the federal money; it had a lot of advantages. We needed there for a time period another librarian to help out, "So hire a librarian. I'll certify it." And this was my certification. I didn't have to have anybody pass over me. Fry: Yes, I should think the red tape it would be-- Kotok: Yes, completely. I'm just speaking about Sproul. So he was very helpful. Then when we needed a new facility, when we moved to Giannini Hall, he made all the provisions that we confer with the architects and have a say of our space. He was very cooperative. Fry: I wanted to ask you one more question about Rex Tugwell. You were speaking of king makers, and I guess you could class Tugwell as a sort of king maker. You mentioned that you knew his philosophy becaus you and he had many conversations. My impression of him is that he was able to take his philosophy, which included a great amount of idealism, but mix it with the practical behavior in the realm of politics. That he had both of these-- Kotok: Yes, I would say this: On the basis how he conducted the campaign-- 114 Kotok: Roosevelt's first campaign. And he had a lot to do with some of the speeches--he and Judge Rosenman were probably the two key men. One [was] a lawyer, Judge Rosenman. Probably the two men that were closer to the President at that time than any other two. Of course Farley was in it on the political, but the image that they created of the President was through his speeches because you remember that the radio was the big vehicle then. And they had the response that the public would have to the image that they were creating, and they did a remarkable job. And to that extent, I would say he must have shown considerable political shrewdness. Then the next place where he was on his own was running that job as governor. He did remarkably. First, this is what is political wisdom, to prepare the executive branch to accept it, the legislative branch to approve it, the people of Puerto Rico to accept it. Fry: And this was a pretty different culture from what he was used to also. Kotok: Yes, that's right. He had no background at all. Fry: He must have been terribly bright. Kotok: Oh yes. I consider him--As I say, the only thing I disliked about him (not disliked but I noted this about him) is his intellectual snobbery, I called it. He liked intellect. Nevertheless, although his own tastes were very [fastidious], he was a very careful dresser, selecting in his food, and his behavior were all indication of culture. Yet he bled easily for the downtrodden. He understood the parts that make up the discontents of the lower classes. Fry: You mean he did understand the nonintellectual untrained masses? Kotok: Oh yes, that's right, but he himself would prefer- -He didn't seek, for example, like I've known some. "Let me talk to Tom, Dick, and Harry." I never had him do that. For example I recall taking him through some vineyards and so on. I took him on one trip, I remember that. And I had taken a congressional delegation in contrast. The congressmen wanted to talk to the farmer and the farmer's wife. Tugwell didn't. He talked to the farm adviser asking him. Does that give you a contrast? Fry: Yes. The authority. Kotok: The congressmen are (and I've taken two or three congressional delegations) they wanted to meet the farmer, the farmer's wife. 115 Fry: You mean not just for votes? Kotok: No, not for votes; they were out of their district. They were from Southern and--but that's the area in which they felt comfortable, And he didn't feel comfortable in that area. That's what I'm trying to get across. He was accustomed to the college campus. He made a good witness before congressional committees, direct, responsive . Fry: Is there any particular point on which he differed with Roosevelt's conception of New Deal economics? Do you know? Kotok: No, I couldn't tell you that. As I say, he never criticized to me the upper echelons. He never criticized to me what he thought of Roosevelt, what he thought about Wallace, or that. Fry: Did he have any of what you call religious or mystical beliefs at all or was he completely-- Kotok: Well, I saw him in a very strange situation and the most critical. There was dissension in his family. I got that from his daughters, who traveled with me (I'd have them ride in my car), adolescent girls, who were sensitive to a breakup in marriage that was coming. Fry: And not too discreet, I guess. Kotok: For example, the mother and so wouldn't let them smoke, and they were college kids, so I'd give them a cigarette. And they'd smoke; and they'd talk. I never asked them questions. And I never advised or anything else. And they were seeing right that he was going with this girl Grace, and Grace this and Grace that. We could see the dissension and we weren't surprised that they broke up. I thought, however, that it was rather daring to take the two along on the same trip. (Pleasanthill Family) So I saw him then in another peculiar situation. Another area in which I saw him that indicates the man's philosophy, we went down to a station that I had nothing to do with, a desert station way down in San Bernardino County when there was an experiment station. And he wanted me to go along. And I said, "Well, I'm not an agriculturalist." He said, "I want you to come along. I'm the boss." I said, "Yep, you're the boss," so out to the desert I went. So we went to this experiment station, way off, no connections, no ties with the university. And it was one of the Bureau of Plant Industry, a useless kind of place. There was some justification of originally establishing it there; they were going to try out some plants for the desert. So here they had two or three men marooned out in the desert, no intellectual contacts, and doing research that could just as well be closed out and done somewhere else. 116 Kotok: So he asked me what do I think of it. And I hesitated to get involved in another bureau's activities, and I told him so. I said, "It wouldn't be fair. I'm not an agriculturalist. " He said, "I didn't ask you that question. If you were in my place, what would you think?" "I'd say they'd have to justify it. I don't think they've justified it from the evidence I've heard these men give." He said, "That's what I asked you." So he could be very harsh and exacting. And he had to make certain decisions that the secretary had delegated that were very tough to make. Then I related the story where Tugwell comes in indirectly. During the Second World War, or before the Second World War when we were trying to get the evidence what Russia was doing in, probably in China, coming from the north. The administration had been advised by its then investigative bureaus, whatever they were called, to send out some plant explorers. Fry: In China? Kotok: In China and Russia to send some plant explorers out that would go for plant exploring but actually to spy. Knowles Ryerson, who was our Californian. Knowles Ryerson was then in the Bureau of Plant Industry. And it so appeared that I was appearing on an item before the Agriculture Committee when the door knocked, and they said they had a special message that they wanted the committee immediately to consider that came from the White House. And here appears Ryerson with a bunch of maps, and he explained this project. He asked for a certain sum of money. And named the men who were going to go. The committee just rolling all over itself to give them more money; "That isn't enough. Take more." It was one of the few times when I saw a committee so anxious to give more than the bureau chief was asking, and Knowles Ryerson appeared as bureau chief. Well anyway Knowles did say that he was a little hesitant about the whole job because never in the international relations had the Bureau of Plant Industry ever had spies in its group. And I've never forgotten that statement he told in the committee. "Spies, when we've got to get the information, we get it." To go out a little bit farther, so by accident I was there (I shouldn't have been there because it should have been a closed hearing, 117 Kotok: but it was interrupting my hearing and they let him in). So by accident I heard this closed hearing, and now it can be related of course. It so happened that one of these men who was supposed to be a plant explorer, who had had some experience in that, also had a tendency to drink too much, and when he got to China or Siberia (I forget which), the Japanese already knew that and picked him up with all his records. That became an international scandal that was quieted down. Of course they had to—the President couldn't be wrong, so they had to make a scapegoat, and Knowles Ryerson was demoted from his job. He could have any other job he wanted, but he had to leave that job. He had to take the rap. And Knowles Ryerson, I have the highest regard for. He took it without saying a word. Only a few of us knew. I knew. He didn't tell. And Knowles Ryerson then took a job out in California on one of the plant stations before he went back to the university. Well, I tell that story not so much because it's an interesting incident in itself, excepting how afterward about Tugwell and his part. And he was one that went to the defense of Knowles Ryerson. Fry: Oh, he did? Kotok: Oh yes. He thought the whole thing was a shabby thing. He supported Knowles Ryerson- -never should have been sent in the first place, that the Secretary of Agriculture had been pushed into an impossible position because our international vouching that our men come as plant explorers and for nothing else must be safely guarded or we'll forever else we will be in doubt and in question. Fry: This was all before the war, wasn't it? That was a pretty important principle at stake. Kotok: I think so. I have the highest regard for Knowles because first of all he was opposed to it on solid grounds; he carried through orders ( that's what they want; we'll do it), good integrity. He takes the rap without saying a word. He could have made any kind of scandal he wanted out of it. Fry: Tugwell was still undersecretary at this time? Kotok: I know that Tugwell went to his defense because Tugwell afterwards talked to me and said that it was one of those tragic things that never should have happened. He had high regard for Knowles Ryerson. They were very close. So to show you (you were asking me about Tugwell, and I tell this story). In this story, it's so interesting; you see history repeat itself when you think of other episodes that have been related 118 Kotok: recently about our spying, the U-2. Fry: The executive must never know that this is going on. Kotok: The dagger thing, that's right. And of course that's why they criticized Eisenhower; he shouldn't have admitted anything. Eisenhower should never have admitted that we had the U-2's. He's never guilty. But espionage at best, I suppose we have to do it. There's nothing to brag about. It's a necessary evil. Fry: You were never asked to do any, were you? Kotok: I never was in my life to do anything. I wasn't in a position to be. The only thing (I did that as a citizen of the United States). If I saw something that I thought important to the Embassy when I was in a foreign country, I'd report it. Fortunately I was in a position to always to approach—you have to have a way of reaching an ambassador. Some of them put on an awful lot of dog. You would think you were going to see the Pope. But there are ways of breaking it. You know, the trouble with a high position is those around them build fences around them to exclude them. Fry: They are insulated from what's going on. Kotok: I wrote up one time a play that I gave in Washington before my colleagues. We used to have a Gridiron Club in the Forestry at their annual meeting. My brother-in-law and I used to write the skits for the Gridiron Club. So one time we wrote a skit, and we had the forester as the Pope and those around him as the cardinals, the college of cardinals. We illustrated how the college of cardinals were trying to keep the lower clergy (we were the lower clergy) away from reaching the Pope. Then, the inner sanctum of cardinals—not all the cardinals are equal. [Laughter] But it worked out. That was many years ago. So we worked it out, and we got a lot of kick out of that. For a long time we used to say, "I took this up with the college of cardinals, so it's all right, Pope." We used to kid a lot about that, but it was a good illustration. You build a fence around it, and the lesser clergy have a deuce of a time to get to the top. That's the kick on many of the campuses; they can't get to the president. Their last kicks about Sproul was they couldn't get to him, and he wouldn't make decisions. 119 Fry: Yes, that's what I've heard. Kotok: Yes, that was the kicks that I would hear when I'd come back to visit here. Fry: He really tried to see people, I think, but. Kotok: No, their inner clique kept them from him. His private secretary had too much control over the disposition of his time. Lord save you from a woman who tries to save the boss. Fry: This is why it's an amazing thing to me that so many people were able to get in to see Roosevelt, or had pipe-lines to him. Kotok: Although I told you the story about Dr. Alsberg coming back there, Dr. Alsberg. Perhaps this is a good story, and I'll finish up with this. Dr. Carl Alsberg I got to know very well when he came back from Stanford and was in Giannini Foundation and we worked very closely. And what I loved to hear was the stories that he would tell of his experiences. He had rich experiences. Well, he had something or other that he was trying to get across dealing with food or some matter of that kind. And Mrs. Roosevelt was very much interested in what he was trying to promote, and she arranged for him to come clear to Washington so that he would appear, invited to dinner with the President so he could tell the President. So Alsberg came, self-briefed, and he got his black suit on, and he came there. And he was sitting at the right place to the right of the President, and Mrs. Roosevelt, catty-corner, and they had some other guests. And Mrs. Roosevelt would say, "Mr. President (formerly she would call him the President), Dr. Alsberg has something I wish you'd listen to," and Carl would start off, and the President would get off on a winded story that had nothing to do with it. They were there two hours through the dinner and all, and Carl never got in his expressions. And Mrs. Roosevelt said they'd have to meet some other time. There he'd come clear across the continent to tell the President his story, then Mrs. Roosevelt says, "You guys had better write it up; we'll get to him in writing." So when you're speaking of Roosevelt, he's approachable, but he wanted to tell his story. Now why he did that was to divert or to prevent meeting a problem. No one can tell. There was a lot of guesses by those who followed his career and life. It was a protective measure that he had; he could put up that kind of wall, and how can you break it? Fry: Presidential filibuster. 120 Kotok: That's right, but this story of Carl Alsberg was very, very good. Carl Alsberg told another story. He went to Japan on a trip for the fishermen. They were trying to work out a trading between fishing in the Alaska waters and he was on that commission. So of course the Japanese were very formal and so on, and they were to meet the high falutin1 including the Emperor. So he had to wear a high hat. Carl had a very big head, size 8 or something like that, an unusual size even in the United States. The Japanese have small craniums. They couldn't find a high hat for him. He didn't come with a high hat, and they went through the Embassy, and they had no high hats. So he borrowed then one of these small Japanese hats, and he carried it, and he held it on his head, and then he took it off. It couldn't rest on it. He was a great character, and he did a lot for forestry for us, and Alsberg was very close, understood what we were driving at, although before that he wanted us to go to Stanford when he was at Stanford, but once he was at Cal he was very loyal to Cal. He was a great loss to the university. Fry: Let me check through these names. Do you know much about the Pardee, Heney, and Kent people, or were they too early? Kotok: No, Kent was all right. I knew of Kent when Kent was congressman. Fry: I guess Pardee was in the State Senate here. Kotok: Kent was close to the first Roosevelt and also very close to Gifford Pinchot. Gifford Pinchot and Kent were very close friends. And as a matter of fact, Pinchot was the one who got him interested in this whole conservation thing, got Kent interested. That was the first contact, and also got him interested in keeping the green sword in the parks and so on. So Pinchot had an enormous influence on Kent, and Kent then probably may have had it on his own, but the two meeting together intensified whatever feelings Kent had. So we knew Kent as a warm supporter of any kind of conservation. Of course after he left Congress his interest became more local and more state. We used him in the state propaganda while I was in the state. We used him frequently to help us out. He had a way of getting to the governor that some of us couldn't. So we would use him. He used his good influence on the governor. Fry: Fortunately. Kotok: For forestry, or parks, or in the area of conservation. And he was always responsive. He had also a tendency to tell you instead of listening. Fry: Well, he does have a very big name in conservation. 121 Kotok: He has, and he should have. Fry: And in the Progressive movement. Kotok: Yes he was. He was one of those Progressives that Roosevelt-- the Rough Riders. So we used him. INTERVIEW IV Food and Agriculture Organization Mission; Point Four Mission. (Recorded July 16, 1963) Kotok: I've already related in one of my lecture series the origin of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and how forestry won a place in that organization. It might be profitable to relate my own experience as chief of mission, the first chief of mission appointed to Food and Agriculture, particularly since a forester was selected to head such a mission. I stated that this mission in Chile covered the following fields of work: agriculture including agricultural economics; fisheries; nutrition, which also touched public health; and forestry. I also related how on my own recommendation both Food and Agriculture set up a mission in Chile, and in conferences with our State Department, I recommended that a Point Four [Marshall Plan] program be under taken there, and that the two groups ought to be able to coordinate their work and perhaps profit by an exchange of personnel and ideas . From the very beginning in my first trip to Chile in relation with a Food and Agriculture meeting, I called on the American ambassador to pay my respects and discussed with him the possibility of two missions, and he urged me to take the chief of mission job with Food and Agriculture. Fry: By two missions you mean-- Kotok: Point Four and FAO. The mission was established, then, after my meeting in Chile in 1950. In "51 the mission was set up, and I accepted it and retired from the United States Forest Service. Reviewing the personnel that were included in this mission without giving specific names of all but rather designating them by country of origin, the mission was made up of about seven Americans; three British; and those that came from Scotland preferred to call themselves Scotch; one French; four from Scandinavian countries; two from Spain; one from Australia; one from Italy; one from Germany; and one from Finland. Obviously a collection of so many nationalities had to make a decision on the common 123 Kotok: language to be used among the staff, and it was agreed that while English would be the basic language, each of the participants could write his reports in his native language, excepting the one from Finland and the Scandinavians. They agreed either to write directly in Spanish or have it translated into Spanish or to use one of the more basic languages, either French or German . As chief of mission it was rather fortunate that while my Spanish was rather limited, my previous knowledge of French and German was of importance. In our conferences, therefore, when we held them as a group, there was a continuous interchange of the three languages. I don't know how it sounded, but at least we made each other understand. Fry: Each one spoke in the language he could speak best? Kotok: Yes, and as time went on, more and more learned Spanish so we could begin to use Spanish where the basic language, English, was not known enough by the participant. With the Frenchmen I spoke French, but if I fell short explaining it, I could use German because he did understand German. Fry: You had no interpreters for your staff meetings? Kotok: We had interpreters. We had two interpreters, or rather clerks who knew more than one language, and of course all our clerks had to know Spanish. We had, of course, frequent difficulties to get the translation of important documents from the basic language that the specialist used to the Spanish. Translation at best is difficult. But we found frequently that our translators, the ones that would translate and type, fell short of really catching the significance of a statement, and it would be lost in translation. Later we were very fortunate in securing a Chilean who was versed in the three basic European languages and who later became a translator for the State Department. He was very, very useful. In important meetings that I attended either with ministers or other high officials, I found it safe and useful to speak in my own language, English, so that there would be no misunderstanding, and I depended upon this Chilean to translate it. We discovered that it was best in important, official documents, or in important communications to Chilean officials that the greatest care would be used in translation, and we always sent an English copy with the hopes that they could translate it more accurately if they found it necessary. That was particularly 124 Kotok: true with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and with the President's office direct. The complexity of the job made it very important in the early stages that we study any commitments we made with care and that no dissensions that might occur within our own staff as to a position to take be permitted to reach our opposites that the government had appointed with each one of the specialists. The FAO program required that the government itself would provide a specialist within that field, if they had one or one that could nearly fulfill the job, on the basis that at the completion of the FAO mission's job itself of that specialist, their own specialist would continue the work to insure continuity, and that the recom mendations made might at some other stage be carried forward by the government. So that was the basic structure on which we worked. Fry: Now as I understand this, there were two specialists, then, in each field: a Chilean specialist and one from your staff. Kotok: That's right, one from the staff. Sometimes we couldn't get an opposite because there was no one with the training, but in the major fields, particularly in agriculture, Chile had quite a number of highly qualified men. Most of them turned over to us had been trained in American institutions and had received their advanced degree. Mrs. K. : North American. Fry: Yes. Kotok: And some had even the doctorate degree. There were a lot of skilled technicians. It wasn't poverty-stricken for technicians. I had stated before in my talk that in discussing the work of the mission with the two presidents with whom I had to deal with and the appropriate ministers in the various departments that we dealt with, I advanced the idea that we came there not because Chile lacked specialists, but we came as specialists to talk to the i r specialists to give them the advantage of findings that they can place in the various fields in other countries of the world. And that we were coming there as a doctor would call in a specialist or a consultant in order to confirm his own diagnosis and his own remedies that he had recommended. We frequently found that one or two of the Chilean specialists in one or two cases were more advanced in their field than the specialist we had assigned. However, all the specialists that were selected were carefully screened by the FAO organization in Washington, the FAO organization 125 Kotok: in Rome. The ones selected from Europe came from recommendations of Food and Agricultural cooperative organizations in Europe of specialists who would recommend from their own groups men that would suit a pafticular job. In other words Food and Agriculture had established special committees throughout the European countries that they could consult with regarding specialists that would be available. In 1950 if you'll recall, many of the countries had a surplus of specialists because those that had been working in the colonies found themselves without jobs. This was true of the Dutch; this was true of the British; this was true of the French. They had a surplus of men with very high training, who had held very important positions. The Americans were selected by referring to the Department of Agriculture and the State Department through the Washington office of FAO, who would discuss with the departments in the United States candidates that would be available, and there would be a certain amount of screening. There was a tendency in the United States that a department would recommend an individual because he didn't quite fit in in their own shop. We found that true, particularly in some of the colleges that made recommendations. It was a way of disposing of an undesirable. That tendency perhaps is a natural one that you could expect, but we were aware of it and had to exercise a certain amount of care. Fry: Did this make for staff problems? Kotok: In my own case I generously took over a member of the Forest Service who was a problem child for the Forest Service but who appeared to have a lot of skill, and I was willing to take him over on this assignment. However, I found that the same problem that he had produced back home, he had a tendency to produce on his new assignment. And he continued [to be] a problem clear through his stay. To go a little further about the selections. Now I as chief of mission had an opportunity to indicate whether I would accept or reject, if I had a basis for such a rejection. However, no one could be selected without the approval of the appropriate officials in the department in Chile. There had to be clearance by the Chilean government through its mechanisms in the department including the Foreign Office. Normally, with only one exception of the thirty or more specialists that I had, there was only one objection registered at a selection. They were willing to take the recommendation of FAO and myself as chief. There was a curious thing which explains an attitude of mine worthwhile to record. 126 Kotok: There were recommendations that we had of some very skilled and well trained specialists of Latin American origin, some from Mexico and some from Argentina. The Chilean government wanted nothing of Latin Americans. They wanted either Europeans or Americans --oh, there was a Canadian, too. It's a feeling that a prophet from far off is more valuable than a prophet at home. This attitude had a very important effect on relationships that FAO had with Latin American countries who charged that their specialists were not being given a chance to participate in the program. In later years I found that some of the Latin Americans were then used, but they were not used in Latin America. They were used in some other countries. So that's one problem. Fry: I wondered if you had any problems of chauvinistic attitudes on the part of the Europeans, who had worked in their colonies? Kotok: I was going to cover that. The experts were selected primarily for their basic scientific contributions that they might make. However, in the screening process behavioral patterns of the specialists were considered and also the attitude towards political and social problems in a limited way. As far as the foresters were concerned, LeLoup, who was chief of the Forest Service in FAO, was very conscious of the social and economic contributions that foresters might make within a country. The same was true with the other heads both in fisheries and in nutrition. However, part of the briefing that we gave our specialists was to inform them that our mission merely required that we supply technical skills, and that we had to be careful and rather guarded when we touched in the fields that dealt with economic or social problems that a country was confronted with. But within these limitations our reports reflected the social and economic problems frequently and indicated changes that would have to be made if advantage were to be taken of the technical advice that was given. This was particularly true in certain aspects of agriculture which dealt with the part time worker on agriculture, the incualino. which is the "sharecropper." (The nearest thing in English we'd have would be the sharecropper.) And in fisheries, where our recommendations indicated unless there were cooperative organizations established underwritten by the government with adequate loans and credit, the possiblities of taking advantage of the riches of the sea could not be secured unless the country was willing (and which in part was doing [so] by permitting foreign vessels to come and fish in their waters instead of Chileans fishing in their own waters). So while we were there, there were problems about German ships coming in and fishing off the coast, and American ships for tuna. Tuna is an important fish, and there were Americans, 127 Kotok: there were Germans, there were Japanese. It's a problem that hasn't been solved yet, but nevertheless within the framework of our mission, written with great care, we submitted to the government our reports showing the direction in which it would have to go if it was to take advantage of technology. I would say of the groups that I had the pleasure of guiding, that those that came from colonial countries without exception, either the British or the French or the Dutch, had a point of view that reflected the white man's supremacy but in this way: They never could disassociate themselves that the Chileans were not the subject group in which they were bringing enlightenment. Fry: How did this manifest itself? Kotok: It manifested itself in very many small ways. I as chief of mission was particularly concerned in the character of the reports. There was always a feeling there that the origin of all knowledge of all training and all could only be found in European countries. The Americans, on the other hand, had a strong belief that Chile would have to produce its own institutions and its own ways of solving its own problems, drawing if necessary temporarily from whatever other sources were available outside of their own country. That was one aspect. Another one, the tendency for those coming from the colonial countries to blandly state that the agricultural worker was lazy; he would get drunk as easy as pie, and that he had no self-discipline, that he had no desire to lift himself even if by his bootstraps. On the other hand I was very proud of our (most of our—practically all of our) American group, excepting one, that we had an inner feeling that we could convey to important individuals with whom we dealt, the technical groups that were assigned as opposites to us, the conception that Chileans, whatever scale they might be on the social ladder, had in them the possibilities for advancing and for improving their state. I found that same strong feeling of the Finlander and also from one of the Danes. The Finlander was probably more socially minded than anyone in the group we had. He had fought in the World War; he had been subjected to the abuses of the Russian war that the Finns had, but he was socially minded. He believed that all people if given the training and the opportunity, would seek a better way of life. When I tell a story in a school that we had, I'll detail later, in a logging school that we found that the local workers we were using to help us to log and to mill in the rainy season had no shoes. 128 Kotok: The Finn came back to our Santiago office and told us of their plight, and he raised a sum of money and went out and bought shoes of various sizes to bring back to those workers And all in the mission contributed generously. He found that women were expecting young and had no clothes for them, and we picked up money in order to help. That's an illustration of the kind of thing that could be done. But we had to keep that completely sub rosa what we were doing. Fry: Because this lay outside the realm of your mission? Kotok: That's one reason, but furthermore the Chilean was very sensitive for one to find faults within his system. So we had to always advance it indirectly. I'll give another illustration I think I related, but 1 might repeat it here. This German that I had, came there as a potato specialist because of a very serious disease that had been found in Chile that was destroying potato crops, and the potato, like in Ireland, was a basic crop for the poverty-stricken areas. And if they lost their potatoes, they would have found themselves like the Irish, but they had nowhere else to go. So it was important to find a substitute potato that would be free of this disease. But this German, with a Germanic point of view--Deutschland uber alles, Germans are the leaders—did two things that were very irritating to the Chileans: One, there were Nazi cells still left in Chile of the German enclaves in the southern part of Chile. I had briefed this specialist that under no circumstance was he to discuss with his German compatriots in Chile political situations because it was very delicate. Some who had been Nazis claimed they weren't, and there was bitter feeling among Germans themselves and Chileans against the Germans. But he proceeded then to do the very thing he was told not to do, mixed in politics with German Chileans. Then he did another thing that was even more disturbing. He would take pictures of the poverty-stricken layouts, and he would comment to those around him, "That could not have happened in Germany. This could not happen in Germany. That couldn't happen in Germany. " Word of his action reached the Foreign Minister because the Chileans who were with him were very conscious of this criticism and were touchy about it. I received word to immediately call the Foreign Minister. Normally it was something very, very important when I'd get a summons. I went, and he related to me what had happened, and he wanted this specialist to be sent out of the 129 Kotok: country immediately as persona non grata. I told him that it would be a very delicate thing, and since his mission would terminate in a few months, I urged him to let it run out, and I assured him that his transgressions would not occur again. I called this German specialist into my office and spoke to him in German so that there would be no misunderstanding. And in fact in preparing myself I had written it out in English and then translated it into German and had it checked so there 'd be no misunderstanding. I told him that what he had been doing had brought the mission into disrepute and that there was a demand that he be kicked out of the country—kicked out, not sent out but kicked out of the country. I wanted to know whether he understood how grave this was. And he said, "What did I do?" I related item by item what had been reported to me, and I said, "First of all, let me have the camera." Any pictures that would be taken would be official pictures taken by the Chileans. He had a camera for taking special pictures that we needed. Fry: His specialty was what? Kotok: His specialty was agriculture and potato blight. He handed me the camera, clicked his heels, and said, "Jawohl, mein Herr." I related this story because if this had happened with a French man or with an American, I probably would have been hit with a two-by-four. But this German accustomed to being ordered from the top, accepted it without a murmur. So that thing blew over. I give these two instances to indicate the delicate position a mission is in, where you find sensitiveness of the country itself as to its own shortcomings in the social and economic fields. Fry: And political. Had he taken part in the Nazi party activities or just been with them? Kotok: I never asked him. Whether he did or not was unimportant because my own visits to Germany immediately after the war indicated that it would have been very difficult for any specialists to have survived unless it was a very daring one, except the Nazis as they were. My objection was not because he had been or had not been a Nazi, that wasn't it at all, but the basic assumption that all the greatness must have stemmed from Germany- -whether it be potato blight cure or whether it be in any other field. Tt was the arrogance that was so irritating, not only to me but to the Chileans. Sheer arrogance. 130 Fry: Did the German and your colonialists drag their heels on things like setting up training schools for Chileans? Kotok: No. As a specialist, this potato man did a remarkable job, really a remarkable job. He was probably the best known specialist. He later transferred from Germany to Cambridge. He was the out standing authority in that field, but you see that's why we tried to confine them to their own field unless they knew tactfully how to handle themselves in fields outside their own specialization. I assume that problem exists for our Peace Corps or any other specialists . We did find that some of the Americans on the Point Four mission had probably not been briefed as carefully as we tried to brief our Food and Agriculture men, and they committed mistakes simply because they didn't stick to their knitting and were sometimes loose in their comments as to their findings. I found however that the embassies themselves were very careful insofar as they had power over these missions to control that. Now perhaps I might go on with this development theme, if you think it would add something to general information probably not available normally. Fry: Yes. Kotok: We ran the mission very much like a university runs its staff; each worker had complete independence within his own field. However, he had to submit a program over which the chief could review before presenting it to the government and then to our Rome office for approval. But the chief of mission, then, was one that had to be very careful not to transgress into fields particularly in which he wasn't a specialist. So therefore I could take a little bit more active part in forestry as a forester, but I had to be exceedingly careful as to comments or criticisms or directions in which I had a point of view in health and nutrition and fisheries. So you were in that position where you had to be very careful. Now I found, however, that as the dean of a college staff, from careful reading and studying of texts that you could be helpful in guiding specialists in changes of direction and emphasis and particularly in the preparation of reports because all report writing follows logical procedures of presentation. It must have an introduction, a body, and a conclusion, and the three must tie together. Preciseness, conciseness, the use of approach, feeling the pulse of public reaction. And I found that in the main, men were very thankful and accepted the comments of the chief. 131 Kotok: Once in a while I had a few that gave problems. My French colleagues had an anti-American aversion. So whenever I'd present anything—and he was a forester so we were speaking as forester to forester. And he didn't accept criticism too well. He would accept it under duress. On the other hand the Scandinavians, who were in fishery, a field in which I was not a specialist, would present their own problems to me to work out conflicts within their own findings as a technical observer from a foreign field. So you get those reactions. I had one American who always ran counter to what he was advised, who was a range man. He gave us a lot of trouble. On the other hand I had another range man, an American, who was very amenable and very careful to be sure that the general point of view of the mission was reflected in whatever he did. So human beings are human beings, and I assume that if you summed it up, it would be like a normal college faculty, where the dean has some headaches, some joys, but not full and absolute authority, leave alone control. So these are the kinds of men and the tools we worked with. Now LeLoup's feeling, the chief of Forestry, and other chiefs in Rome of the various divisions called me into Rome for consulta tion after my second year there, and we decided on one program direction that we ought to try to push. We ought to conceive in the main that probably a field of work might have a terminal point, that is, a specialization, if we took forestry and divided it into divisions, that this one would terminate another field of work and another field of work. Fry: For your mission? Kotok: For your mission. There would be a terminal point and that the country then ought to be able from there on to carry on. In order to aid those countries, however, we would also have scholarships to give additional training to those that had already degrees, advanced work, in order to round out their capacities to carry on. So it was agreed then to give these scholarships and that was carried out; a number of scholarships were given for special trips. The countries were not necessarily the United States that was selected, but it was a country that would give the material advice of the most important information. So the fishery men obviously we sent to the Scandinavian countries. Fry: Did France or the United States get foresters? 132 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: The foresters we sent to Australia because they were going to deal with eucalyptus and insignia pine, where most of it was being developed . We sent a grape man to Spain and to Portugal because they had nearly the same environmental problems. For their vineyards. For their vineyards, round bottom. So the selection was always in order to Now to the United States we sent a man on sheep, although we could have sent him to Australia, but we wanted to get an American point of view. As chief of mission I had to be very careful that I wasn't seeing all things through USA eyes, so I leaned over backwards to find an alternative one for the scholar ships, or selection even of specialists. But I was talking then in a general way of the framework in which this conference was held, a terminal point in a possible field of training men of their own country. Another area we decided on, and this was the important con tribution, that we would try to improve the educational possibilities in the various fields within the Chilean institutions, some dating back older than any institutions in the United States: the University of Chile, University Concepci&n, University Catolica-- the institutions that they had. Did the Chilean institutions want help? Yes. But this is the plan first that we made to present. I went back then to Chile with a plan. I discussed the matter with the important ministers with whom we did business, and then we came up within the framework of that agreement with this: First, we would start a forestry school at the University of Chile. They had none; they gave some forestry courses but not a forestry school. There was conflict whether it should go to the University of Chile, and there were growing pains down in Valdivia--that 's the German colonies in the south, and the Germans wanted German foresters there, so we had a little conflict. We decided on the University of Chile. I met then with the (what we would call the) president or chancellor of the University with members of his staff, and they agreed that they would put up a forestry school — take some of the departments that fitted into it already, like botany and soils and so on. They would fill out a curriculum if I would furnish the head of the school to get it organized. In this case I wanted really an American, and there were a number of reasons why I wanted 133 Kotok: an American. The only other candidate would have been a Frenchman. We knew at that time we didn't want a German because there was strife between anti-German and pro-German feelings in Chile itself. So we didn't want to raise a storm. This would be the difficulty with a Frenchman to get things started. The French system of the forestry school is as a part of the Forestry Service, and it selects from the agricultural department candidates who go to Nancy (that's their forestry school at Nancy). Now the French forester that I had, and I knew enough about Nancy, they will gear then that all training had to be for a forestry service, and that the forestry service would furnish the teachers. The whole institution, then was a forestry institution and not an educational institution. The formula that we have used in the United States appealed more to the Chileans. I explained both systems; they had the right to a choice. But I indicated what the American system was. Some of them of course had been trained in America. Each institution is independent of any governmental agency. It produces candidates for them, and the governmental agencies had a right to have an examination to test their adequacy in training. Now since Chile had many institutions, and some others might want to go into forestry (which finally did come after I left, other institutions were starting it) then candidates from any of these institutions would have to take the governmental exams if they wanted to become governmental foresters. But there was one more reason. Forestry in France never developed on private lands to any great degree. Forestry in America was developing on private lands, and we had hoped that the same thing would happen in Chile because there were already three or four outfits that were interested in forestry, particularly a Swedish concern that had a pulp and paper company and ran its own forests of insignia pine. It was a beautiful forestry enter prise itself. So there would be an outlet for foresters, not only in governmental services but in private enterprise as well. And they accepted that formula. So we started the forestry school. By good fortune that fortune I was able to talk Dean Dunn of the Oregon Forestry School, who was on sabbatical I found out in to coming down to spend the year with us—Paul Dunn, who later became president of the Society of American Foresters and now works for one of the big pulp and paper companies as a vice-president. And Paul Dunn came down there. I had know him for a good many years, followed his career. I knew him when he was an assistant state forester in Missouri. And he accepted it. He and his wife fitted in like gloves into the scenery. 134 Kotok: What he had to do was a job that only a school man could do with any comfort and skill. He had to fit in a curriculum into a university of many departments to insure that the foresters had the proper basic credits and the additional forestry that must be added. It was a godsend to have him there because he could talk the language of curriculum, division of time and facilities and so on, that one who wasn't in that field would have had great difficulty with. And he worked out a curriculum. Now the teaching staff--my Frenchman was giving a little difficulty, then, and we put him in, and he was a good teacher, one of the finest teachers we had. Fry: You mean from your staff? Kotok: From our staff. We'd take them out from the other work and put them on that. The extra time we would use then for other tasks. We had the Frenchman; we had the two Britishers (three of them then from the colonial services, but very well trained in their specific fields and extraordinarily fine teachers. For a teacher one who hadn't been teaching for a long while, it meant, excepting one, one was a teacher. Paul Dunn of course was a teacher. Then we had one Britisher, who had been a teacher—they had to learn how to assemble their material for lecture purposes with a sequence, with a continuity, and sufficient distribution of their time so that a subject matter within the framework of a course would be complete. They also had to of course know the mechanics of how to run a class. The Frenchman had that already because he had been in Nancy, and he knew the mechanics; the Britisher had taught school; and Dunn of course was invaluable. He guided them as to division of time, as to the subject matter that would be covered so that there wouldn't be crossing from one field to the other. And we took up the classical divisions on this forestry division. I also gave some lectures on policy. We used the rest of the staff for occasional lectures, all the others in the forestry group. Paul Dunn had policy and lectured in general forestry. The Frenchman dealt with silviculture. He was an extraordinary botanist and in this time had already picked up more about the flora in Chile than any man on our staff. Well-informed of the flora in the country, so he taught silviculture. One of the Britishers taught what we call management --how to manage a property and how you handle it, budget and so on. The other Britisher, who called himself a Scotchman, dealt with what we call products-- the end product, its manufacture and so on. Then following our 135 Kotok: American-European formula, we set up a logging institute that the Finn ran, who was a logging engineer. These students, then, went to this summer camp to this forest that we set aside for logging and sylvacultural practice, and there they were taught logging, milling, cruising, and we used another American to teach them cruising and running trails and the other things that a forester normally gets in a forestry school. I'm happy to report that forestry school is growing. On the basis of that school, the Germans did finally get another school started, a Germanic thing. It'll probably be run by Germans, and they'll probably do a good job. We wanted to start one school, a good one, rather than two thin ones. So then, you can say this is what we did: We started a permanent forestry school. It's Chilean for Chileans. If they want to hire Europeans, American institutions do that. And they've hired finally the Frenchman- -he's been with them ever since we left. He's not an FAO now; he's a member of their staff. If others want to do it, well and good, but they must be Chileans for Chileans We started a bakery school—this was another adventure. Now the American bakers, supported by the flour manufacturers and other material that bakers use, have had an institute, you see, where they developed the mechanisms for baking bread, instead of the old days of pounding it by hand or by feet. It's a very important institute in which big bakery companies send their employees for special training. So we had that idea. We wanted it from the nutrition standpoint; that's how we got into bakery. Bread is the staff of life in Chile. We knew enough from our nutrition specialists that the Chilean bakeries, particularly in a couple of the large cities were dirty, unclean, and the bakers failed to utilize the best ways of producing bread cleanly and cheaply even. We were able to induce them to start a bakery school. Fry: Was this another one of the things that you talked about in Italy when you went back there and decided on objectives? Kotok: That's right, we figured out the objectives. There would be schools, you see? Fry: Forestry? Kotok: Forestry and nutrition. I talked with the nutrition one—what could we do, you see. That's a concrete thing. So in forestry we had two things, the forestry school and the logging school where private individuals could send their 136 Kotok: men, you know, to learn modern logging methods and so on. FAO furnished the machinery, both for the bakery and for the logging school. That was the contribution. That's why I had to go back and work it out, get approval for it. It wasn't easy. We got^ to head this bakery school, a man who was one of the important members of a baking powder company, which supported the school. He was originally Spanish-American, who spoke perfect Spanish, so that made the job relatively easy. We couldn't have gotten a better man although he did produce some difficulties that I want to mention in that relationship, in going outside of his field. Fry: Was he a Chilean? Kotok: No, he was a Spanish-American. He was born in the United States of Spanish-American parents. Well, this bakery school had a lot of difficulties. The Chilean government failed to meet its contributions on basic things, so we started with difficulties. But we'd been accustomed to difficulties, and we overrode them, and finally we did get the school going. The object of it was that we would have this school for Chilean bakers, who would learn modern baking. Now in order to carry that out, you remember I said we also had scholarships. We took the sons of two of the most important bakers and inveigled them to contribute to us funds to send their sons to the American Institute for Baking to get their training and come back and run the bakery school in Chile. It just happened that the bakery trade in Santiago is entirely run by Spanish emigres, not Chileans. They had left Spain after the revolution, so they were relative newcomers. But they accepted it. Fry: They weren't Chileans? Kotok: They were Chileans, the boys were, anyway. Fry: I was thinking of the traditions of bread baking in Spain. Kotok: Brrad making in Spain and in Chile was about the same. They make a sour dough bread very much like the French or Italian bread. I got to like it. I never figured whether it came from a dirty oven or not. But anyway, I liked it. Now the difficulty — and I don't know whether they've overcome it, I haven't kept up with that—was that we had to change some of the basic things in the Chilean formula to get better nutritional value into their bread, and therefore we ran into problems of 137 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: changing the palate and the taste of the population, which is difficult. That they had to overcome, but that we figured would take time, and the bread we would bake ordinarily bake, then, would be as close as it could be to the types they were accustomed to. But what we wanted to do in the bread was cleanliness, better use of the flour, utilizing their own flours instead of having to import. They had to import soft flours; they produced hard flours. So we wanted to reduce their requirements for import, flours they didn't produce themselves. We had definite purposes for the welfare, not only cleaner bread but more nutritious bread, higher in nutrient value. I remember that we gave the president a taste of the first bread that we baked there, and he said, "I don't like the taste." Neither would I, probably compared to their own bread. If you're accustomed to the sour bread that Europeans like, the change was difficult. We leave this, then, this picture of what the purpose was and how we tried then to get Chileans to help themselves. In this bakery we ran into a conflict between two governmental agencies as to who should run it—whether nutrition should run it, or (what they have in Chile and still is very important) the corporacidn de fomento. It's a corporation organized to carry on such business for the government that private enterprise can't do like additional irrigation or power, or whatever. Also the steel mill that they wanted to start and couldn't get private enterprise to start, also owning all the oil wells. This corporacion de fomento was interested not only in carrying on that kind of business that they couldn't get private enterprise to undertake, but they were also interested in inducing private enterprise to come. So they had a dual function. It sounds as though they might be in conflict, but they weren't. And they had probably the brainiest men in Chile in that corporacidn de fomento, men well-trained, with higher degrees in American and European institutions, and dedicated to their jobs. I've never found such loyal and skilled men anywhere in government, including in the United States. Well, they wanted to run the bakery, and so did nutrition, and we were caught between the two. That produced a lot of difficulties, and as a matter of fact when I left it hadn't yet been resolved. Whether it has been now or not, I can't say. What happened to the bakery? The bakery is still there, but I think fomento runs it. quite the way we had figured it. It's not Now I want to give another sidelight about how careful a specialist must be when he talks, when he exposes himself. This very skilled American baker that w« got, who knew the language 138 Kotok: perfectly was attending a banquet. I was present at that banquet. Our table was very close to the new Minister of Agriculture, a proud little man whose integrity I questioned later, a cocky little man, chip always on his shoulder. Professionally he had been a doctor, but he was really a businessman. He was sitting at the opposite table, and someone pointed out to my baker specialist, "This is my minister." And he said in Spanish, what would translate to us, "And who is this guy?" A colloquialism. The minister heard it, and he immediately demanded that that specialist be fired. He had been insulted. It took me hours and hours, to, first, see the Foreign Minister and tell him of this incident to see what help he could give me [and to see] some of my closest friends (Chileans) who were politically close to calm this minister; and when I thought I had it partially eased, I went to the minister and humbly said that my specialist wanted to pay his apology for misunderstanding because he doesn't know Spanish too well, which wasn't quite true. [Laughter] Perhaps he hadn't recognized what he was saying and he wanted to pay his respects and also his apologies. So the thing was smoothed over. This is merely to show the sensi tiveness --who says what is important.' Fry: We haven't touched on public health. Kotok: Public health had to do mostly with our work with UNICEF and WHO in order to do two things. First, to help whatever we could with the conduct of studies, what specialists they would want that we could contribute, but what we wanted particularly was to cooperate with them on furnishing supplemental diets through the use of fish, which was available as fresh fish at the seaport towns and not too fresh sometimes. The interior was practically lacking in fish because the Chileans hadn't been using either smoked or dried fish. They either would eat it fresh or not at all. Fry: That's astonishing for a seacost country. Kotok: I know. It's astonishing, but you know it's like I told you-- palate and habit of eating. But there was a good reason for it. Chile was always rich in meat, so therefore they were meat-eaters, and fish was eaten only on the little islands, not on all of the islands. They would eat potatoes and meat, but they never went out to fish. Fry: What was the reason? Kotok: The reason for it is this: Fish was costly. You had to go out, you see. And this is one of the things; I want to tie the two 139 Kotok: together. In order to get fish into the diet we had to do a number of things, and we worked with Nutrition and Public Health first to make fresh fish more available and cheaper on a regular way of selling it daily so it could be had whenever you wanted it. They had no embargoes; the Chilean Catholics were given freedom to eat meat on Friday because they had no fish. There was no religious aversion on one day even going without meat. So the part we had to work out first was to produce fish in plenty. Secondly, to work on other fish processing. That's why we got the Scandinavians --how to smoke them, how to salt them. And then we had to work with the nutrition group- -how do you sell the material, how do you train people to put it into their diet. That took nutritionists and specialists to teach people how to use that material. Fry: Yes, you can lead a Chilean to water, but you can't get him to eat the fish. Kotok: So it was . Fresh fish of course he liked when he could get it on the coast. So we had then this problem, [in] getting better fresh fish cheaper, we had to get the other kind of fish. But we went on one step further. We were the first ones to undertake it. A process had been found of converting fish into meal (flour), and it could be baked like any other kind of flour into cakes, into bread, and could be mixed with soup to make a puree of fish soup. Odorless. Then we started-- and quite a few advances have been made since--f irst , we had to get the government or someone to start a factory to manufacture this. That took a lot ot time, and that's where the Corporacion de Fomento helped. So we had to get someone to produce the thing. Mrs. K. : Remember the only Latin-American was a Columbian doctor from WHO on this whole mission. He was the one who instituted the change . Kotok: Yes, he was fine. Then we had to distribute the fish meal, and we started the way we have done in the United States — feeding the children supplemental feeding in school diets, CARE packages, UNICEF. So we fitted it in with the UNICEF program that they would distribute this meal as part of the supplemental school program. Get the children used to it and then perhaps the older ones would accept it. Then we had to get specialists--how do you bake it the best way. It was like flour but it still had problems. Now it's a very interesting thing (this is a side comment). The development of fish has gone quite a ways, but they used the whole fish, ground it up, and the Americans (Health Department) has taken exception that the whole cadaver of the fish is used, 140 Kotok: that they want a clean fish. And they're not permitting it here in the United States at present. There's a fight going on. To me, of course, it's an absurd thing because it has been chemically converted. If it was rotten fish that would be a different thing, but people have learned to eat all parts of an animal. I for one don't like heart; others don't like liver; others don't like pancreas, but they are being eaten, you know, all parts of an animal. Same way with the fish. I shudder when I think that as a youngster and as an older one when I ate fried trout and would eat it tail on up, the whole thing. We never separated the little small trout. Or anchovies. So it's an asinine thing. But we didn't have that obstacle. So therefore we have again this illustration: a general program that affected their health with the problem of getting Chileans themselves to produce the material, to carry on the educational campaign so it would be accepted. The other area in which we had great difficulty was one in which we made some progress and since I left they have made considerable-- the transportation and marketing whatever we had from one place to another. That's another story. I'll give another illustration how we fitted into the economy perhaps. The livestock-producing areas are mostly in the southern part of the state, a long distance from southern Chile by railroad train up to Santaigo, Valparaiso, and all the big cities. That's where the users are, in the urban areas. Well, we made a study of their transportation system to see how the products reached the market. We had a marketing expert, a very fine man, an American who had taught marketing at the University of Maryland and been in the Department of Agriculture, was a good specialist, had published considerably. Anyway his study had shown that in carrying the livestock alive from the southern parts to the Santiago market about 5 percent of them would die from crowding and not being fed and so on and that they would lose enormous poundage. So they were producing animals and losing the weight by the time they got to market. So we started, and it's working now, that there would be a central butchery the same as the American one, and we'd send frozen cadavers, which meant we had to get frozen- Fry: Refrigerator cars. Kotok: Cars, that was the whole problem. It took a long time, but they've finally got it. It took about eight years. They have the slaughtering in the south now. You would think it would be easy; all they'd have to do is bring the frozen 141 Kotok: cadavers. Well, the butchers wouldn't accept it; the housewife wouldn't accept it. She wanted fresh meat with the blood still running out no matter how tough it was. There was again a changing of a diet. You would think that people would relish a meat that had sufficient fat to give it savor and make it easier to chew. But they wanted tough, fresh meat. So there was a change of habit again. To change the butchers' way of handling it, they had to have the facilities. So when you want to change an economic situation, we had transportation to change, slaughtering to change, and finally the habits of the people. Fry: How did you work with the habits of the people? Kotok: We were very fortunate that they had a nutrition group in the university and also in the government, plus the work of Point Four — that was the best part of their program. They were doing a lot of work on that. Fry: You mean Nutrition? Kotok: Nutrition. They had a splendid one. So this changing of habits to show a housewife how to use advantageously the material that she has, whatever it is. Then, you see, in the changing of habits particularly of the country folks, we ran into more difficulties. They didn't have decent stoves. They cooked everything on charcoal, with grills. Fry: It sounds pretty good to me. Kotok: It is for a picnic, but that isn't the way. to cook a lot of things because it's a waste of effort. There's no substitute for a real, decent, clean oven in which you can maintain steady heat . So with the Point Four group we worked out a simple kind of oven that they could make themselves and not waste so much charcoal which was costly to them. With minimum fire you get maximum results. Fry: This was a do-it-yourself type oven, then? Kotok: That's right, for the rural areas. Fry: Did you have demonstrating teams going to villages in rural areas ? 142 Kotok: The Point Four group did, and we joined them whenever we could, but they were the ones who carried the lead. Our nutrition man went along to give guidance. In the main it was Point Four who deserves most of the credit for that. That's where you could coordinate work splendidly. We never worried who grabbed the credit though there was some credit grabbing necessary for survival, but in the main you didn't have it. So there we go through the mechanism of what we were trying to do. Now I want to give a little more on the fisheries. Trying to get cooperatives in we had tried to get some in vegetable agriculture as well and ran into some difficulties. Surrounding a city there are lots, you know, where people raise vegetables and bring them in to market. And everybody would raise his little few vegetables and bring them in. So everybody was coming in, a waste of effort and no uniform product and no uniform price. So we tried to get them to form a cooperative. Fry: Producer's cooperative. Kotok: Yes, and get a truck and send their produce to market and have control on what their price would be instead of everyone running in. Now, to change their habits again was the difficulty because they liked to come in, to chatter like magpies. And that took time, but that's working. There again was change in custom and habit. In the fisheries we had to get cooperatives. We found that some of the Spanish emigres lent themselves a little bit more to this cooperative idea than some of the others, and some of them were in this fishing business. We used them as decoys, and we called them our "decoys." We got them organized, and when I left we were just forming some of these cooperatives of fisher men. Corporacion would undertake to give the credit for better nets, for example. They didn't have the right kind of nets for the fishermen. But what they needed most of all was power boats. They would row out to the banks, ocean banks where the fishing was, five hours out, five hours back, two hours fishing. So they worked ten hours in order to get two or three hours of fishing. With a power boat they could increase their capacity and the distance which they could go out. So first of all, then, we worked for power boats. Fry: This was after the demand for fish had been built up? Kotok: You work them all simultaneously. The fish demand would come. First of all we knew we could sell fresh fish if we developed 143 Kotok: better market facilities. That would be easy in the cities. Fry: Is that why fish was so expensive? Kotok: Yes, the handling of it. If you could catch it right when it comes along, you bought it cheap, but if you bought it through the channels of trade they were rather expensive for the Chileans. Now in order to get power boats, we got a special man from one of the Scandinavian countries, who was a special boat builder, and when I left he had completed a design and was presenting it to Corporacion for acceptance. They would build their own boats, and the Chileans are very good boat builders. So there's another little trade. So they had to have a better kind of boat; they had to have power; they had to have better nets and all the other appurtenances. Now we found that there was very little knowledge in Chile of the extraordinary skills that the Scandinavian and the British and the Canadian fishermen had developed. They were still in what we would call the "wooden plow" stage in their fishery. The fishermen were very difficult to approach; they were afraid of new things. It was fear more than anything else. They'd been pushed around so much. I remember going with one of the ministers on a special trip to see these fishermen. I've never forgotten that trip. And this minister was an extraordinary sort of a man, very approachable. By original training he was a doctor, too, and he knew languages very well so I could talk to him in English. We'd stop among the fishermen and talk about what their problems were, what kind of help they wanted, and it was hard to get them to frankly state their case. A few of these decoy Spaniards would be the spokesmen and carry the lead. So there was this problem then of working out; the specialists were the definite end point. Unfortunately we weren't able to get the right kind of specialists, fishermen that we could send for some extra training. Those that were schooled, all they wanted to be were marine specialists, scientists. They .needed that, too, and they did have a small marine laboratory. Fry: Did you mean by marine specialists, marine biologists? Kotok: Yes, and they had a few very good ones. There were two, clashing with each other, reminded me of two botany professors at Cal. That's neither here nor there. 144 Kotok: It's well to interject here the tendency of the knowledgeable men to avoid tasks that required drudgery and hard work or were merely something about trades. They always wanted some learned profession, and that was the difference between the Scandinavian specialists that we had—men, college men, well trained, who would be willing to go out on some of the experi mental fishing boats and stay out there on a rough sea and learn, but we couldn't get this marine specialist to do that. That wasn't quite his kind of work. Now he would go out on a boat and find out how many fathoms you'd sink or to follow fauna, but the mere crude thing of learning how to catch fish didn't interest him, or what you do with fish after you catch it. You find that rather common. The relationship of the chief of mission with his own staff I've covered. The relationship of the chief of mission with the governmental agencies might be of interest. Fry: In Chile? Kotok: In Chile. Now this care of not touching sensitive points among the Chileans, the chief of mission had to observe himself. Frequently one had to wait in giving any advice for an opportune time so that there would be no misconception that the advice being given was not one of more criticism but one of helpful advice on the basis of information that the specialist had collected. I was rather fortunate. I got to know a Chilean family, one of the old, old families, who rather took a fancy to myself and to Ruth, and we were accepted as members of their home. They knew all the politicians. The members of the family were part of the upper crust, and through them avenues were opened up to me that normally might not be to others. I was fortunate that not only through that family but on my own accord, I met the major ministers that I had to do business with, with frankness and candor, came there with considerable humility, not as one with all the answers but as I explained before, of coming there to work with their specialists to see if we could be of help. I met directly by appointment the President [Gabriel Gonzales] Videla, who was very much interested in our mission apparently way beyond some of his ministers. He did something that I deeply appreciated; he invited me as his house guest to his country home, and I traveled with him for about a week. Fry: Oh, tell us about this. 145 Kotok: He was a very interesting man of what we would call the liberal party; in Great Britain they call it the radical party. They can't be reelected. It's on a one-term basis. So he was very much concerned with politics as to who would be his follower; he didn't want the left extreme group. He wanted his own radical party to win. I conversed with him entirely in French, plus some broken Spanish, as he knew no English. His wife was a very remarkable woman, and a very attractive one. She was a Jewess, a beautiful woman, and she spoke of course perfect French, and she knew a little English, not very much. As a house guest it was interesting to see the courteousness and simplicity of this country home of theirs. One would hardly believe it was a President's house, though there were of course many servants. There were also his aide de camp but without uniform. We traveled through the country and he was interested to get the reaction on some of their problems in the northern deserts, and I brought my Italian specialist along on the trip. In terms of his experience in the arid countries of Europe this Italian expert explained his overall first observations after a couple months. The President was very shrewd and he asked definite questions. He came from that desert country and of course he was anxious to see the conversion of the desert into a blooming Garden of Eden. We had another project that he was interested in. Our mission was supplying some of the information as to the potential agricultural crops, if water could be brought to the desert area. I personally was interested particularly in shelter belts, if some water could come there to protect against dry winds. So with that entrance to the President, obviously the ministers were a little bit more responsive perhaps figuring I was a little closer to the President than I actually was, although he assured me that his door was open whenever I needed to call. During his regime I only called twice on problems for his guidance. The next candidate for president was [General Carlos] Ibanez [Del Campo] , who had come in about the period when Peron was riding high in Argentina. Peron came in on the shirtless ones, and Ibanez came in also to help the poor with a broom to sweep 'em out. It was a nip and tuck fight, and as always happens in split party countries, all the other parties split and Ibanez won. Without party support some Communists, some Leftists, discontented ones, but anyway he won. As soon as we knew that he had won, I saw Videla, and he said, "If you get into a pinch, call on me and I'll see what I can do." But my Chilean friends-- 146 Fry: What do you mean, if you got into a pinch? Kotok: With Ibanez. If I got into a bind he would try to help me because he felt that he could do something. But my Chilean friends called me up and said, "Do you want to meet the President-elect?" I said, "I'd be delighted to." I had listened to one or two of his speeches. He was quite a formidable old man. So Ruth and I were invited over to dinner with our Chilean friends, and there was the President, his wife, his oldest daughter and son-in-law, and two men that would be his cabinet. There we were at dinner and we talked about everything. He asked some questions of me, not very many; we sat and listened and just enjoyed it because there was a constant running conversation between his cabinet officers-to-be and himself. One was an engineer; one was a doctor. Fry: Were these cabinet officers in any position to be related to FAO? Were they Agriculture or--? Kotok: No, no. One was an engineer; one was a doctor. So it gave me an opening. Later I had to go and pay my respects when he was elected. You can always judge the reaction that they have, whether they give the bear-hug embrace or not. I went there with a Spaniard, who was a Mexican citizen, then, who was in the central office of FAO, not connected with our mission. We had a central office there for the southern part of Latin America, you see. Santiago had an office. I said, "I've got a date with the President. Would you come along?" Of course he was tickled to death. So of course I used him for translating. It was rather interesting. While we were there there were other cabinet officers meeting on something else and he told them, "Oh, go ahead, sit there and join our conference." Fry: He told you this? Kotok: No, he told the cabinet officers; we had butted in while the cabinet was meeting. There were about three or four cabinet officers, and we sat and talked about what the mission would do, what we wanted to do. I had a little difficulty because my Spanish friend wanted, well, he wanted a place in the sun. So I wasn't able to get clear across the things that 1^ wanted to say. But that's immaterial. And as we left the President came over and embraced me with the Chilean bear-hug. But he didn't give it to the Spaniard. That kind of surprised us, but I said nothing at all. So the avenues of getting acquainted. 147 Kotok: Now why did this Chilean family take such a fancy to us? First of all they did believe that Chile could gain by having technical skills and so forth to advise their government. Importantly because I was an American; they had no antipathy against Americans or the United States. Fry: Really? Kotok: Yes, you had to be careful; there were some Chileans that had it. But it wasn't a question of being pro-American. They accepted people as they are and had no objection to North Americans. And another thing in that family there were many trained men. They had an engineer brother; one was a dentist and so on. So they had professional and trained men, and there was a common language between us. But more than that, it's the accident of doing the right thing at the right time. When I had visited this family in 1950, their oldest son had been injured while he was in the military academy riding a horse. He had broken practically every bone in his body, and he was in a series of casts so that he could flex some parts of the body. Some way or other they told me about that, and I said, "Could I see this son?" And so I went in there; he knew English. He'd been trained at the academy. And we talked and I said, "Well, I'm figuring on coming back. When I come back, you'll be well." An easy thing to say. I could see tears in his mother's eyes. Then when I came back, the Chileans like to meet planes, and there were my Chilean friends that I had met the first time to meet me. The first thing 1 said was, "How is Lucho?" And of course that opened up. Later my wife came after eight months and of course my Chilean friends were there to meet Ruth, and the first thing that Ruth said was, "How is Lucho?" I had corresponded with her and told her about him. Well, it's the human relationships, you see, that count. I don't recall ever that either Ruth or I (because she mixed considerably) ever said a critical thing about the Chileans. We would discuss with them problems and we would always pose it in such a way, because I believe it so, that some aspect of those same problems even rich America had. The submerged — we had the Negro problem; we had many other problems. And we had the backwash of whites from the original pioneers in the Appalachians still who were just as backward probably as any we found in Chile. So it was always with that open approach. 148 Fry: What about the differences between the two Presidents? Kotok: Well, one has to see in operation the complications that arise when you have many splinter parties, and Chile was suffering from that as many European countries are at present. So in the main it has to be a coalition government after the President is elected. If a full majority is not secured by any candidate, then it's left to the senate to determine and the senate generally selects the one who got the highest vote. Ibanez actually didn't get the majority, but he got the highest vote of the four parties that were running. So he was selected by the senate. Videla was a liberal in the sense as I said, of a British or American liberal. He came from the moneyed classes, but he recognized that there were a lot of ills in the economy that had to be corrected. He placed a great deal of faith in his close advisers, who were the big big moneyed men, and some of the members of the union clubs that represented the power groups. And as in some other legislatures, what would be called the assembly or house of representatives contained the leftists and more extreme liberals, extremists of all kinds. The senate was largely controlled by the rural and the moneyed groups. The senate was the all-powerful part of the two houses in the last analysis. Now there is one thing in a coalition government that we don't appreciate. The President — Videla had to do it and so did Ibanez — has to draw his cabinet in order to get approval of the parties for any kind of bills that he wants to get through from representatives of the leading parties within the legislature. So it's a coalition, then, government at the cabinet level. Now whenever the President proposes something that a given party would oppose, the cabinet member of that opposing party must resign, or he's no longer a member of the party and therefore the party wouldn't give him support. So through my period there I dealt with ever-changing groups of ministers of the departments. Agriculture was the worst offender. Fry: You mean it changed more than the others? Kotok: It changed. In Videla's period the radicals had enough control that his coalition was minor; in Ibanez administration it was very complex, of many parties. Fry: Was that why he didn't become a dictator because of this delicate balance? 149 Kotok: No, I don't believe he desired to be a dictator any longer. My own feeling is I believe he was for the underdog; he had a desire really to advance. He was an old man and he moved rather slowly; he wasn't as agile as he might have been, but confronted by this coalition government he wasn't master of his own soul. So therefore he could only work from compromise to compromise because his cabinet would break up and therefore when a thing appeared before the assembly particularly, he would lose out. But he never dislodged the power from the big power groups. This is the important thing. He was never able to do that. He had to live with it. Fry: You mean in the constituencies? Kotok: No, in the legislature. Without legislative approval he had nothing. He performed no act contrary to the will of the legislature all the time I was there. There were some riots, for example, and he followed the advice of the ministerial groups. There were strikes — strikes were very common. It's called in Spanish "huelga," and while we were there, there were huelgas of all kinds from bakers to candlestick makers — even professors went on strike a couple of times at the college. So it was not unusual to see in the main street a parade, a strike, of some kind of another, and they would generally march from what we would call the White House to the legislative chambers to express their opposition to something the government was proposing or wasn't doing that they wanted. The strike is a common thing. Vide la was very warm toward the Americans. Ibanez, if he was, he never expressed it too much although in no act that I saw or knew of was there ever any feeling against the United States. Some of the kicks that were common against the United States during the Ibanez period that produced some difficulties dealt with the price of copper, stabilization of copper. Most of the foreign exchange must come through the copper income and nitrate. The two major commodities and on that they have resentment that the copper-using countries, particularly the United States, didn't support a more reasonable price for copper. Insofar as our copper interests contributed to the ever-changing price range of copper, they had a justifiable kick. They'd raise the question with me, but I would escape it by saying not being an economist, not being a copper expert, I thought there were channels through which they must work other than my own. I discussed such matters with our own ambassador and while his sympathies were with the Chileans, he couldn't see any easy way of solving it because copper was a world commodity and the United States itself could not control the flow or use of copper. 150 Kotok: I never heard from either one of the Presidents and particularly Ibanez who was more leftist than Videla, any resentment against American enterprise there, and we had a substantial one in copper and so on. The problem in copper at that time was the fact that the copper companies themselves had tried to meet the international problems; they had better housing. It was a very desolate country where the copper was found, a desert area in the north and living conditions are rough. So the laborer there was given extraordinary fringe benefits, better housing, better food, and better salaries. So all in all workers in the copper mills were probably the most favored in price range and fringe benefits. There were always threats of strikes, but none occurred during the period while I was there. They were powerful. Some accused that that there was an inf ilitration of Communists among the copper unions; whether there was or not is hard to say. There was no doubt about the fringe of Communists that were there. You could divide them into probably two categories: the intellectual fringe made up of some super-learned professors or artists like the poet Pablo Neruda and then some in the universities. To what extent their intellectual interests in communism as a better economic way of life influenced the general population is hard to say . Fry: This was classical communism? Kotok: That's right, classical communism. It started from socialism, Marxism, and so on. The other group worth mentioning was the student body. There was some reason for student resentment because an outlet for their training after they were trained wasn't certain. They were captured with promises of a future to be; it gave them a political toehold — an opposition party among students has a better toehold than trying to buy into ordinary parties where the young are not accepted. Fry: That's in power. Kotok: Yes, so you see there's one thing we lose sight of, why the young go there. We have tried to meet that now by having the Young Republicans and Young Democrats, but there were no such avenues before. So therefore they went to areas in which they could exercise their power if they could gain it. No there is no doubt about it that perhaps originating probably from Mexico, the origin of the Communist inf ilitration. There were paid hirelings of the Communist party that probably would attempt to win into the unions, and then there is no doubt about it 151 Kotok: that these small agitators would take advantage in promoting discontent, promoting strikes, promoting disturbances of one kind or another. So that was present and the Chileans knew of that. What they were afraid of more than anything else was Peronistas. Peron was at his height, and some had infiltrated into Chile. Peron came to visit in Chile. He was fairly well received, and after his visit there was even more fear. Both Presidents had to iron out differences on a number of questions between Chile and Argentina. One was the boundary. There were always some boundary disputes; most of them were ironed out. The other was preventing the movement of contraband from one country to the other, which is common to all countries that have excise taxes or any other kind of taxes to prevent contraband, a common way. The other one of course was the movement of localized trade on the borders; the west side of Argentina naturally would come into Chile, and some of Chile's trade naturally would go into Argentina. However, during my period — and I can speak of that with rather checked observation by others even better informed than I was — the military never exercised the same power in Chile as they did in Argentina, or since then in many other Latin American countries. You could sum it up something like this: After Ibanez was disposed of as a dictator, twenty five years before, the army and navy never had gained enough power to become a controlling factor in the true politics. However, of course the officers were drawn from the best families, not from the common folks, so you had then a military class closely affiliated with and whose taste was the same as the better people. Fry: They would be predisposed to the status quo, I should think. Kotok: Yes, they were looking for status symbols to be recognized as the top of the social hierarchy. They were satisfied with that. Now there was compulsory military training which was pretty well observed. But the Chileans started early to utilize their army in useful work in periods when they weren't in specialized training. They formed part of the national police for guarding, policing against contraband, and they also actually did road work. Now of course we have an engineers corps doing that, but these were the soldiers doing it not merely the officers running it. So they were used on certain kinds of public works. The education of the enlisted men represented the mill run of the educational capacity of the general population, which was not very high although reading and writing was a requirement and they all knew how to read and write. 152 Kotok: The navy on the other hand recruited from the better people because the navy was considered higher ranking than the army. The army originally was German-trained; they still had the goose step when we were there. Since there was a German colony there, that had an influence. The navy was American-trained and British- trained. Fry: Did this have anything to do with its having a higher status? Kotok: It had a higher status for this reason: They were smaller in number even the enlisted men could be selected because there were few places. And the assignments were more interesting. To sail a ship is more interesting than to hay-foot, straw-foot over dirt roads. And the officers were the pick of the schools, too. So we found in the navy probably the outstanding men among the intellectuals; they were well-read, well-informed. Then by the very nature of their job insofar as they had to travel, they knew geography very well. Strange as it may seem — and to account for it, I cannot give you specifics — they had an undercurrent of desire to help the poverty-stricken and the destitute that were scattered in the various islands surrounding Chile, and there were many of them. So out of their own pockets they raised money when a ship landed at an island once or twice a year. They would give donations to help. There was a complete spirit. Then I found among them that most of the officers were Masons. Now the Masonic organization in Latin America and this country, as historically in others, represented the conscientious objectors to the status quo or difficulties within the country, and since it was a secret society they could carry on their tasks. But their code was a high code of help. So one of the trips that I took of great interest to me was to [the] Chiloe Island on which the potato famine had really starved out the population. We were very much concerned with that. The navy organized that trip and took us to other islands. There were five of us from our group on that mission, specialists, and we thought to be nice to the ship's crew that piloted us around for ten or twelve days we would give them a gift of special foods that we could pick up to give to their larder, or some nice liquors. And the commander of the ship said, "No. If you want to give a gift, we will donate it from the crew to one of the islands." Fry: Oh, I see. Kotok: So we raised quite a little sum of money from the group (we were all on expenses anyway, and since we weren't spending it we took whatever per diem we were getting and put it into the pot). We didn't want any of that money. We were eating free grub and sleeping on the ship. It was a substantial sum, and they gave it as a gift to the island. 153 Kotok: I give you the attitude. We had, then, in the navy this feeling of trying to be helpful in the areas that they covered. They only covered, you see, the islands. The inlands they didn't know much about. Among the officers there was no overt indication that they were politically minded. They wanted decent pay, recognition — they fought for their men, mostly, to see that they had better treatment. Of course they have there also a national police, a federal police force, and I would rate them very high, dedicated to the mission that the government gives them to do. They're helpful. When a disaster occurred (one or two that we knew of), [they] were the first ones there and gave the greatest help. So the symptoms that the military could capture powers of government were not evident. If it was, it was very obscure, and I heard no Chileans ever speak of it, nor fear it, nor informed Americans that knew the Chilean situation. The air force was a special group. They weren't large. They were American-trained; they started during the war, and they were the most loyal Americans that I found. They were exceedingly nice to us. They took us on many missions flying their planes in connection with their own work, so we had the opportunity, then, of flying over much of the country with the Chilean air force which helped us considerably. Fry: You mean to get a grasp of the terrain? Kotok: The terrain, or to go from place to place. Fry: Oh, for transportation? Kotok: Yes. We used that means of transportation frequently. Now to show you the relationships of members of the staff and the ministers and public officials, what we would call their agricultural fairs are big things, and they have two or three. Of course members of our agricultural staff would always want to go down there. The Minister of Agriculture would always go, and I of course always went. Normally I took Ruth along because there were many relationships with women and she would be helpful to act as hostess. So there was premeditation in taking my wife along. And she would make sure that I had all the papers I needed for an assignment. We were starting off to one of these fairs on a plan that had been assigned to us; the minister was on there, members of our staff. So then we were set down in a little town, Los Angeles, 154 Kotok: where we didn't want to go. The minister was much concerned; he had to get us to that party, so he chartered a train out of his own pocket. He could afford it, but he chartered a train. Mrs. K. : It was an overnight trip, as far as from here to San Diego. Kotok: No, he was Scandinavian, very proud of it. Danish. He had no use for Germans. There's a very interesting thing about feelings of ministers and people that I met that indicate that these cross-threads of belief are common throughout human society. For example, most of the ministers I knew, in spite of a strong German citizenry, were anti-German. There were very few ministers during my time of German origin — only about two that I knew of. There was still resentment against the Germans, who were mostly industrious and had the nicest communities. They had a lot of fine things; they were way ahead of most. They had accumulated wealth by hard work as immigrants did in the United States. Everything they had they had earned, not acquiring it by family, buy by their own ingenuity and their own labor. So there probably was a little envy of them. I also found that there were little enclaves of Chinese and Japanese. They tolerated them; there was no interest in them, just toleration. So that was common. We had one minister who came from the Syrian group that had come in the same as we have in the San Joaquin Valley. He was well educated. He was a minister of agriculture. I had brought a Texan who had been three years on an assignment in Israel; in fact, his children had even learned Hebrew. He was a very capable fellow, affable, about six foot three, and looked like a Texan ought to look. I brought him in to introduce him to the minister, and the minister was happy to see him and so on. Unfortunately, he said, "Where did you work?" The Texan said, "Oh, I worked in Israel. It was very interesting; sometime I'd like to show you some pictures." He said, "The only pictures I want to see of Israelis are dead ones." So you see his ancestry showed up. Then I reminded the minister, and he agreed with me. I said, "You know, I'm curious about that remark of yours," saying it laughingly. "Do you know that during the whole of the Diaspora — you know, when the Jews were scattered — one of the areas in which they found a center and started one of their great schools was in Syria?" He said, "I know that." . • . 155 Kotok: I said, "Well, they lived there very happily together for many thousands of years." So you see, human reactions are not accountable, but they have common traits. Fry: It's interesting that you went there without any previous training about all of these patterns of prejudice and attitudes that you would encounter in Chile, didn't you? It was up to you to discover these after you got there, is that right? Kotok: Correct. The reason I tell this story at all about Communists, I have some deviltry in doing it. I'm trying to make the point that foresters trained in the tradition of American forestry have learned to adjust themselves to the environment in which they're placed. I've related how eastern foresters with derbies came out to the West and became more western than the westerners. I related how New England foresters went down to the South and adjusted themselves to the southern way of life. So by training they have learned to adjust themselves to the general environment. Secondly, we have been taught to sympathetically understand the behavior of the people that we have to do business with. So in our training we have learned to get along with obnoxious stockmen who had to be not curbed but won as cooperators with mining men that were giving us difficulties, and with other special pleading groups. And long, long traditional difficulties with lumbermen to get them to change forest practices. By training we assume that the problem is not for the environment to change to meet our needs, but that we must meet the conditions of the environment. I speak of that merely to underline the fact that certain professions in the United States give an unusual oppor tunity for flexibility of personal behavior to different environments. Fry: Did you ever have to deal directly with Communists in Chile? Kotok: Yes. We had some that I would call not close friends, but more than passing acquaintances. I as an American on an international mission had to be guided by two principles. One, I didn't want to sell America short at any time. Second, I had to recognize I was on an international mission. And since the international mission represented the framework of all nations, when questions were raised in which actions of the United States were put in a poor light, I would try to meet them honestly and never argue with any anger or contentiousness. I would try to meet it by saying, first, to explain that I was very proud of being an American, I had to earn my right to be one. I do not, however, try to explain every act of the American government or the American people. 156 Kotok: Nevertheless, the fundamental objectives that we have I firmly support and believe in. Now if you question those I will argue with you. If you question specific events, I'd rather not discuss it. For example, one Communist started on the Sacco Vanzetti case. I have a point of view, but I never expressed it. I didn't want to subject that to any discussion. The color problem was raised some. I would argue that it had to be taken in the historical view, and I would tell them of other oppressed races that had a hard time to win their freedom, some hadn't won it yet. Some had won it and lost it. I used, then, Czechoslovakia and others. And then I would tell the story of the Jews repeated over and over. Human beings haven't learned yet how to behave between races, between religions, and so on. And then of course in view of the fact that these were Spaniards that they were talking about, I would talk to them about the Spanish Inquisition and the expulsion of the Moors and the Jews from Spain, and the treatment of Indians by the Spaniards. Behavior patterns are hard to explain, but I think we ought to study them. We ought to be honest about it. I never was crowded into a position where I was completely defenseless . Fry: What about your mission and the Communists? It seems to me that they would be basically opposed to this since you were trying to cure the very conditions on which they based their operations . Kotok: Well, the Communists there weren't so open that one could recognize where they were trying to sabotage. I know of no evidence where they tried to sabotage because they weren't in power. Videla had actually come in with the Communists; he couldn't have gotten in as president, and the Communist Party was written off as a legal party. Ibanez then tried to bring them back, to equalize them, that all groups had the right to vote. But the Communists couldn't vote during the Videla administration. Fry: They couldn't have voted for Ibanez either? Kotok: No, unless they had shifted around. Fry: Into other parties. Kotok: That's right. Join another party—that 's what they would do. They weren't powerful enough. 157 Kotok: The hardest thing for me to explain was a thing that's now so commonly discussed — the fear of Communism in the United States among the Tightest groups. They would ask a very sharp question which was tough to answer: "If you folks have so much faith in your democratic processes of government, how can you be so ter rified that in your own groups there are those ready to break down the government?" Fry: This was during McCarthy's hearings? Kotok: That's right. That was the hardest thing to explain. Well, those were the questions they would ask me. Most of the questions hinged around our fear of Communism, which they couldn't understand. Another thing they would bring up was the period when we occupied part of Latin American countries before the Good Neighbor policy was established — our Marines in Haiti, our Marines in Venezuela and so on. That would be relatively easy to explain. Then, the intellecutal Communists, who were better read and well-informed, would raise the more difficult question of who controls the United States with the power vested in the money groups. So I would tell them this story. The first vote that I cast was in California for governor, Hiram Johnson whose name they knew. I voted for Hiram Johnson because he was fighting the Southern Pacific machine, a railroad that ran through California and powerfully controlled the legislative machinery in the state, and Hiram Johnson was elected and the powers of Southern Pacific machine were cleaned up. Now in all countries, the power group will seek power. There has to be a very alert democracy and citizenry that are aware of it and some exponent that will express the will of the majority to fight that power group. "And if you'll examine your own country, probably you have it too," I would kindly say. [Laughter] "I haven't examined it, but it's a matter for you to examine. Who controls your legislature?" So you could meet that problem. My advice always in briefing our men was to avoid such discussions. I don't think anything is gained by arguing points with natives within a country. Let them judge us by our in dividual personal actions on our job. What have they to watch? First, our integrity, that we're motivated to help. We seek no glory or extra pay for it, that we're considerate, that we're kind, that we listen, and we don't argue for them to accept our beliefs or our creeds, or our way of life. Fry: Did you have any briefings for your staff? 158 Kotok: I did that myself. Later we instituted that they would go to Rome for a briefing. I figured the local briefing with the right kind of chief of mission was probably more helpful, but that was my own personal viewpoint because even after they got a briefing in Rome, I would rebrief them on these things I've been discussing—action, play, and so on. Another important thing to know (and I think that would apply to any kind of mission whether it's a United Nations mission or a bilateral mission), if you have a lemon, try to get rid of him as fast as you can without making a scandal of it. In the Point Four mission in Chile — and we tried to be of help to them there, too—they had one man who unfortunately was not suited for that particular kind of job. Not that he didn't have technical skill, but he had a number of things that irritated his opposites in Chile. Now as chief of mission, with almost the same position as an ambassadorial rank almost — not quite, but a high rank— I never paraded it or took advantage of it. I used it officially where I needed it. For example, I could have had a car to drive me with a driver, but I preferred to take public conveyances or hire a taxi. Unfortunately the chief of mission who came there under Point Four didn't try to learn the Spanish language. He had to have a translator with him all the time. I tried to avoid that. I used other languages or my broken Spanish. Only on rare occasions would I take a translator along. I used public conveyances; he used a chauffeur that would chauffeur him from home. I took the simplest offices they could give us with minimum appurtenances because most of their own offices were of that kind. My American friend had a beautiful office; he bought carpets. I was satisfied with the linoleum. And only the top, top, top would have carpets, but he had to have carpets for a mission. And he bought oil paintings to decorate his room, was very proud of it. I asked him why. He said, "We want to show what Americans stand for." He left a poor image. He was unhappy and he finally had to leave. So humbleness, humility—and you are the opposite of those you work with must never place yourself in a more advantageous position either in facilities that there are or other areas in which competitve issues would arise. So that's the other thing we would tell on mission. For example, we went down to southern Chile with a delegation of three Chileans and three of our mission men to examine the big sheep country, run and owned almost entirely by the British. And the British, to keep their personnel content, have built beautiful homes for them, and hothouses for the inclement weather they have there where they could produce subtropical fruits and so forth, for their use, with many, many servants. 159 Kotok: When the head of the company notified them that we were coming, he told them to have facilities ready for us, and when we arrived there in field clothes — Ruth, my wife, was along too— they took us over to the head place and said, "You stay there." And they said to the Chileans, "You'll go somewhere else." To a lesser place. I objected to that. It was changed the next day. And I explained to this Britisher that I would have to leave unless the whole mission could be taken care of. Now the Chileans had no resentment to me, when they found out what I did, but their resentment to this Britisher—this "upstart." Well, these are the attitudes. I could have said, "Okay, my wife and I will enjoy the pleasures of this mansion. You go and sleep in the caretaker's home." That's where they assigned them. So these are the things that count. Had I fallen into that trap, it would have been serious, and I saw that as a trap. So one must watch these little, incon sequential manners and behaviors that count more with people than even more important things. Then, for example, when we invited people — and we invited many— to our home, we would tell them by pre-arrangement , we're going to follow the Chilean custom at the table, so they didn't expect ham and eggs or hamburger or anything else. We cooked according to Chilean custom, with the wines and all that went with it. We fitted into their pattern, and they didn't have to fit into ours. And another question is, how can a wife protect the husband from falling into his misbehavior patterns I would say, whatever they might be. [Laughing] For example this is what I mean. Counseling a husband not to be alarmed when she knows he easily gets alarmed, and not to be argumentative when it won't pay. Fry: The tranquilizing duties of a wife. Kotok: Well, I mean that. Another one is that she's the only one with whom the husband can frankly discuss very touchy problems dealing with personnel. She can't perform that function unless she is intimately acquainted with the personnel and with the work that's going on. So I kept Ruth fully informed of every step we took in the mission. Fry: She really was a partner. Kotok: She knew who was who, what we were doing, what the problems were, and then using the vehicle of having them as guests, she'd know 160 Kotok: how to control the conversational pattern. So a wife can perform a very important function. Then there's another function that only a wife can perform. She's the one who can get closer to the women that form part of the mission and the wives of the opposites we socialized with in the countries that we visited. This deals with matters in which the husband would not be so well informed, problems of the home, of education and so forth. Fry: Subtleties which nonetheless have a big bearing on the way you operate. Kotok: A big bearing. INTERVIEW V The Civilian Conservation Corps and Research; The Information and Education Division and Public Relations; University of California's Dean of Forestry Walter Mulford. (Recorded July 31, 1963) Kotok: I assume that [S. Bevier] Show will cover in detail the steps that were taken by the Forest Service in developing its programs for the CCC. Those of us in research, particularly in California, were interested in the CCC insofar as it would give us not only funds for construction of physical facilities needed in carrying out the work on our experimental forests (Black Mountain, San Dimas, San Joaquin range, Feather River, and so forth), but it also gave us an opportunity to use the manpower of the CCC in the conduct of some experiments even, but more important, we were able to add to our staff foresters as aides under the provisions of the CCC program by which technical men could be used to lay out the work for the CCC field force itself. Through this device we were able to add extensively to the technical men in our staff. I do not recall the exact number, but perhaps as many as seventy-five to eighty technical men were added to the California Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fry: Did you mention whether you were able to do the selecting and get the ones you wanted? Kotok: The selection of the technical aides was left entirely in our hands. It didn't require any political clearance. Naturally we drew heavily from California Forestry School personnel, graduates, and those that were without work. For the foresters who were thus added to the staff it offered an opportunity to continue their technical work, but more important, to learn from the experts with whom they worked in specialized fields that were relatively new then, in the research programs. The largest group of men in which we used such technicians was in three areas: One, and the most important perhaps, was under [A. E.] Wieslander, handling the vegetative cover- type map of California. This kind of work was particularly important because the men on this job learned how to map, to interpret vegetative types, and to evaluate other important factors that had a bearing on watershed management and fire control. Wieslander was a particularly good chief; he was exacting, but men under him learned a lot. 162 Kotok: The other two areas where these technicians were used were fire experimental work, in actually setting and observing fire under control, in examining lookouts for determining visible areas for a fire control system, and participating on actually going fires (where the research group followed through the cause and effect of treatment on the fire line and the control that followed). In watershed management, particularly in the work at Kings River and at San Dimas , while these technicians were on these assignments, they were able to work with some of the outstanding men we had in forest influence at that time — Walter Lowdermilk, J.C. Kraebel, Percy Roe, men who later became distinguished in their particular fields. An interesting comment might be made about the CCC. The Washington staff in the forester's office did not fully support the extended activities in research that was being handled by the CCC. Their concept of the CCC work was that it was a means by which CCC enrollees could physically produce the maximum amount of work. There was a belief that in California we were spending too much time in seeking out ways to use enrollees by the device of using research programs. Fry: You mean using more enrollees? Kotok: Using a relatively small number of enrollees in relation to the amount of time spent by technical aides in programming. There was merit to their contention. We were inspected carefully on this matter by the Washington staff. However, when the question finally was raised with the head of the CCC in Washington, whose name slips me now, who visited here, he gave us a clean bill of health and thought it was a remarkable use of men who were out of work who were professionally trained and who would supply a sounder base for enrollee work. Fry: Was California about the only state using them this way? Kotok: California was not the only state, but we pioneered in this and other stations followed our example. Perhaps we had more men in the aide group than any other region. There was one reason for it. Show after all carried the major responsibility for the assignment of enrollee camps and other aides and clearly backed the research program that we had under way. In other regions, regional foresters perhaps were not as sympathetic to utilizing so much CCC effort in funds and otherwise as we were here. Fry: Do you know how Oregon and Washington did on research with CCC? 163 Kotok: In answer to that question Earle Clapp, the chief of research, who visited us here, was very much impressed with what we were doing, and he took a trip to Oregon. He had the director of research of Oregon come here to visit in order to induce him to proceed on the same path. Some results followed, but Hunger, who was then director of the Pacific Northwest station, was not in as favorable situation as we were in California because C.J. Buck, the regional forester at Portland, was not particularly interested in advancing research work through CCC. So it varied from place to place depending upon the regional forester's attitude toward the overall work. But little by little, all stations profited by CCC aid. Without the CCC, it's doubtful whether we could have completed in such short time the physical improvements at the genetics station at Placerville, at Black Mountain, on the Lassen, at Feather River, at San Dimas, and San Joaquin range. Later we were even able to start development in the redwood region a redwood center. Fry: This is the coastal range? Kotok: The coastal range redwoods. The thing that impressed the director of the CCC who visited in California, [James J.] McEntee, was that in developing our physical programs, our physical layouts, we were training enrollees in handling tools so that they could become stone masons. We taught them how to become carpenters, and some did become carpenter aids later. We taught them how to paint structures, we taught them how to landscape an area — skills that could be capitalized on later by some of the men. In our road building obviously some of them were taught how to run tractors, how to run dirt-moving machinery , and later when we did our own logging they were taught how to become expert loggers. We were happy indeed when the lumber companies picked some of the enrollees for skilled jobs in lumber operations. So when we talk of training men by useful work, it was important that we give the maximum number of enrollees skills that required very specialized training and move them from the common labor class to the artisan class. Fry: The more employable class. In the research have you mentioned yet, do you remember which men went ahead and used their CCC experience in their subsequent careers? Kotok: Well, there were so many that without looking through various notes, I would say there were hundreds of men, foresters employed 164 Kotok: as technical aids both by the national forest administration and by research, who later became part and parcel of the administrative and research organizations. I would roughly say that in California at least over a hundred men, graduates of the forestry school, got their chance for first employment through the CCC program. Without that or unless great additional funds had been made available to the forestry organization, they would have been out of employment and probably might have ended opportunities and prevented them [from] continuing their careers. So the CCC became, then, a vehicle by which foresters out of employment found an opportunity to work and make a living and encouraged them to continue in their profession. And the very training that they received made them more valuable to whatever forestry organizations employed them later. So when we speak of taking care of the unemployed, we have to have a broad concept that unemployables touch not only the youngster just out of high school but it touches all segments of society, including the super-skilled. For example, because of the CCC and building programs we had, we were able to employ architects to design structures, landscape planners, and for these we actually drew on men who had high professional standing before, but had no jobs — including some extraordinarily fine engineers, men who had been making salaries [of] over $10,000 a year and were willing to accept the meager salaries that we paid under [the] CCC program of $150 to $200 a month. We had working on the program for physical developments for the research organization in California two extraordinary architects. On the basis of the work they did, particularly at the genetics institute, [at] San Dimas and San Joaquin, they were able to continue their professional work. The character of their work illustrating their capacities was a means by which they kept their name in the pot, as it were, and they later left us for private employment in their private field with considerable advancement in their capacities. Fry: Do you remember their names? Kotok: One of them was named Williams; I don't remember the other. As a sidelight, giving the architect the free opportunity to express his individualism, we got on the formula of trying to put up buildings that would not only conform to the scenery and to the location, but they would have some relative significance in the architectural field, as an example or illustration of a kind of architect suitable for the California environment. We therefore undertook in the San Joaquin range to put up adobe structures; all the buildings on the San Joaquin range are of adobe, which was related to the earliest efforts [of the] California Spanish- Americans. 165 Fry: This was adobe made from the native soil. Kotok: Adobe made on the ground. Now in order to get adobe workers we had some difficulties, and we scouted around and found some in Southern California, Mexicans. So we made the adobe on the ground and we took advantage of adobe construction not only as an architectural feature which enhanced the beauty of the whole layout, but also tried to give a new impetus to adobe building in the warm climate of the San Joaquin area. With very thick walls we could reduce our temperatures by ten degrees. Mrs. K. : It is interesting to compare this with the way we saw adobe made in Chile. They used a horse. They didn't trample it the way Mexicans did. Kotok: The Mexicans trampled with their feet, and the adobe that we saw made in South America was trampled by horses. Mrs. K. : It was a kind of crude device, with the horse going round and round. Kotok: Circular. Mrs. K. : And the men only stood by and supervised. Fry: I wanted to ask you if the plasticity of adobe, since you don't have to worry about square corners, allowed the architect to vary the structure more? Kotok: No, I don't think that had any effect. As a matter of fact, the advantages of adobe were that architecturally it is a beautiful thing; it gave better insulation. Mrs. K. : Remember the difference between the first building and second building on the interior? Kotok: There was an interesting little sidelight. The whole effect we tried to get with adobe was the irregularity. We were building a building for the general manager of the research organization there, and his wife was there while they were doing the last work on the adobe structure that they were to occupy and she insisted that the walls be smoothed out and calcimined and treated no straw showing, so that the whole feature of adobe structure, its irregularity, which gives it its character, was removed. At Placerville we attempted to recreate the architectural features of the Williamsburg period in Virginia and did a remarkable job. 166 Fry: Why Williamsburg at Placerville? Kotok: Placerville had a very heavy southern influence, and we tried to recapture something of that. Mrs. K. : You find that all through the Mother Lode country buildings that are simplified Georgian, and that's what they tried to do at Placerville. It's very charming, as you know. Kotok: We attempted in that structure to get particularly all the advantages of the use of wood; as foresters we were interested in showing how wood could be used skillfully. In the genetics institute at Placerville, the whole crew became so interested that some went searching for old pictures and antiques which they donated to put inside — antique andirons, very interesting prints of high value, and a selection, for example, of papering. The architect took his own time at his own expense and went down to San Francisco to be sure he picked up the paper to correspond to the period which he was trying to represent, the Georgian period. We received exceedingly favorable comment. At San Dimas our architectural efforts were exploring new ways to build structures in the wooded areas of Southern California, a very distinct architecture in which the architect explored the possibility of the maximum use of wood so that the characteristics of the wood would be physically visible and add to the general grace and acceptance of wood as an interesting material. So I use these as illustrations of what one can do when you have skilled architects. Our landscaping followed the same general formula. We had two or three good landscape men. In most cases in land scaping we tried to utilize native materials that would fit into a particular environment. In our selection of plant material, we had the advice of the landscape group at the University of California, particularly Professor Shepherd, who was very helpful. We tried also, where a group was to live permanently, to set up orchards. The University selected special trees for each layout to have a little orchard in connection with the physical facilities. In the San Joaquin range in which we attempted to maintain the Spanish attitude, we had an interior patio which was characteristic of the Spanish layouts. Our advisers suggested that we secure pretty well advanced in age olive trees, and in order to do this, we found that in the development of tracts in Southern California they were removing big olive trees in order to build homes of businesses. Through the aid of some of the local people, we dug up and transported fifty-year-old olive trees and replanted them in the San Joaquin patio. It is interesting to note that olive trees can be handled with bare roots, which made the task a little easier. ' • - . • • • . • • • ' • . . • 167 Fry: Oh, I see. Kotok: So we got a better start. There was a particular reason for developing the San Joaquin range. Dean Hutchison and I had the concept that the range headquarters would form a focal point for local fanners, and one main hall was so constructed that it could be used for meetings. It was actually a big living-room. My wife helped secure the furniture that would fit into a Spanish-American home, including curtains and so on and we made certain that it would be in a very modest price range. We were helped also by the Furniture Mart in San Francisco, which annually shows representative lines of all furniture manufacturers to buyers. After the sale, materials left are sold at discount and they gave us the privilege of buying. The furniture people recognized that this was to be used as a demonstration and made no great crab that we were competing with retailers trying to sell furniture. We had in mind that it would be a meeting place not only for the menfolk in the territory, but for the women as well. We wanted to show them that with small effort homes could be beautified, even in the foothills. We speak of slums and we speak of low standards of living. We assumed that we in California were free of that, particularly those that ran livestock ranches. But it wasn't so; we found the homes were not adequately furnished to be really attractive. The menfolk, with extra money would buy gear for the ranch. Fry: Saddles instead of rugs? Kotok: The home received the last attention. So we tried to raise the living standards of the people who worked hard, and the womenfolk on ranches . I've already related how in the San Joaquin area, by the threat of bringing in rural electrification through the government agencies, we got the western states light and power company to put in electricity for the farmers at a reasonable rate. Once electricity was brought in, of course, home-making radically changed, with refrigeration, with lights, and all the other things that electricity can give. Fry: As well as communication. Kotok: The point that I wanted to make though is that there was reason for doing some of the things in the physical layouts that we had, not only to satisfy our own egos, our own tastes, but to exemplify the use of material in the countryside, particularly in the use 168 Kotok: of wood. As foresters, [we were] especially interested in that to give some architectural forms and landscaping that could enhance the beauty of the countryside. Fry: Do you feel that the communities did take advantage of this example? Kotok: The effect in the San Joaquin area was remarkable. First notice was curtains on windows that had never had curtains. They realized that they could be purchased cheaply. Of course when electricity came, refrigerators and other things naturally came. It had an effect not on the older generation but on the generation that followed because they demanded better homes for the new nests that they were setting up. So we noticed that when the children married and settled in that territory, their homes and their layouts had a great deal more than the homes in which they were raised. It's hard to evaluate how that kind of an influence produces results, but in a general way I would say it probably had a good influence, at least it could not have been more than negative. So much for that aspect of CCC. At the end of the first year, the agencies that used CCC in the State of California- national forest administration, the research organization of the Forest Service, the State Forester and his group, the state park group, and the national park group—gathered together and decided it would be well to report to the people in California what was happening. Fry: Why was this thought necessary? Kotok: We felt that it was necessary to present to the people a full picture of what had been accomplished with rather large sums of money that had been set aside for CCC and also to insure that Congress would act favorably for the continuation of the CCC program. So it had a dual purpose. Organizing for this kind of educational campaign, we needed some overall state agency, and fortunately for us, the State Chamber of Commerce became particularly interested in promoting it. I already mentioned that the director of the Chamber was Norman Sloan, an ex-forester, and he assigned Charles Dunwoody, who had had experience with us in Southern California in fire protection, and so on, to lay out a campaign where we would present our story before organized groups, which meant the various clubs that meet for luncheons, the Exchange Club, the Rotary Club, Kiwanis , and so on. 169 Kotok: So he arranged a program that covered all of California and Nevada . Fry: You mean just the major cities? Kotok: Well, the program had to be progressive; we wanted to cover the whole state so we took in some of the major cities. Normally it was the county seats. So we had a series of readings in county seats clear through Northern California, as for example, Weaverville, Auburn, Placerville, Sonora, and so on. It was a tight schedule. We arranged with these clubs that we would meet with some at breakfast, some at luncheons, and some in the evening. Fry: And this was Newton Drury, and you and who else? Kotok: The ones who participated were Show, representing the national foresters; myself, representing research; Newton Drury, representing state parks; Merritt Pratt, representing the State Forester; Charles Dunwoody, representing the State Chamber of Commerce. Unfortunately the National Park Service couldn't make a man available for that jaunt. They were not excluded, but they had no one that they could fit into our program. Well, we would generally meet with the groups, as I said, and each one of us in the party would have an allotted time to tell the kind of work that his organization was doing and what it hoped to do and so on. We generally varied the story to fit in with the locale, in things that a particular local group might be interested in. We got so that each one of us knew the other's speeches. Sometimes we'd talk out of line and steal the thunder of another speaker. Then there would be retaliation at the next meeting. [Laughter] Fry: You had some formidable opponents though; Mr. Show handles the English language very well, and so does Newton Drury. Kotok: Newton Drury we called the silver tongue, and I used to mimic him by telling about the silver strands against the golden sunset, the azure blue—He in turn would mimic my propinquity to use technical language. We enjoyed the trip very much. I told this story, and I'll relate it again of a meeting in Reno with the Rotary Club. I was sitting next to a gentleman of the club and I asked him how their programs were. He used rather harsh words; he said they were lousy. And I said, "What is the difficulty?" 170 Kotok: He said, "It'll be the same kind of useless stuff." And in due course of time, I was called upon to speak, and when I came back to sit next to him, he felt highly embarrassed and using the lingo of Renoites, he cussed me out. When we came back to our hotel, we found that he had made his excuses by leaving an adequate supply of liquor. [Laughter] Those were some of the experiences. The reaction was generally not only one of interest but of pride that we were doing such things of the audiences that we talked to. Fry: Would you say that for the most part your audiences were business men who were managing to get through the depression without severe loss of jobs, otherwise, they wouldn't be in such clubs? Kotok: Well, of course, the men that we addressed were generally the professional and businessmen of the community, and they had a lot at stake, whether we were going to get over the depression or not. But the important thing we were trying to stress was that we were taking potential delinquents, the potential trouble makers, the youth of the land, and putting them to productive work that they could physically see. And of course we invited them to come out and take a look and see what is being done on the ground with these enrollees. That was the bill-of -goods we were trying to sell. Fry: Did they ask you questions? Kotok: There were many, many questions, they were germane and so forth. Generally it would end up, fortunately for us, "What can we do to make sure that this program continues?" Fry: Did you have to deal with a fear of "creeping socialism?" Kotok: That question never arose. Fry: It didn't? Kotok: You see, we were talking to audiences that already accepted the idea that we had vast areas of public lands under administration, either as national forests or as state parks. Therefore they were not raising the question that we were investing money in property that they considered their own. So that question didn't arise. Now we did have difficulties in explaining to the mixture of labor groups and to unions — and we spoke before one union, purposely, to assure them you see, that we were not keeping work out of unemployed union labor by using the CCC. 171 Kotok: We were fortunate that we could explain that the whole program was being handled by a labor union man, and he was very aware that we should not interfere with the normal use of skilled labor. The CCC program provided that skilled artisans could be used in the program—such as carpenters, plumbers. He would train, however, the enrollees in the craft. So the skilled work itself was actually handled by union labor where it was available, and the enrollees were merely trainees in the crafts of the union labor man employed. So that was the only difficulty we had . Fry: Did you have to deal with any organized farmers' group like the Grange, or the California Farmers' Association? Did they have any special reaction to this? Kotok: The only group that we worked with were the stockmen. They were particularly interested in the CCC program because it did reseeding work on their ranges, developed water supplies. So all of the work that the CCC was doing was enhancing the value of the ranges that they were occupying. There was no conflict there. Fry: They didn't object to this? Kotok: No, they were the gainers, not the losers. To sum it up: The CCC, motivated by the administration to give avenues of work for the youth of the land, particularly of the slum areas of the East and rural slum areas of the rest of the country, gave them the opportunity to work and earn something, and by the provision that part of their money would go back home, to help maintain the family units at home—mother , father, sisters and brothers. It also did another thing by design: It tried to train untrained youth that probably would not get any further schooling to some skills that could later be utilized to earn a living. But there was another third thing that has not been stressed enough. The very outdoor work that they were doing, the fact that they were on good diets and built up their health, built up the general welfare and condition of the enrollees that when the war came a substantial number of these enrollees became the important field forces of our American army. So we had been physically training them for the arduous tasks of soldiering, not only by bringing up their general health and welfare, but in the very camp life that they led. It taught them to live together as groups, as soldiers have to, and to take care of themselves under field environment. And some of my officer friends later give credit to the CCC in having done more in 172 Kotok: preparing the youth of our land for army service that no one suspected was ahead. It has been my experience as I've lived in various parts of the country, including now in Walnut Creek, many, many years since the CCC was operating, I have found men in important places of business who relate to me that during the depression the only thing that saved them was the CCC. So I find here in Walnut Creek the man here who has the major creamery and ice cream manufacturing plant related to me his experience in CCC. A man who has an enterprise in freezing units, working all over the United States, related to me that without the CCC he never would have had any kind of a start or even been able to continue his schooling. These side values of the CCC, not counting the physical work they performed on the ground, probably were far more important to the welfare of the nation than the mere physical accomplishments. Fry: You think that if we hadn't had CCC, then, that we might have had to go through a whole generation of debilitated people, in other words . Kotok: Let me put it this way: We wouldn't have had a manpower physically fit, and so on, for the war that we had. Fry: Occupationally fit for postwar jobs? Kotok: Postwar adjustment. So we prepared men to live in an environment, a world that was ahead of them. I considered those far more important than the physical things that we profited by with the CCC. Another sidelight on the CCC, perhaps, a by-product: By the mere fact that there were boys from New York who were placed in California, and California boys placed somewhere else, we had exposed from the rural areas of the East many of the boys (most of the work was done in the West) to the West. And later they came and settled here. Fry: [Laughing] Which may be a mixed blessing, with our population problem now. Kotok: No, I think it's a happy one because I believe, of course, in mixing. You want to mix the genes. Anyway it exposed them. And we learned, those of us in the West who worked with them, some of the handicaps under which the hillbillies of the Appalachians lived, and the New York potential gangster of the slums. So exposing ourselves is 173 Kotok: another by-product that probably can't be evaluated in dollars and cents. It had a general effect on relationships of human beings in American society. Fry: What about the information and education aspects of the story of Smoky Bear? Kotok: Ruth, come and join me. Perhaps before we relate the story of Smokey Bear, it might be well to comment that like all organizations the Forest Service had a responsibility and recognized it, in public relations, not only to keep the public informed on the activities of the Forest Service, but naturally to create a favorable image of the forester and his work. So from the very beginning we had what we called a branch of education and information, not self- education but public education and information. Depending on the region and time, this division, called "I and E" (information and education) , varied with the men who headed it. I relate this because in Region Five, where I was located, I was then working in fire, but I had sort of an interest in I and E work, and the then chief, Paul Redington, offered me the job of I and E, and I accepted it. Now one of the important jobs of I and E was to keep in close touch with newspapermen, feeding them material that was usable by newspapers currently. It was my good fortune because fire news is always good news and I was in charge in fire, that I had gotten acquainted with the leading newspapermen in San Francisco and in Los Angeles and Sacramento. In my work as a forester supervisor, I was very close to the McClatchy papers. So this I and E job, then, was offered to me and that I accepted was based on the fact that I had open avenues to the newspaper fraternity. My then chief, Paul G. Redington, had an unfortunate way of dealing with the press. He demanded that the press accept his text verbatim, take it or leave it. Now his texts, of course, were not either in the form or character to make news for a news paperman. I recognized the limitations, how far a story as we would like to have it might appear in a given newspaper because the reporter who took the report wasn't certain how the final setup might be made when the article was printed — how the rewrite man or the editor might set it. Recognizing those limitations, then, one had to be very careful how a story was prepared and made newsworthy for a given newspaper. So Redington made enemies of the press practically, not enemies but they just didn't under stand him and he didn't understand the press. 174 Kotok: I recall one incident. We had a very big fire, and the head lines on this fire were rather scary and very inaccurate. It was written up in the headlines as a great calamity; actually, it was a fire of relatively little consequence. Redington was very sore about that; he wanted me to bring the Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner man and the Sacramento Bee man right to him. He wanted to straighten them out. So I brought them in and told them. And, of course, these men were accustomed to take and give, and they went in and listened to him. And they said, "All right, the next one you write it out, and we'll see that it gets in." Of course, obviously that never happened. But it was my job to bring peace. I didn't last long on that I and E job because a man by the name of I.W. Hutchinson [?], who had been in Region Two as I and E man, wanted to come to California. Redington asked me if I wouldn't mind vacating the job, which I'd only held for about a week. Hutchinson had made quite a hit as an I and E man; he knew how to write well and how to approach the press and in many ways was suited for the kind of tasks that had to be performed in California. Hutchinson had a happy faculty of getting acquainted with the people that count in the news world. Among the groups that he got to know were some of the advertising people in Southern California parti cularly, so that he could learn a little more about the tech niques of selling a product. Our product, of course, was public service. But selling any product, whether it's public service or a commodity, follows the general line of creating an interest in the commodity, insuring that there is continuing interest and that the product is accepted on face value as advertised. Then when the war came on, Hutchinson and forest supervisor [Walter C.] Mendenhall, who had also a yen and a feel for public relations work, as forest supervisor in the Angeles Forest, got together and thought they'd be able to sell the advertising people on undertaking a public relations job on their own account, to offer to carry on some advertising without charge, as a public service to a governmental agency, to advance a field of endeavor in the public good. Now, of course, there was a reason why the advertising agencies were doing this. Some commodities, you know, were on a restrictive sales basis, including gasoline, oil, and other commodities that were on short supply; and a good many companies had reduced their advertising budgets. So it was important for these advertising agencies to create for themselves an image of public welfare. This Southern California advertising agency undertook with Hutchinson to promote fire control on this basis: It was not only wasteful of resources but was utilizing manpower that ought to be working on war activities. Everything that we used — gasoline, oil, — in fighting fire, we were taking from short 175 Kotok: supplies needed to maintain the high industrial level of the war effort. Fry: They felt that this idea of a fire being unpatriotic, then, had just as much of an influence on American people as the utter destructiveness of the fire itself. Kotok: The mere destructiveness itself was not the most important thing. The most important thing was that we were using resources needed for the war effort. Fry: It was un-American. Kotok: Then, another thing that could be brought in is that this diversion of effort — and sometime it might destroy communi cations systems and other avenues needed for the war effort — would be the very thing that spies, agitators, and our enemies would most desire. So there was always the fear, you see, that incendiaries would start that kind of fire to divert the effort. At this same time that this was happening, back in Washington in the Chief's office doing an I and E job for the chief was Richard F. Hammatt, who had had a rich experience in California, not only as a forester but had been connected with the redwood association (California Redwood Association) and during the depression had done a remarkable job in salesmanship for the redwoods in promoting the use of redwood by public agencies in construction of bridges and so forth, which helped the industry considerably in finding a market when there were no markets at all. So he had a yen and an experience in I and E work. He then induced the chief's office to extend this campaign with the advertising groups nationally, and we utilized the Southern California company to interest other groups that we now call the Madison Avenue group to participate in this fire protection campaign nationwide. At the same time that the foresters were working with these advertising groups on a fire protection campaign, which they accepted as one of the things that they could contribute to the war effort, other agencies of government saw that opportunity. And the most important, of course, was war bond sales. The advertising groups advertised "Buy Bonds," etc. Actually, the foresters were the first to utilize the free contributions of the advertising agencies in the United States in order to carry on a campaign of fire protection — it's your business to the public, 176 Kotok: Then, to dramatize the campaign, of course, the advertising men have certain techniques and skills, and one is that you had to have a trademark. Fry: A symbol, yes. Kotok: A symbol, a trademark. And this trademark must be telling. This hadn't come up, but Hammatt was aware of that. Hammatt had a wife, who was very creative and imaginative. Ruth, listen to this part of the story. Between them, they came up with the idea that the symbol was already made for them. And this is what happened. On the George Washington Forest in Virginia a forest fire had occurred. A she-bear and her cubs were caught in the fire, and one of the cubs, badly burned, was picked up by one of the rangers and brought into Washington to the zoo, hoping that a veterinary there could cure this cub. By good fortune, the veterinary saved the life of this cub, and those that lived in Washington, of course, were aware of this cub saved in a fire, cured. Fry: You mean this was played up in the papers? Kotok: Yes, it was an event. Hammatt and his wife, then, saw in this a possibility for a trademark. A fire, a bear saved — a bear, then, with his experience could tell the story; he'd be the spokesman about the dangers of fire. So this is how the bear came into it. He proposed it, then, to the advertising men and they grasped it in a minute. They saw the potential. Fry: Did the advertising men name him Smokey? Kotok: Smokey, I think the word Smokey came from this: Smokey because he was caught in the smoke, you see, and there was fire around him. They dressed him up in the uniform of a Forest Ranger frequently, and he would appeal particularly to the youngsters, Smokey the Bear, telling you the story. So that's how the Smokey the Bear symbol came in — the accident of this cub's being caught, etc. Fry: Was he made into a pet? Mrs. K. : He's still in the Washington zoo, the last I heard. Kotok: To illustrate how important it is to have a symbol, of course, later we used to meet in Washington with the representatives of the state to determine a campaign for improving fire protection and fire prevention and so forth, and what the fire prevention campaign should be with these advertising counsels, they were called, made up of three or four big men. And generally when they would appear, having had preliminary discussions with 177 Kotok: various men, they'd come up with a fire campaign plan for the United States to cover forest range because we were interested in range fires — and the advertising men have a technique of representation of showing you the printed material they would have the kind of exhibit material, and so forth and so on. On one of these campaign explanations, I remember very well, throughout, of course, Smokey Bear was predominant as the trademark of the campaign. Two or three of the State Foresters raised the question, shouldn't we change the Smokey Bear to some other symbol because of the sameness of it. And I recall one of the leaders in the advertising industry said with complete distress, "For heaven's sake.' You have a million-dollar trademark and you want to throw it away.1" [Laughter] So it shows, each one to his knitting-forester's concept of what's valuable or not in advertising. Now I do want to say one thing before closing. And as I said in the beginning, the selling of a commodity, whether it be service or goods, follows some general patterns, and those of us that were in good fortune, particularly those that were responsible for carrying on the I and E campaign, learned a lot in our contacts with the advertising men. Frequently in carrying on an educational campaign even to classrooms, and so on, we sought the advice of the advertising men as to the adequacy of the program as to its intensity. Fry: This was fire prevention? Kotok: Not only fire prevention, but on any other campaign, we used them because, you see, it's a commodity we're selling. This is what we got promotion for, as I recall, from them. Frequently those who are not specialists in the field of promoting or selling ideas or goods have a tendency to cover the whole water front, you know, in one fell swoop. The span of attention must be taken into account, and there are limits to how far you can go in diversifying a theme. So even in teaching I remember being told by those who carried on with school groups , teaching conversation, learned a lot from this advertising group that the material needed contracting, needed simplification, needed shortening in order to hold the span of a child. Now you would assume that educators would be fully aware and apprised of the techniques of teaching. Yet I think — this is a contemplation of mine — I think if the school man would watch more closely how the advertisers go, to sell, that he has something to learn even in preparing texts for school children. So that contact was worthwhile. It's quite important, this contact we had with the advertising man because it influenced not only our general campaign in fire protection but also gave us the sidelight how 178 Kotok: campaigns could be carried on in other fields of endeavor in which foresters were interested. Should we move on into the University of California now? Fry: Would you tell us something about Dean Mulford? Kotok: Perhaps it's as well. I made a general comment that most of the early professors in forestry received their training, of course, in the national forests because that was the only practicing organization where one could learn the skills of forestry. This was no exception in California. Of the professors that occupied positions in the school at California, Mulford, Fritz, you have the list. [Walter Mulford, Emanuel Fritz, Woodb ridge Me t calf , Arthur W. Sampson, Frederick S. Baker, Francis X. Schumacher, David T. Mason, Donald Bruce, Harry Malmsten, and Joseph Kittredge, Jr.] Practically every man on the list was at one time or another employed by the Forest Service. It's important to remember, for example, that, of course, Mulford started in the Forest Service, then he went to teach at Cornell for a while, then he became a state forester in Connecticut, and then he went to Michigan, and I met him in Michigan. He was my teacher there. But there's another point I'm trying to make here. Fritz, Metcalf, Sampson, Baker, Schumacher, Mason, Bruce, Malmsten (in range) — Kittredge — all of those were drafted directly from the Forest Service into the school, everyone of them. Most of them were Yale graduates (practically all of them except Mulford, who came from Cornell, and Sampson, who came from Nebraska.) Oh, and Metcalf, who came from Michigan. Oh, Merritt Pratt was another one who was there for a while. He was awful. [Laughing] I want to discuss the fields of work of each of these professors later, not in an attempt to evaluate them, but how they fitted into the general picture of the development of forestry in California. Each one had a special influence. I want to devote a little time to Mulford. Mulford was trained in Cornell, undergraduate and graduate work; he had intended to be a horticulturist, something in agriculture dealing with trees. When the forestry school started under — I can't remember his name now, it's a German name — at Cornell, the school also had in charge experimental forests and indirect control of state forest lands in the Adirondacks. It was rather an attractive layout for someone who was seeking a new profession 179 Kotokj in America^ a distinguished school, a distinguished German professor to head it. In that school also was another student, who later became dean at Michigan, Filibert Roth. Another distinguished man who was in that group was [Ralph W.] Hosmer. The Cornell school ran into difficulties when the state legislature by law forbade the cutting of any timber in the Adirondacks, and therefore forest practice by the forestry school was practically eliminated. Roth, who was there at Cornell, was invited to head a forestry school at Michigan' — I forget the date, about 1907 or '08— and he invited Mulford to come with him to teach silviculture and management. Fry: Was Mulford a graduate student at Cornell, or was he teaching by that time? Kotok: He was teaching. What I want to relate rather is my own contacts with Mulford are what I want to relate; this is the important part. This other is background and can be easily checked. Fry: Yes, we can read this in Who's Who. Kotok: I arrived in Michigan in the fall of 1909, to start my forestry career, and the first class that I was assigned to was Mulford's class in silviculture. I had arrived rather late. INTERVIEW VI Fields of Study in Forestry; Schools of Forestry. (Recorded October 16, 1963) [Paul Casamajor, author of Forestry Education at U.C. — The First 50 Years, joins this session as co-interviewer. ] Kotok: Casamajor: Kotok: I want to make some general observations as to the develop ment of the forestry school and the men that participated in its development — the faculty, the subsequent faculty, and how these faculty members were added. In doing this, it might be well to recognize some of the handicaps that many of the early forestry schools had. First of all, they had to recruit from members of the only active organization that had foresters, namely the Forest Service. So we'll find all of the early forestry schools drafted action men from the Forest Service to make up their faculties. Ob viously they may have been good practitioners, but it didn't always ascertain that they were good teachers. That was a gamble that had to be taken. There were a few exceptions to that. Some of the men moved from one school to another in the early schools and had some experience as teachers. So we find that these teachers were drafted from the United States Forest Service and generally were men who had western experience because the national forest enterprise was largely in the West. The other thing we want to examine is the schooling of these early professors. We will find as a general rule that the early forestry professors came from these schools: Yale, then Michigan, and later, some from Nebraska and Cornell. It was very much later that graduates from western forestry schools entered the teaching profession. The Biltmore school? Yes, I should also add Biltmore although Biltmore did not produce too many teachers. It's a strange thing. Going through my memory, I can't think of any teacher who was from Biltmore, offhand. 181 Fry: Kotok: Casamajor: They were practitioners. Kotok: They were practitioners. Now there was a reason. Since Biltmore was not a school that gave the master's degree, at least they were not as desirable on the institutional requirements. So the degree had something to do with it. Another thing to remember is that all the early foresters came from other professions and then took two years of graduate work for the master's degree in forestry. So practically all of the early faculty members were schooled first in a different discipline than forestry, all the way from engineering, letters and science, economics, all the humanities — very few specialists in botany, for example, very few from agriculture. They were men who had a very liberal education and then received two years of intensive forestry education. Therefore, characteristics of these early professors were a wide sweep in their backgrounds and not a narrow one, specifically trained for a specific discipline. Was that an advantage to them in the early days? Well, I would say now, looking back, that it was because the men had to learn to adjust themselves to varying conditions, and therefore were more likely not to be too precise in their specific discipline but would rather sweep the whole horizon of requirements that a forester graduate might have to meet in the open world. Casamajor: Another reason would be that there was no technology at that time. Kotok: Yes, I'm coming to that. Then you have to determine what did they teach? It's interesting to note, and I've gone over some time ago notes I happen to have taken as a forestry student, and I find this: The only two schools that really had forestry teachers that were trained elsewhere were Cornell, headed by Fernow, and the amount of training that either Graves or Pinchot got at Nancy is of doubtful value, but at least they had gone through Nancy, the French school. So there was available, then, these two schools. And of course our friend Shenk at Biltmore brought with him the Germanic text. But there was available, then, the texts of the French and German literature and that was all. They built up their curriculum and their teaching as best they could. 182 Kotok: Now the graduates of these earlier schools, the only texts that they had were the notes that they took from these teachers. I recall that Filibert Roth, who started at Cornell with [Bernard E.] Fernow, said twenty years after he had been a teacher that unfortunately he found that professors were using the notes that they took twenty years ago. One of the requirements he said he would make was that as soon as you graduated you had to tear up your notes for fear that they might be used again for teaching. The other source of material that was available to the profession was the literature that was being currently published largely through the Forest Service, some by universities that formed the texts. The early texts included circulars written by [Raphael] Zon, by Pinchot , by Frottingham that dealt with the management plans on properties in the East. Those were the texts. Then there were miscellaneous papers, for example, such circulars as Cooper's dealing in California with observations he had made on the McCloud Company. That was used as a text. But as time went on and the Forest Service experiments themselves were published, they added food for the teaching profession. The teaching could only expand as the basic knowledge that we needed about America and American forestry grew out of research. I am reminded in my own experience that Show and I wrote, for example, many texts on fire, and when I came to California much later to help Malmsten in fire control, taking up his classes, I found that my text had been assigned as reading. The Role of Fire in California, for example. How good these were for texts isn't a question we need to weigh because those were the only texts available. They reflected the development of forestry in America, and to that extent, of course, they had a value. They brought you up to date. The writing of new texts came much very much later, as premeditated preparation of texts written for teaching purposes, which must take a different form than research publications because then the text must be devised to meet the requirements of assignments to pupils, and it encompasses within a term a competent review of a field. That came later. It is important to note here, however, Mulford's influence in himself getting texts written by those in the professorial ranks. His purpose was not to bring additional income to the participants but that the schools badly needed textbooks designed for teaching purposes covering a field and discipline in forestry. He was able to arrange for co-authors; he acted merely as editor. (Co-authors of the then outstanding men who were then generally in the teaching profession) 183 Casamajor: I expect an assignment to Berkeley almost meant that you would be asked to write a textbook. He got his own staff (Baker, Kittredge, and others) to write textbooks in their fields. Kotok: Yes, that comment is very accurate. He hoped that the California professorial groups themselves would contribute to this text series, as he called it. Later this device was followed by many other professors but not with the same design that Mulford had. His purpose in promoting it was to get uniform instruction inasfar as we could through the forestry schools by agreement as to what would form a real and honest base for a text. That's the im portant thing. Subsequently men probably wrote for increased income or to add to their professional stature or whatever. Now with this background which I covered — where did they come from, what material did they have to depend upon for teaching — we can now consider specifically the California school and its origin. And that won't differ very much from other forestry schools in its inception and beginning. The differences between forestry schools was early recognized by those who wanted to enter the institution to which it was tied. Because in the last analysis—and I'm talking of those who came to get their curriculum of a forestry student through the first four years and in particular in his graduate years, we will find that the institution to which the forestry school is tied will have to furnish over 70% of the curriculum requirements of that student. As a maximum, it will only be about 30% that specific forestry subjects are included in that six-year period, and it's particularly true in the first four years. So in the origin of the California Forestry School, the thing that attracted Mulford to California was the fact that it was an institution with a strong agricultural college to which forestry would be affiliated. It wasn't an agricultural college in the sense of some of the other agricultural colleges; it was a college where research formed a very important part of its activities, well-founded in basic sciences that foresters could profit from. It had a strong department of soils, a strong botany department, a strong plant physiology department, a reasonably strong pathology department but a very strong entomology department. 184 Kotok: Casama jor : Kotok: Mrs. Kotok: Kotok: Casamajor : Kotok: Casamajor: Kotok: Economics had not come in in the very beginning, but later the Giannini Foundation offered further still opportunities for ties with the forestry school. Those probably were the things that attracted Mulford to California. I have heard, but I can't confirm it, that there was also an attempt, due to Professor [William Russell] Dudley again, to interest Stanford when [David Starr] Jordan was still there to start a forestry school. It so happened that at Stanford there was a very strong botany department under Professor Dudley, who was really interested in conservation in toto, and he had a great deal of influence on President Jordan and also on Gifford Pinchot . They were close friends. Jordan made the statement after his retirement that one of the saddest things in his life was that the forestry school was not established at Stanford. I understand the reason it was not was because of the 1906 earthquake, which so uprooted Stanford's whole plant and program that they couldn't consider it. That's right. They were practically broke. My wife can tell that story because her father went without pay as a member of the Stanford faculty. How long did your dad go without pay, Ruth? Oh, at least a year. I couldn't say exactly. They ran chits in the stores; everybody gave them credit. So that was one reason. The other one was perhaps a counter- movement in California, which also desired a forestry school, and perhaps the influence there can be traced to Bill Greeley, who was a California graduate. But there were other reasons, too. There were other men in the University that were interested in forestry indirectly. Jepson as a botanist knew a good many foresters. And actually there was a forestry club, you know, before there was a forestry school. So that interest was building up there . Did this club include--? [A. Everett] Wieslander, [Knowles A.] Ryerson-- Yes , I'm aware of the Forestry Club. I'm thinking of the University personnel. We're aware of [Thomas Forsyth] Hunt. Hunt, the dean. And I got to know Hunt very well later. Hunt was one. 185 Casamajor : Kotok: Casamajor: Kotok: Casamajor : Kotok: How about [Edward J. ] Wickson? Wickson I don't recall. He preceded Hunt. Yes, but I didn't know him. I knew Hunt had an interest. [Eugene H. ] Hilgard, of course, was another one of these naturalists. We think of him as a soil scientist, but actually he was in the period when naturalists were the leaders — like John Muir. They saw in toto the phenomena of the processes of nature. So there was a strong feeling for forestry. Then there was another reason. Somewhere else it's been already recorded (and I shall not try to cover that at all) a California graduate has done a pretty good job on that, [C. Raymond] Clar. In the early development of forestry, the State of California made a greater impact on forestry than any other state in the Union excepting New York State. But it died a-borning. It started in the eighties, you see. In 1886 there was a movement for a forestry school at the University of Southern California. That's right. It goes way back, this interest, covered, then, some of the general features. So we've Now when the forestry school started, then, in California, Mulford came having been trained at Cornell; actually he had wanted to be a horticulturist. And he became a forester. He was bitten by the same bug that we're all exposed to, listening to men like Fernow and men like Pinchot. It appeared like an adventurous career that offered great opportunities. 5o he had the job when lie came here to start p. stcfi', and the staff he started was the classical staff in the beginning of a school. Depending, then, upon the University to furnish such things as botany, dendrology, ecology, entomology, those fields he figured would be gotten from the general curriculum that the University offered without too careful observation how well it would suit a forester. But anyway it was in specific fields that foresters would be interested in. So he was concerned, then, with starting off with some of the basic things that foresters must have. I place these down in this order: One was silviculture, and that included both natural and artificial forests, which needs planting management; then a course that they called forest policy and economics, and that was based entirely on the one text they had, Fernow 's Economics of Forestry. That was the text. It was neither a very good 186 Kotok: economics text nor was it a very good policy text, but that was the only text that was available, and students were at least required to study that. Then, they also had to have, foresters--! covered management. The other one that they had to have, that all foresters have to have, is the area we call mensuration because foresters when they get on the job dealt with determining the stand volumes, how to measure logs when they're logged. So we had the whole field of mensuration. If the school could provide that, it felt safe that it could start a forestry school, and California started on that basis. Now let's proceed, then, a little bit and see who we recruited and what their field of work was. Mulford actually had been a very fine teacher in silviculture. He was also a good teacher in forest policy, with the available material that he had. So he undertook in the main, to cover these two fields even from the very beginning. The next man that he added was Metcalf, and I think Metcalf was assigned dendrology. Now there was one other field that they didn't cover early; that was the products field. But Metcalf covered dendrology, which deals with the iden tification and nomenclature of woods and at that time it included plants themselves. So we had Metcalf for dendrology. Then, by good fortune he had available, probably an outstanding man, Donald Bruce, in the field of mensuration. And I want to cover particularly some of the contributions that California can draw pride in--its contribution in the fields of mensuration and biometrics. Then Mulford brought in Mason, who covered really management from the standpoint of his experience in charge of timber management in Region One; and having been a supervisor he dealt with problems of appraisal of timber, selling and logging. It's a sort of loose gathering of many things under one umbrella. Casamajor: Mason and Bruce incidentally were in the same office in Region One. Kotok: Yes, they started in Region One. Casamajor: Mason eventually persuaded Bruce to join him. Kotok: Yes, but they came together. 187 Kotok: Casamajor: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: So with that start, later they drew in the other disciplines that were necessary. One was the products field, and in the products field, they drafted Fritz, who also came from Region One and was well-known to Bruce and Mason. I have an idea that Bruce had considerable influence in bringing Fritz to California. Fritz was in Fort Valley when he was hired. Yes, but he had been in Region One. Mrs. Fritz had worked in the Forest Service in Region One, so they were closely tied together. So that was a classical grouping. Now a real first for the forestry school, that credit ought to be given to Mulford. It was one of the first straight forestry schools that added the field of range as part of the curriculum offered to students. Because it was a western school, I guess. Well no, there were other western schools — Washington, Oregon. There wasn't any pressure particularly on Mulford as to that; I can't find any. I think it was something he came up with himself. We ought to be teaching foresters range, parti cularly those that were to enter the Forest Service. Range would be an important activity of their career. He was rather fortunate in being able to bring Sampson to the college, and Sampson was also a member of the Forest Service, devoting himself largely to research. He had done some work in California in research. Sampson and Dayton, you know, started one of the earliest studies in 1910 and '11, the effect of grazing on timber production. They worked parti cularly on sheep. I had the good fortune — or misfortune — to follow afterwards their plots, which I could never locate fully, on the Shasta National Forest to determine just what the final results were on the plots subjected to grazing. So that was the start. Now here I could do one thing — continue on with how the other disciplines came in, or go on with a size-up of Mulford. Perhaps it's best to continue on with the sequence of events in the development of the school. So we've reached the point where Sampson comes in in the twenties. I want to specifically take up some of the replacements that came. The war interrupted, of course, the tenure of some of the men that were on the faculty. The two at that time who were affected by the war were Bruce and Mason. So they had a military furlough. Then Mason did 188 Kotok: not return; he was there for a little while, and then he went with Internal Revenue and participated in the develop ment of the tax codes for timber properties and made a considerable contribution in that — he and Hall. Casamajor: Very much. Kotok: So one man left out. Merritt Pratt was rather an unfortunate choice. He didn't feel at home or comfortable as a teacher. There was one thing about Mulford that was rather strange; he was secretive in his method of selecting of men for the faculty. Perhaps you have to be to do that, but he could have protected himself in a few places that we knew if he had checked those that knew the candidates that he was thinking of. He made no attempt to check with anyone about Pratt. Casamajor: Mulford hired Pratt while he was still at Ithaca, and Pratt was in California then. Kotok: That's right. But I mean he could have found out that Pratt would not — Casamajor: Kotok: Casamajor: Kotok: From those letters you had, he only had about ten days to find Pratt. Now this happened; this is one thing. You know, I talked about that previously somewhere in my notes here. Organizations have a peculiar way of curing when they have personnel problems. Sometimes they promote them to another job and sometimes they recommend them strongly for some other field of endeavor, and the Forest Service was not about that. It didn't always come with clean hands in its recommendations. On this Pratt thing, I have an idea that a man by the name of Coert DuBois probably recommended Pratt. In view of the fact that he didn't make too good a forest officer, he ought to make a very good professor. I just learned last week that in 1917, when Pratt decided he did not want to stay with the University — and this was by mutual consent — Mulford tried to help him get back into the Forest Service, and DuBois said he would take him back. Greeley said he would take him back, and it was finally vetoed by the Secretary of Agriculture. He would not reinstate him on the Civil Service list without going back through the examination. This is why Pratt became the assistant state forester. I don't accept that in toto. 189 Casamajor : Kotok: Casamajor: I've got the letters. Kotok: I know, but I don't accept it in toto anyway. It's interesting and probably that's it, but anyway knowing Mulford's integrity, he would have done everything in his power — He worked very hard for Pratt, to help him. Yes. So Pratt is out of the picture. Then Woodbridge Metcalf continued on. Actually he didn't feel too com fortable as a teacher either. He didn't grasp — and I audited once just to see as an old colleague, and I made this general observation: In teaching you only have forty-five minutes, and you must concentrate on the key things and don't allow yourself to be diverted. His tendency was to spread himself beyond the text limitations; therefore, he left students frequently confused. His knowledge was enormous; he has a remarkable memory, but he didn't stick to his knitting in preparing a text. Casamajor: He was interested in just about everything and would allow himself to digress. Kotok: His diversions were so frequent, and they were not germane. He felt uncomfortable, and I personally was happy about his move to Extension Service because we wanted Extension Service to be started at the University. In that job he was a remarkable man for it because he fitted into the mood of meeting groups, farmers or Boy Scouts or 4-H Clubs. He could arouse their interest, and he utilized his singing experience to always have a songfest, so he was a lively asset to farm gatherings and he developed quite a following. Now Mason left because he went to the other job. Then Fritz's job redeveloped in a little different form. The dendrology that was given by Metcalf went under Fritz, so he had what we call now the field of products plus dendrology. In that specialized field, Fritz was above the average forester — this is the method of recognizing woods by their structure. And in that field I would place him among the tops in the profession from the very beginning. In the field of utilization of wood, the other field, he had had no experience, so he had to draw roughly from published material and from general knowledge. In that field, I think he was probably not as strong as he was in dendrology. Then the work of Sampson grew to such an extent, and there were so many applicants in that field, that they had to 190 Kotok: add another member to the staff, and they added Malmsten. It's rather interesting. Malmsten was also given some other jobs that I want to mention: There were a few areas that weren't covered by anybody. They were expected to get it either in summer school, or not to get it at all, and one was fire. With some pressure fire was added to the curriculum, and the man selected to give it probably knew less about fire than any other man on the staff. That was Malmsten. But he was the only one who had available time. It's wasn't much of a course, a two-unit course. I spelled Malmsten from time to time. Being a two-unit class it attracted students from all over the campus, including girls that were taking domestic science and other fields; and I appeared before the class one time and found some of the girls kntting and playing around, and I dismissed his class saying I wasn't prepared to teach knitting; I was prepared to teach those that were interested in forestry. So it was a device, and it didn't work out. If we had a two-unit course about fire control and forestry this way, it would create wide interest in the campus about forestry. Well, I think it was a fiction because most students thought it was a two-unit snap course, and it attracted that kind of talent. So much for that; mistakes were made, sure. Now Bruce, who started in mensuration, had some difficulties here on the campus and left; we needn't go into the details. His leaving involved some internal frictions that developed within the faculty staff itself, and those frictions were sad and did have an affect on the school as a whole. He was followed by Schumacher, who was a Michigan- trained forester. Bruce had been a Yale forester, a very distinguished Yale forester, quite prominent. So that started then the basic group. I think here I'm going to divert instead of continuing on with the classes and cover another area that is very important. In the ultimate size-up of a school, it's important to judge it by certain yardsticks. And among the yardsticks that I use, since we are a professional group, one is what the individual staff members of the school contributed to the development of the science itself in all its ramifications. Where did it, the school, pioneer? Where did it contribute to give a new direction, important direction to the disciplines 191 Kotok: Casamajor: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: within forestry? The other yardstick I use is how many leaders did it develop either in important professional jobs that were available, or in the teaching profession itself. I am one who is closely connected with California, and I don't believe that that evaluation has ever been made and credit given to the men who gave the station to California. I hope when history is written up that that part will be more fully covered. If it doesn't do anything else, I hope it does that. I made a statement to Mulford one time that we won't be able to tell the importance of California till after the school has run about twenty years, or when the men that graduate have reached, you know, their late thirties or forties to see how many of them have reached positions of importance. And I took one earlier than that, and it wasn't significant because they hadn't reached the age where their power could be felt. What do you mean, you took one? I took a survey of graduates, but it was too early. I hope another one would be taken, and these are the tests I would make then for that. There are certain positions in the Forest Service that rank about the same as a full professor. Now men that have reached full professorship after twenty years have reached an attainment. After the twenty years was over, California did in the Forest Service add more than its particular share from all the schools to the directors of experiment stations, to regional foresters, and to other key positions in the Forest Service. In fact, when I went back to my Washington job, I was accused that I had brought a California corps with me. I was very happy to have as my colleagues there California graduates. So that's one measure, you know, then, what jobs. The other one, also of great importance, is did the school through its staff, create new ventures in developing the discipline. And that one has never been evaluated in California. First, I want to start with Sampson because I don't believe anyone has given him enough credit. Sampson in his own peculiar genius interested men in a field that there was no other place on the campus to get instruction in — and that's the field really of ecology. Now other universities at about the same time California was starting were more fortunate. They did have colleges — Burns at Michigan, who went later to Vermont. But in the botany department, there was no such thing as ecology. So actually what Sampson 192 Kotok: was doing was giving ecology. And he came by it honestly because he was trained at Nebraska, and F.E. Clemens, whom we call the father of ecology, was one of his professors. So his teaching brought us to awake that forestry should be interested in ecology. But he did more than that. He daringly undertook experiments in the field of ecology — actually ecological studies — sometimes not with the best design, sometimes lacking the sharpness that we now require in methodology of research, but he developed the curiosity, than a perfect experiment that leaves them dead. Sampson was able to a remarkable degree to interest his students. Then another thing, he wasn't one that took pen in hand too readily, but he wasn't afraid to publish; so there was a continual flow of short papers and long papers from Sampson, which added to material for the teaching profession. And Sampson as one individual produced more professors than any other individual in the American forestry school system — as one individual. I'm not talking of the school as a whole. And the Forest Service drew heavily in the field of range — drew heavily, both in research and administration, from graduates of Sampson. Now I told the story about the difficulties of trying to get a full professorship from Mulford. I was then a member of the Agricultural Experiment Station staff, and I was on the committee on promotions. Fry: For Mulford? Kotok: By the dean. The dean selects the professional promotions, and each dean has a right to submit candidates that he wants for advancement, from one step to another. Sampson for a long period still carried the associate professorship. I think I was selected on that committee perhaps to protect the interests of the candidates from the College of Agriculture, I presume. [Laughter] I took the job very seriously. I will say this: I was never urged by Dean Hutchison or Mulford, they never crowded me, to take any position on candidates they submitted for the four years I was on that committee. Never. I was completely free. By word of mouth, or anything else. 193 Kotok: So it became my task, then, to support the promotion of Sampson, whom I believed in. Well, the first time we appeared there, I ran into all sorts of obstacles. The main obstacle was this: Sampson covered too much ground; he didn't stick to a specific subject matter, and therefore all his work was thin, unsubstantiated, and so forth and so on, long accusations led by — and I'm going to give the names — some members even in the College of Agriculture: Davis, the botanist, but the severest critic was Dean [Charles B.] Lipman of the graduate school. So it became my burden to write a minority report. Minority reports have no power at all. The president generally takes the recommendations of the majority. One year later I urged Mulford to put up the name again, and he put up Sampson's name again. I had in the meantime found out that Sampson had gotten his degree, you know, in geography, not in forestry or botany, in geography. Geography at that time was the umbrella that covered up everything under the sun you could find that had to do with men, people, land, climate — anything you can mention could be put under geography. And forestry had, in its early beginnings and still has, that same disease. We cover a multitude of, a variety 'of, disciplines that impinge on land use. Having found that out, one other member of the promotions committee was Carl Sauer, who was a geographer. And I called to his attention that the criticism that they were making of Sampson was the fact that he was a geographer. Geographers and foresters had been looking through the same telescopes, and we don't use the telescope that looks from the big side to the little side. We look from the little side to the big side, and we see the universe in toto. After that I didn't have to make the speech for his promotion. Sauer carried the argument, and promotion was effected. Another area in which California can take a great deal of pride is the development in the field of what I would actually call biometrics, which is a term of measurement involving life either vegetable, animal, or whatever it might be. This grew out of the field that we used to call mensuration, "measurements." In the early part, and we still need to teach it, it was merely a design by which foresters could be taught how to measure those things in 194 Kotok: which forest products are concerned, growth and yield on growing stands, and also involved in that was land measurements. Generally, although, that used to be given by engineering. So from the simple requirements in the old field of mensuration, California, following in the footsteps of a great English teacher, Fisher from London, actually was the first group of foresters that entered into the field of biometrics. Its contribution never has been fully appraised. Bruce, who was really a mathematical genius, perhaps gave it the first impetus. In this field of measure and things that grow in which foresters are interested, have to be ultimately formalized. It took formalization to follow rules, and it always involves the use of calculus because there is nothing finite in these reactions. So it's approximations and the likelihood under certain conditions of what would happen. It's a science not like other sciences where if you put down two and you add two , that ' s four . Fry: Here you compute probabilities. Kotok: The probabilities. So it deals in the dire field of probability, and foresters are continually confronted with predicting probabilities of action and reaction and making it more complicated for foresters; the variables are innumerable. So then these men that first explored the field of biometrics for foresters dealt with reducing these variables to a minimum and giving a basis for comparing and computing the probabilities of action and reaction as the variables involved changed in character. Bruce was an exacting teacher; he was a harsh teacher, but those that could suffer his courses profited. Well so Bruce, from his work in California, went to Washington, and there his field was even wider. But we've got to give him credit — he got his initial impulse actually in Calif ornia. He had greater facilities with which to work than he had at the school; the whole Forest Service facilities, then, were available to him. I had early contacts with him because about that time, Show and I were publishing many things. And they dealt with variables which we were trying to reduce as to probabilities, and he was very helpful. But when Bruce came to Washington there, he and Ed Munns — he should be mentioned — interested the Department of Agriculture to place the first hollerith machine, which is only a mechanical device to punch cards, that does a lot of arithmetic for you rapidly. With Bruce there, why then he found this tool a most usable one. I 195 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: as a forester am particularly proud that in all this machinery of government, here were a couple of foresters that had the temerity to get the first hollerith machine. I used it years and years afterwards. So they gave, then, the impetus to this, forseeing what is now happening, you see, the whole method of mechanical, automatic calculations. Then, California was rather fortunate. Following Bruce was Schumacher , who picked up where Bruce left off. After a 'stay here in California, he left for the Forest Service and took Bruce 's job in Washington. But this is what Schumaker did, and his impetus was here in California. Fisher, who was the great biometrician, was critical of scientific experiments that purported to evaluate cause and effect, that weren't designed properly. Schumacher's then, contribution dealt largely with reexamining experi mental design that foresters use to determine cause and effect of environmental factors on growth, yield, and so forth. It's rather strange that he really got started in this thing by trying, at our suggestion — I was then in the experiment station — to improve a yield table. You know, we had yield tables that determine at different ages what the production would be under a given treatment. And when he studied yield tables that had been built, he found that the design of the experiments was rather loose; in working his own yield tables, he found that the designs were faulty. Now, this is the important thing of Schumacher's contribution. Foresters, particularly in research, were then forced for the first time before they embarked on an experiment to determine the design that they would have to insure the safest determination of relationships. I recall in my own experience in one, I proposed an experiment and by examination of the design, Schumacher clearly indicated to me that I had incompatible variables in there that were not subject to any logical design. You see, there has to be compatibility in the variables because I was trying to measure two things in two universes . This was an innovation over Fisher? No, he explored; he went on further. Fisher applied to all, but Schumaker 's contribution was directly toward forestry, forestry design. There's a forester, a California graduate, now at Duke who was influenced by Schumacher ; he worked for me in the Forest Service. I don't remember his name. But 196 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Casamaj or Kotok: he developed design further and further. He's now at Duke, retired. There was continuity in the whole field of biometrics: the mathematician, Bruce; Schumacher; and this latter man. / Now, a sidelight, this is rather interesting. During World War II, a number of Forest Service men, of course, joined in the effort. And this man whose name I don't recall was an important factor. The X — The X factor. The X factor. [Laughter] Another professor that entered into the war, he had been a flyer in World War I in Canada as a young man; I'm talking about Percy Barr . He gathered together these men who had been specializing in biometrics, and they were used by the Air Force to determine the probability of a hit. That was their specialty — evaluating the bombing. That was their whole field. And here was a group of foresters — they all got to be colonels — a group of foresters from their biometrics they delved into this field. That's rather an interesting thing; you didn't know that, did you? I hadn't thought of that relationship of it, no. Josephson went over there. He didn't get the military title, but he worked as a civilian. But this X-man is important because he was another mathematical genius . So I tried to place here an evaluation of the contributions of some of the men. After I came to California in my position as consultant to the Agricultural Experiment Station, my possibilities of influence were a little widened more than if I'd been a complet outsider. I discussed with Dean Mulford and Dean Hutchison that we ought to probably as rapidly as we could expand into fields of discipline that we wouldn't depend upon other groups in the University to give. Specialization was beginning to come into forestry in the late twenties. Men had to be specialists; they couldn't be merely general practitioners. Some were quite obvious, and I shall go down the line, just how we reached them. Now Baker's entering in had nothing to do with it but was merely filling the job that was covered before by Mulford and Metcalf. So Baker was merely a substitution. He too came, of course, from the Forest Service, and he had done a little research 197 Kotok: in Region Four. He came well recommended and he fitted into the family easily; he was one of the easiest men to get along with and he was forthright in his statements, opinions. I would not have suffered as much as he did from some of the adverse influences that were in the college while he was there. I want to cover just a word a little later, if you'll remind me, of how he came to be made dean. But the fields that we particularly were interested in — the first one, we urged all of the western forestry schools [to run] what they called logging and milling studies, logging and milling, preparing men directly for the lumber industry. California, by design and device — and I heartily approved of it and I hope they don't change it — did not try to compete with those other western forestry schools preparing loggers for the logging industry. However, foresters did have to know about logging, milling, and so forth because foresters, like anyone in agriculture, must know the product from growing it to its final production when it gets to the consumer. So that's already recognized in agriculture and recognized in forestry. By good fortune, there was a man available who'd had a very rich experience in the redwood area and elsewhere, Myron Krueger. This was the first California graduate to be put on the staff; that is to be noted. He took a field, a peculiar field, because it wasn't in the normal disciplines but a new discipline that was introduced, that western schools had — eastern schools never did have that for a long while. So this followed the formula of the western schools. And then the California Forestry Experiment Station had growing pains and we were looking for activities for the professors that would work with us in developing the basic things. And Krueger fitted in very well. So we had probably the first logging and milling study that included the examination of the material from the tree directly through the mill. That's a technical thing that you probably won't get the full significance. This was to test whether an elaborate system of following each tree clear through from the time it was cut through the mill was necessary. Or the other device that we used, we used the logging part separate, and then, you know, trying to tie them together by mathematical divide. This was an important study because it proved that that onerous, difficult task wasn't necessary; the approximation method would suffice all the purposes that foresters needed. But this was the first study and Myron Krueger was a parti cipant and a very important participant. 198 Fry : Kotok: Casamajor : Kotok: This study then, simply verified what the cruisers had been doing? No, you see, here's the way. For example, a forester wants to know, if I have this much timber on the land and I know what its quality is and so forth, and if I cut 80% of it, what will it produce in lumber at the other end of the mill in board feet. And dollars. And dollars, always converted into the value in dollars. Now, that was important for foresters because they had to determine appraisal methods , what to charge for the timber. So the basis for timber appraisal was based on what you could produce from a given stand of timber. Now, the method that we had used before, we determined how many kinds of logs would probably come off a piece of logging ground. That was an independent measurement. Then we went into the mill and looked for logs of the sizes that we predicted would come there — didn't have to be from that same tree, but any log. Then we distributed enough through the diameter classes; then we'd establish that this is the production you would have. It was a shortcut. Now some questioned the accuracy of it, so we had to run a basic experiment to prove what we were doing had verity. And I give this again as a first, you see, to prove a methodology. Now Myron Krueger was exceedingly helpful to the experiment station staff that dealt with logging and milling studies , and in other ways he was a very helpful colleague. So we got in them [to] lumbering. About that time the world had rediscovered — because it had been discovered so many times — that what we called forest influences was an important discipline in forestry. It dealt with the phenomena of runoff, erosion, control of floods and so forth, that whole field. And foresters as I related before started with that way back in Wagon Wheel Gap in 1910. So historically we were in it. But schools weren't prepared to teach it. That's the important point that I want to make: Schools weren't prepared to teach it. And we tried and the experiment station had some very fine men working at that time: We had Lowdermilk, Walter Lowdermilk; we had Charlie Kraebel; we had the man who's now conservation commissioner of New York, 199 Kotok: Casamajor Kotok: Casamajor : Kotok: [Harold G.J Wilms; we had rather a talented group. We had Don Sinclair, some of them California graduates. So we felt that there was enough material now, plus the facilities that we would offer at the California Experiment S tation, to start directly the forest influence course. And California was a first actually in specifically taking forest influences as a course of instruction. Now forest influences are given by inference in other schools, but here a professor [is] set aside specifically for that discipline. And Kittredge was a splendid choice because he had delved into the field as a forester; he was a good research man who knew biometrics exceedingly well; he was quite a mathematician — actually he had gotten his degree in mathematics, a very capable man. So we started in California the first [courses in forest influence]. Unfortunately, that's sort of a dead duck now, isn't it? Well, Paul Zinke teaches it and very effectively. He was a protege of Kittredge, of course. Yes, I knew that. Well, anyway Kittredge started it. It would be interesting, which I haven't done, where Kittredge 's graduates have gone. I hope somebody will follow that through; that ought to be done. I have a record of the people who were most impressed by Kittredge of the school, and this will be a pretty good clue because Kittredge made quite an impression on our graduates. One of the things I have done in communicating with graduates is to ask them who they remembered most importantly, and Kittredge was one they mentioned often. Well, of course, but the important thing with Kittredge was this: Not only did he teach in the field of forest influence, the literature of which had grown considerably by the time he started teaching, but he was an exacting one for the integrity of experimental design — integrity — and in view of the fact that forestry lends itself with so many variables, the tendency to shirk the exactness, the meticulousness that we need is frequently forgotten. Some of the criticism that I have of present work by one member in the forestry faculty [is] that he did not get work with Kittredge or with some of the others. His biometrics are weak and it leads him to many erroneous conclusions. 200 Casamajor: I think this probably stems from Kittredge's New England background. Kotok: Oh, honest. Casamajor: Extremely conservative, honest, still is, straight-laced New Englander. Kotok: Yes, he is, and his wife had a considerable influence on him. She was quite a mathematician herself, so they used to enjoy delving into mathematical formulae. What I wanted to get at is, there was a first. Then another first that I want to mention is the forestry school itself, but particularly the California Forest Experiment Station was closely tied in with the Giannini Foundation, and we had undertaken with them a number of cooperative studies. Now we were particularly interested from the very start, when I was at the college, in trying to get men trained as forest economists. The unfortunate thing, as I noted before, was the only text we had was Fernow's Economics , and many foresters delved into economics by force; the conditions of the job [required delving into economics, but they] were not particularly well trained to undertake those tasks. I think some of the jobs they did were remarkably well done, recognizing the limitations of their training. So it was obvious that we ought to have been prepared by this time — this was in the Thirties, early Thirties — that we ought to be seeking the forestry schools to train men for economics, and California we thought was a dandy because of our own tie with the Giannini Foundation. And we found there, very responsive men, starting off with Dean Hutchison , who was the first one of Giannini, and then the others that followed, [Howard] Tolley and also Carl Alsberg. So the atmosphere was good there, you see, and the Giannini Foundation was very happy to take on foresters to get their advanced degrees in economics, beside that, giving some economics courses to the under graduates. So they gave statistics, a number of minor courses, the 1-A, 2-A courses that we normally give, instead of taking it in the College of Letters and Science — their economic stuff they could take it in Giannini, if they desired it. And a good many took it. But the important thing was we did get some men to take the graduate work. 201 Kotok: Casamaj or ; Kotok: Casamaj or Kotok: Casamaj or ; Kotok: It was my good fortune to have been influential in that to this extent: In view of the fact that we had some state money that we could hire students, those taking graduate work for additional income to see them through college, and also to give them some texts which they might later use for doctorate theses; it worked out very well. Our contribution was not that we only produced, you know, forest economists, but the by-product that came out of their theses would be helpful to the general literature that we wanted in that field. One of the early ones that we got was [Horace R. ] Josephson. Dana credits him as being the first forest economist in this country? Would you agree with that statement? He was the first one who had a degree in forestry. That's right. There were a lot of forest economists, but they didn't have a degree. He was right — Josephson was the first. So we got Josephson. And then we got, actually we got, [R. ] Keith Arnold to take it, too. of the group that later became members of the staff that I know of now, there may be others, the ones that we egged on were Josephson, Keith Arnold, [John A.] Zivnuska, and [Henry J.] Vaux. We made it possible, and I appreciated when we met with Sigma Psi that they credited, you see, that help we gave them, that stimulus we were able to give them — saw them through college, who might have had difficulties otherwise. That's still a tremendous help. Well, that's why I hated to see them move off the campus. Anyway we got them about four or five men to go ahead and start that. So Josephson when he got his degree, Mulford was prepared, of course, to give him the job there as first on the staff in forest economics. Now in order to give some teeth to his thesis, actually what we did was a job that we've been doing with the Giannini Foundation and College of Agriculture for quite a while. That was — and this was another first, before the New Deal discovered it — we proposed a study of land use problems long before the New Deal came in, and that was in the early Twenties. And the man we had assigned to it, the University had [David] Weeks, who had been an agricultural engineer and knew about land use, and we had as our opposite, we had Josephson, who was then working for us, you see. And we had a few others. Would you include Poley[?] in that group? No, he came in later. 202 Casamajor: He was a student or a protege of Weeks. Kotok: Yes, yes, Poley was in it. The other one was my old teacher in products, Carey Leroy Hill. The study, we started in the late Twenties before Roosevelt was elected, before '32. We had that first actually, and we had support in the University. Land use study is a basic problem that confronts the nation and we're now talking about it, all this talk about what we should do with this and that. Our concept was good. We took five counties for the study, Placer, El Dorado, Yuba, Butte, I think, and another one. It was a splendid concept, but they got bogged down, the men that were working on it, in conflicts and so on. We had an unfortunate thing. One of the participants, it was Weeks, who would always discover some new thing that we should add to the study, having already outlined what we were going to do. That way you can grow indefinitely and never accomplish anything. So it was an expanding study with no limitations, and we had to get some limitations. And actually what we asked Joe to take, then, as his text as part of the five county study, aspects of it, and the other one was costs and returns on a logging and milling study. Those were the two that we used. So Josephson when he came in, then, was very helpful in pushing a little further ahead this study, and finally it was tied up much later when Ed Kraft came to the station, also another forest economist. He finally got the study tied up, and so it was finally printed. It should have been printed seven years before that. Casamajor: Perhaps had other chances to use this talent when the T.R.R. came along. Kotok: Oh, yes. Fry: What's the T.R.R.? Casamajor: Timber Resources Review. Kotok: This is the important thing. The concept of land use grew out of a forestry group on the University of California campus . Fry: Speaking of your limits, you do mean this was rural land use? 203 Kotok: Mrs. Kotok: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Casamajor : Whatever is within that county. What we took were those counties. They had cities. Now we didn't go into city planning, but we did want to know how do you use the land? Do you use it for agriculture, for forestry, for grazing, for recreation? What would be needed by industry? You have water; what are you going to use the water for? For recreation, for power, for irrigation? Those are the things that we were concerned with. How will it expand? We had to make estimates, you know, of population explosion, then. We conceived, here was an entity. A political entity. A political entity. So that was one of the earliest, as far as I know. It's the earliest concrete basic study, and it was undertaken, and I'm very proud that it was a forestry group in California that undertook that. And I think credit ought to be given, then, to the one. That's the other thing I hope about history, you know, it will be remarked even if you can't claim the first among the first. So we got forest influences in; we got economics in. The next thing we were fighting for and that didn't come till practically I left, but we were still building for it slowly but surely. The field in which my own personal interest has continued throughout my career, fire control, was never adequately taught in any forestry school in the United States. I related about that two-unit course given by Malmsten; later Fritz attempted to give that along with his other courses — he had a control course. He based all his material on his experience as he was a forest officer in Region One more than a quarter century before. In the meantime forestry fire research, in which many of the California graduates or undergraduates had a chance of working with us at the station, was receiving interest. One of the men that was particularly interested in that field that started with us early was Keith Arnold. So California started the first specific division of fire control. That was another first. This was in the late Twenties, too? That was in the Forties, didn't come until the Forties. You might be interested to know that the first Forest Service supported research assistant at the University of California starts work today, as my helper. 204 Kotok: I'll be damned. Is that right? Casamajor: Forest Service is supporting research assistants. Kotok: That's right. I knew that under that new grant. Casamajor: Right. Kotok: You know, the only sad thing that I felt, I spent some time with [Richard] McArdle in Washington with that new grant money he has, and they selected those men that are in public service to give them the advanced work for one year and they debated institutions. They debated between Stanford and Cal, and they took Stanford. Their justification didn't satisfy me, but this is the criticism they made. They wanted not specific training in the field that the man is already working in, the bureau or department could give them that. What they want is to widen his horizon. They had a criticism that the public service departments, public administration, specialize too much in the mechanics and not enough about the philosophy, and so on, and that Stanford fulfills that more nearly. Well, I argued the point, but I had no material on which I could base a legitimate argument, not knowing what either one of them were doing excepting guessing. [Laughter] But I thought I would make an argument anyway. I'd hoped it would come. I do want to impress one other thing: Throughout the discussions so far as I've had with all the deans that I've known, of course, very personally, I was happy to find a response and reaction that California should aim not to see how many foresters it could produce in a decade, but rather produce quality. And they'd have to get across to the administration that it should be judged not by numbers but by quality. Therefore, I emphasized that study on where have the graduates of California gone, and have their men after twenty years reached important positions in the professions as compared to other schools that base it on volume, on a percentage basis to see where we stand. And the other thing I emphasize that I hope more will be done — and that's why I mentioned about McArdle--there 's no institution that does a thing that old Yale did; Yale aimed, you know, to produce men for public service. Changes have taken place. There's no one institution now in forestry that makes that as one of its big aims, and I have been FROM ED KOTOK'S PERSONAL SNAPSHOT COLLECTION Regional Forester Show Regional Forester S. Bevier Show, brother-in-law to Kotok. Richard E. McArdle "Doc" Emile Meinecke 205 Kotok: hoping — and I call public service, those that go into teaching, a public service as well—and I am hoping that the California Forestry S chool will strive to produce those leaders of the profession. It has already done enough in that, but it continue that more vigorously, and [to have] more things to attract men who seek that kind of a career. Forestry in the United States in the last analysis will only go as far as its leaders will motivate public action, its leaders will motivate public action. And I think it's important, then, that the schools who produce foresters have the finest talent and that men that go into public service jobs, either in federal or state, will be men who still have daring, who see that for the next three decades at least, that forestry is still under test and under pressure in many directions. And it's even more important. Everybody now is riding the merry-go-round, they have discovered land use. Foresters have been concerned with that from the very beginning when it first classified what should be national forest. That was the first illustration of land use on a grand scale — 190,000,000 acres of land they had to set aside in less than three months. The job was done rather hurriedly. [Laughter] So some little errors must have crept in. So this appraisal of what land shall be used for, it touches us in every way. We think, you see, that the problem is merely in suburbia as we think of it, the problem is merely whether we fill the Bay or we don't fill the Bay. It's present clear through the whole breadth of our land areas, and the foresters' approach is guided by one basic principle of forestry that I hope foresters still accept as their code: The greatest good for the greatest number in the long run. And when you take that shibboleth, it is full of meaning. It reflects, you see, what we're trying to do with land use because of the time element "in the long run." And foresters have been looking always-- we, as a profession, have the longest denominator. There's only one profession that has more than that and that's the clergy. They think even of the hereafter. [Laughter] Fry: I wanted to ask you something that I've missed in this, and maybe it is implied throughout your story of the forestry school. It seems to me in most professional schools, you're always dealing with the problem of the academic disciplines versus the more applied courses of study, and I wondered if this had ever become a sharpened issue. • • , - ' • • - . ' • II ; • ' • . .. i • • i . , i . • •• • • • . . . ' • • • • ; • : ' ' n i bn ' it ' • 206 Kotok: Fry: Kotok; Casamajor : Kotok: This is a development in forestry. You remember I mentioned first that foresters originally were drawn from all professions and then [they took] two years of intensive work in forestry. So we were not, then, confronted in the very early days with the breadth of our men, and whether men had humanities , whether they could write English, or whether they could use humanities as part of their schooling. Because you had it. We had it. So we started off. Now the unfortunate thing happened as soon as we started to have forestry schools per se. And that [is that] they gave, you know, from freshman clear through to graduate, then, the curriculum. [And it] became quite important. In order to crowd in, you see, the forestry subjects — particularly those that attempted to give it in four years — they were immediately confronted, then, with sacrificing the humanities and other basic thing that foresters before that had acquired in the general education process. Now some of the schools resisted that and went to the five years. Some of the schools that resisted it only took graduates. The outstanding one — there are two. One is Duke and the other one is Yale. Those are the two that we know. California has been going through the process and probably has arrived at a five year curriculum. Perhaps. But it hasn't been settled. Now the good thing about it is that they do encourage a fifth and sixth year, but unfortunately it doesn't furnish the other things that we're talking about, the humanities and so on. They know a great deal more about techniques, about specialization, but they lack something that professional men should have — and even medicine is recognizing that now — and that is more of the humanities. It's one of the unfortunate things. That's the trouble now. It's a great dilemma, and anything that they do is a compromise, You see, there is also the urge to get out and get a job. Well, we had it before. Excepting this: I related, you recall, that we that took forestry the first time didn't know whether we'd have a job. There was no promise, you know, that there would be any jobs. We took it on happen- chance, on daring, and students, people, were more 207 Kotok: Casamajor : Kotok: Casamajor: Kotok: Casamajor ; Kotok: Fry: venturesome, perhaps. Some are still venturesome, but the great bulk are influenced by "see the whites of the eyes before you shoot" and have a little sack hidden away. So, security. This is what the schools are confronted with. Now how can they compensate? There are a number of ways of compensating. This is the suggestion that I have made, and it's hard to work. I suggested to my California colleagues, particularly in Baker's period because it was a good period — there were a lot of Gl's coming back and that was a fine period where you could make a lot of changes—why don't you go out, instead of getting men who started in forestry, and go around the campus and find prospects who already have two or three years in another college, and then take them on. The forestry school here hasn't explored that one. We're just beginning to, and we're getting some that way. They're becoming disillusioned with other disciplines. But you don't want to fall into that trap. For example, [Joel Henry] Hildebrand came to Mulford. I relate this story so it can go into history. And said, "One of my boys is doing very well in chemistry; another boy is so and such, but, you know, X"--I won't give his name, it wouldn't be fair--"he's a little dumber of the lot. I think he'd fit into forestry." A lot of boys are in agriculture, which has become a dumping ground for near dropouts, and forestry picks up some in this way, marginal students. Remind me to give you the story of the fight to keep forestry on the Berkeley campus and not to send it to Davis. There was a fight on that; there were two or three attempts to shove us onto Davis, and fortunately Mulford- -Mulford carried more power than he realized. He could have done far more things. He had the respect, the regard, but he never exercised all the power that he had . He had a great many statesmen qualities. Oh, yes . Did you want to mention anything more about Dean Baker? 208 Casamajor: About how he went from acting dean to dean? Kotok: Well, yes. A great number started along the same age, classes, and so on. They continued on, and not having enough money weren't able to build up subsequent men that were to fill positions—not having enough money for expansion so that there would be jobs for underlings-- and the forestry school suffered from that same disease. Not expanding, they had to keep on the staff that they started with and therefore they found themselves periodically at one period all retiring at one time, which meant continuity was broken, and even more seriously, men had not been graded so that they could take responsible jobs in the college by experience and exposure to the system. The University of California and the forestry school perhaps and other departments (if we'd examine, it would probably be the same thing) suffered very seriously from this. The only thing I challenge Mulford on, I think he could have been more aggressive and gotten more money to have had other teachers. That's the only weak spot in the whole thing. He hated to ask for money. He was the most timid man ever; you had to egg him on. Casamajor: Unless Baker was more timid. Kotok: Oh, brother. [Laughter] INTERVIEW VII The Experiment Station, Its Effect on and Relation to the School of Forestry; Further Remarks About Dean Mulford. (Recorded October 29, 1963) Kotok: Fry: Kotok: I indicated in the beginning, the professors were forced to use largely the texts that they received in their own schooling. Later, as research continued to grow both through the national forest experiment station and the publications that resulted from it and independent research that was underway in many of the universities and also publications, the material available then for teaching became greater in scope and more significant. It was from work done in the United States rather than the earlier teaching texts that were drawn from French or German or European forestry practice. So through the course of time, then, we built up enough material from American forestry so that American experience became more widely available to the teaching staffs of the forestry schools, and naturally California profited by it. I also indicated there were some firsts in California that California can be very proud of. It was the first to definitely place range work, under Sampson-- You mean to establish this as a field of study? Yes, a field of study, a discipline, on range, definitely as part of a forestry school. It was the first also to set up forest influences when Kittredge came from the Forest Service to California. It was the first to start economics with Josephson, the first one, a graduate of California with rich experience at the experiment station in forest economics. I also had indicated that while foresters undertook many economic studies, there were very few trained economists available in the Forest Service to really cover the material from the standpoint of an economist. So these firsts are worthwhile noting. 210 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: In each case, the cues that followed in these specialized fields came better prepared for teaching in that specialized discipline than those that started. There's another first that's well to note—two other firsts well to note. Fire control, the whole field of fire protection was also undertaken as a first in California, under Keith Arnold. So it's well, then, to note the teaching expanded in California in the Forestry School as men prepared in specialized parts of the discipline were available for such teaching. They became prepared? They became prepared either by research or having been connected with an experiment station of the United States Forest Service, which gave them an opportunity to specialize within a narrow f ield--specif ic discipline. Another first, not a first, a complementary thing was the establishment later of the Forest Products Laboratory in California. Again they drafted a number of men from the United States Forest Service, from the Madison Laboratory. The first one to' undertake that work was Dr. [Arthur B.] Anderson and Fred E. Dickinson. The expansion of the school in the specific disciplines in forestry in themselves, while important, it's well to note too that the University in its overall facilities for teaching in other disciplines made possible specialized studies by graduate students in forestry, in the field of forest soils under [Geoffrey B.] Bodman, [Charles F.] Shaw, and a Swiss whose name I forget. The same was true in plant physiology. Dr. [Dennis] Hoagland was available for forestry graduate work in that. Under him, Dick Meyerhoff [?] took his doctorate in plant physiology. In toto then, the UC School of Forestry has been slowly but progressively been able to build up rounded curriculums covering the major disciplines, subdisciplines in forestry. It is well prepared, then, to give any specialization that the graduate students may desire. What is true for graduate school — of course, that is true to a lesser degree, the availability of [a] fuller curriculum, for undergraduates in forestry school as well. I had commented earlier that the question rose many times that forestry belonged properly in an agricultural college and should have been placed in Davis. But consistently each of the forestry deans in the 211 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: School of Forestry have been able to withstand the pressures in that direction. The only close contact with Davis as far as the forestry school is concerned is that men that take range work are encouraged to take a couple of years of specialized work at Davis. What lies ahead in the future no one knows, but apparently the School of Forestry is a fixture now at Berkeley. Where did the pressure come from? The pressure came from the faculty at Davis itself; they thought that forestry belonged there. It was never a very strong pressure, but they tried — Was it more faculty than administration? The administration was never for it; they supported the Berkeley setup rather than transferring to Davis. Do you mean the Davis administration was never for it? Yes, yes, was for it. Two or three of the deans always felt that forestry belonged there. Personally, I think it would have been a mistake because while forestry is an agricultural enterprise in one aspect, it has so many other areas which forestry students must cover that Berkeley is better suited to fill those needs. Whether forestry schools will be started in other branches of the University is not certain. There was a movement at one time to build a forestry school at UCLA. That was promoted by Dr. Olenus L. Sponsler, who was the botanist there and a forester by training, but it never developed. Specialized work at some of the branches may develop. For example, at Riverside the Pacific Southwest Experiment Station is developing cooperative work with the University there. It may specialize in certain fields. It may specialize there in fire control because that is important in Southern California, and perhaps in forest influences. But that's still very indefinite. I now want to devote my comments to Walter Mulford, as I knew him and my relationships with him throughout my active period in forestry. I first met Mulford in September 1909 when I entered for graduate work at the University of Michigan. He was then a member of the faculty, but did not have full professorship then. I 212 recall that first meeting very well. I had just arrived by train, and I hadn't been able to change to field clothes. Professor Mulford had set up a field trip for the first meeting of the class, and there I was with a derby hat and what we used to call henskin [?] shoes, thin shoes, and my best bib and tucker. I met the class at the appointed place in the countryside, and Mulford greeted us, took the roster of those present — there were about thirty of us — and we started off on a tramp through woodlands — brush. I was much more concerned about my clothes than any other activity the professor might have had in mind, trying to save my hat, trying to keep from ripping my good clothes. After a walk of about an hour and a half, briskly, up the little slopes, down the little slopes and through brush, we sat down and he handed us pads and the question was, "I want you to write down what you saw. " I recall having written, "Not knowing what to look for, I didn't see very much except certain discomforts in trying to get through the brush." Mulford used that for many years until I finally kicked about it, as an intro duction to opening classes to show that unless we know what we're looking for, we don't see very much. I remember many of the others had written down naming the vegetation they saw and many specific things. The object of that trip was very definite. He had in mind to indicate what probably by happenstance I had voiced, to direct our attention that we not only must go with open minds and with eyes and ears alert, but we must have some definite purposes for scanning the areas in which a forester is likely to work. He was as I recall tall and lanky and lean, a splendid walker, and he walked on that particular trip at a very rapid pace. The younger men with him had all they could do just to keep up with him. He was very proud of his agility at getting through the woods. The courses that he gave at that time that I had the pleasure of taking with him were silviculture, and he also gave some courses, not extensive, in forest economics and forest policy. Those were two sets of courses he gave. But the more important really was the silviculture. His texts were probably drawn from what he had gotten from Fernow at Cornell and his own avid reading in European texts to complement the need for a full course in silviculture. Fry: I noticed that he had one year experience in the Forest Service before he went into teaching. Did he draw on that very much? 213 Well, of course all his experience was grist to the mill. He had a little research work, and then he had been the first appointed state forester in Connecticut. But primarily he was dealing in the field of silviculture, based on European experience plus whatever he had gotten from Fernow. His text was really a classical text with the material available at that time. It was very little. We only had big generalizations . Silviculture deals with the art of growing and harvesting a forest crop. In the American scene we were confronted, not like some of the European countries, particularly Germany, where they started through generations of having grown the crop from seedlings. We found natural forests which had to be converted to managed forests. So, our task in America was far more difficult than the long historical development in European forestry. We had to start with a variety of types, where Europe had few types. We had probably forty to fifty important types. We had natural forests in various conditions of health and age, largely all-aged, not even-aged, as were European forests. Mulford was confronted with giving us some idea of the various types of forests that foresters would have to meet in America and the possible methods of silviculture that one could use to convert these virgin forests to managed forests. Of course, he also gave us the background of afforestation, starting from a zero point in growing forests, including nursery practice and so on. Speaking of his capacity as a teacher, when we assembled in a classroom, the first thing that he did was to find out those that were hard of hearing and those that were shortsighted, and put them in favorable positions in relation to the podium. The first thing. Very few teachers that I've known have taken that care. He was meticulous and the room would be completely aired before the class would arrive, and winter or summer, or whatever time of the year it might be, all the windows would be opened and fresh air would be permitted to circulate through. Thus, he recognized as a teacher that the capacity to absorb learning depended on the physical condition of the student. He also recognized elements of fatigue, and though his lectures lasted around fifty minutes, if it was very exacting we'd have a breathing spell and we'd all stand up and stretch. We used to call it the seventh inning stretch. Fry: He didn't have many people sleeping in his classes? 214 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: No. The important thing is, as far as I know, he had never had the mechanics of teaching, pedagogy, but instinctively he recognized some of the requirements for maintaining the attention of the class. The environment for growing scholars is as important as the environment for growing trees . That's right. Then, he did another thing that was quite important. There were very few texts. Therefore, each teacher had to prepare practically a text. He could give us references to published stuff. Mulford found out that some of us were adept in French or German, and he would give us references , encourage us to read texts in the European languages and would see that those books were available in the library to borrow. He found that I was reasonably adept in German, so I began to read German forestry books from the very beginning. Each man had his own special task, and I covered the works of an old, old forester named [Heinrich Von] Cotta. Then Mulford gave this extracurricular work and asked us to prepare a paper, and he'd review with us the paper in the light of his own knowledge of the text. This widened our own interest and gave us an inkling of some of the forestry practices. I mention that because I don't know of any professor that I ever had who impressed me more in his grasp of creating interest and maintaining interest in a scholar. He laboriously worked out outlines in innumerable divisions, starting with Roman numbers and going down, subdivided to capital letters and small letters and Arabic numbers. We could then fill in within this outline the textual material that he developed in his lectures. This, then, formed a rather complete text. He didn't leave it to happenchance that students from his lectures would be able to segregate and unify from his lectures and unify the material into a reasonable entity and whole. Not many professors have gone through that agony. So when we started we had this written outline in front of us. You'll remember that there weren't available many mimeograph machines, but he'd have a processed paper for us. He had the happy faculty of knowing how to time himself. He didn't permit diversions to cramp his style in completing a lecture and the material that he intended to give in the time period set. So that each lecture was a logical devel opment of the outline he had given us and would fully 215 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Mrs. Kotok: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: cover the major heading and subheadings. If there were questions, instead of interrupting his lecture and sequence of events, he preferred that we defer the questions to another session which he would devote to questions and answers on texts that we had had. Therefore, his lectures were clear-cut, definite, with great precision. Some criticized him, that it lacked spontaneity. Perhaps it did. But what we gained in continuity and completeness more than repaid for spontaneity. He never permitted himself any light touch, it was a serious business. He didn't permit himself some light joke to lighten the spirit of the moment as many professors find it important to do. The lecture was the thing. He didn't show signs of wanting to be a showman. None whatever. He was a serious minded lecturer, who took his text seriously and gave unstintingly. In discussing in later years his preparation for those lectures, he told me that he never felt he could give a lecture competently unless he had spent at least eight hours in preparation, and that he never used his old notes without reviewing them again for at least eight hours to see whether he wanted to change, or bring in new material, or give emphasis at points his previous lecture might have slighted. He was a craftsman. Those were happy years, working with Mulford. He did a number of other things. It was more customary, then, than it is now for the professors to have open house. The Mulfords had open house at Michigan, and groups of us would gather there on a Sunday about teatime. Mrs. Mulford was a splendid hostess, and growing boys had good appetities. She would have some smacks we would enjoy. Snacks, not smacks. [Unperturbed] Well, you smack 'em. Anyway, the discussions generally dealt with the development of the political aspects in forestry, either on the national scene or in the state of Michigan. Along about that time there was the Gifford-Pinchot thing — 1911. There were a lot of things brewing then. Both Professor and Mrs. Mulford were very considerate of the students and 216 Kotok: would ask us about our personal problems, and whatever way they could be helpful. In the course that Mulford gave on the economics of forestry, he followed Fernow's book of forest economics, which was really not an economics book at all but was a hodge-podge of policy development. It had a lot of rich material that one could use for discussion. In giving that course he would give us an assignment to read certain chapters, and then he would enlarge on that from his own observations as to the events reported by Fernow. I would say that it fell far short of being an economics course, but it had a lot of historical importance. We never discussed with him a code of ethics for foresters because Mulford in his actual own life was an open book of what ethics should be. Being a Quaker I imagine that he believed that each to himself had to recognize his conscience, his relationship to society, his relationship to Deity. He never discussed outright the philosophy of a forester. However, in relating the stories of some of the then leaders in forestry, he related the political pressures under which forestry had to work, and that political mistakes made by foresters, even if it's in the best forestry interest, might vitiate and com pletely destroy what the forester was aiming to do. This was particularly true when he told the story of Fernow's attempt to develop forestry in the state of New York, where he ran into political pressures because he wanted to try a system of cutting following German formulas of clear-cutting and starting new forests against the serious objections of wealthy groups of New Yorkers, who had property in the Adirondacks and were violently opposed to any kind of cutting in the Adirondacks. He used that as a text to show that foresters do not work in a vacuum, that they must be very conscious of public opinion, and that we as the coming generation of foresters would be confronted more with winning public support, maintaining a code of ethics as to our responsibility for the common good against various forces, whether they would be lumbermen or others that were anxious to misuse forest lands. Unless we had public support, which later would have to be translated into political action by government both on the state and federal level, forestry would exist only in name and would have no place to practice. Fry: And that public support would have to come first. 217 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Yes, so he was very cognizant. That too represented the general viewpoint of Professor Filibert Roth, the dean of the school, whom Mulford regarded highly. Roth emphasized the job ahead for foresters which fitted in with the development that Mulford gave. If a forester wasn't prepared to carry on the mission of what Roth called "sheer propaganda," of winning public support, he'd better leave forestry and go into some other activity. Mulford also indicated, and so did Roth, that it would be a long time before many of us would be able to put into practice the lessons we were getting in management and silviculture. Our first task, and the only available jobs, then, were in the national forests and a few of the states, would be to organize these units for management plan, and our first effort would have to be protection against fire, insects, and trespass. He cautioned us that the day would come sooner than we'd expect when the things we had learned as book texts would be needed by us in order to actually practice forestry. We'd have a decade or more ahead of putting properties into general protection and management before we could go into involved silvicultural methods. To show the ingenuity of Mulford, most of us graduates would likely go to the West, where the national forests were, and we'd be dealing with conifers. Around Ann Arbor there were not many conifer stands, except those that had been planted. We had wood lots to work in that had mixed hardwood types. To teach us various silvicultural methods, selection system, clear-cutting system, various variations of these, Mulford would go out into this woodlot and put labels on the trees as though they represented conifer types that we were studying. So you had to use maples for pines. [Laughter] So we had — I can well recall — this mixed hardwood type — oaks, maples, about seven or eight other varieties. And we called it in one study — I recall very well, it was a type I later worked in — a yellow pine type, and he called them all yellow pine trees. And then assuming that the crown and position and the stand of these hardwoods reflected conifers, we were to indicate how we would mark for a given system, assuming that these were pines. We went through fir that way, too. So he worked up this clever device of converting what he had to western forest. Later about that same year, to compensate for the failure to work in conifer types, the Michigan Forestry School 218 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: selected an area on the upper peninsula where a summer school was given. In my period there was no summer school. All of us went out between sessions and secured jobs on national forests. So we came back, all of us, after the first year. When one summer we were all able to get jobs, on my job I went to the Gunnison Forest in Colorado cruising timber. As each came back Mulford and Roth as well wove in our individual experiences and reactions in what I would call a seminar, involving the observations of students in my class who had been scattered all the way from the Canadian border (some in Canada) clear through to the Mexican border. Among the group, we had worked in every one of the national forest districts. These seminars were extracurricular, they were taken not out of the regular lecture period, but we assembled in our forestry school, which was held in a converted residence on Ann Street. Most of our lectures were there. We had lectures also on the campus, but most of our lectures were given in a converted residence alongside the campus. Well, so these deep impressions that were left on me of Mulford were such that I continued more or less of a correspondence with him through the years. I was particu larly disturbed when they lost their first-born boy; that was quite a shock to them. Then, I followed his career when he went back to restart the school at Cornell, but I think it would be best, then, for me to pick up where I again worked closely with him, with the establishment of the California Forest and Range Experiment Station in 1928, on the campus. Then, I shall cover the years for '27, '28, to 1940, and thereafter. I might just mention here in that same year, my notes have it that he became a member of the California State Board of Forestry, in 1928. Yes, I'll cover that. From about '22 to "27 I was in contact with Mulford because my own field of work covered, then, fire protection and relationships with states in the national forest administration. Mulford became active in state forestry and later became a member of the state board, but even before he became a member of the state board, a group of us would meet trying to promote state forestry. Among this group was [S. Bevier] Show, [E.P.] Meinecke, myself, Mulford, and generally we would tie in with one or two representing the lumber associations Rex Black was one of them. Then, we were also very active in the State Chamber of Commerce, which under Norman Sloan, a forester, had grown in importance — the State Chamber I'm speaking of-- and had set up a conservation department headed by [Charles 219 Kotok: G.] Dunwoody. Now Mulford was very active with this ad hoc group. We participated in the regional and annual meetings of the State Chamber and made sure that there was a good program on forestry. Mulford was very helpful in developing the agendas for these meetings. They generally were directed towards three things, in those early days. One was overall need for better fire protection on federal, state, and private lands. Secondly, there was a beginning of an interest in the effect of denudation of watersheds on runoff and f loods--although no forestry work in that field was even being carried on in California at that time, we anticipated. The third group of things that we discussed, sometimes acrimoniously, was that we ought to be able to secure better forest practice on private lands. This was the beginning of the discussions whether we would need state and federal regulation dealing with the method of harvesting forest crops from private lands. In connection with fire control, it was this ad hoc group that was able to promote placing compulsory fire control in the state of California so that all owners of forest lands had to provide themselves, or in cooperation with federal or state agencies, fire protection for the areas that they owned. You'll note, then, that this covers a rather wide scope of activities. Mulford was not an originator of ideas; that wasn't his strong point. But he had the fine capacity of listening and digesting the pros and cons of arguments advanced by proponents or whatever it might be, and he had a fine sense of values and being courteous and a gentleman always, he never irritated when he suggested changes or even disagreement with the basic argument that might be advanced. I would say he leaned over backwards to make sure he was not dominating a discussion. He made sure that he was as fair as he could be, although he had some very fixed philosophy. Nevertheless, he approached it with as open a mind as he could. I personally, and Show as well, found him very helpful in going over proposals that we would advance either for the meetings of the State Chamber of Commerce or proposals for legislation. We found him helpful not only in weighing the evidence but also in sharpening up our arguments and reducing emotionalism that might be unfortunately exposed in advancing our position. So he had what I would call a sobering effect, and I used his help often. 220 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Mrs. Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Mrs. Kotok: Kotok: To give you an indication of Mulf ord , we were trying to promote the stature of the state forester; we were trying to egg him on to be more aggressive. At that time Merritt Pratt was state forester. He had been on Mulford's staff at the beginning. In order to dress up the image of Merritt Pratt, we proposed to write a little booklet to be published by the state indicating the general problems that the state was confronted with, the task ahead to improve conditions, and to insure progressively that our forest lands would be put under management regardless of ownership. It fell to my lot to be the author of the text, and I enjoyed doing it. It was reviewed, then, by Meinecke, who was a very excellent weigher of words and also of ideas, and I dressed that down, then. Then Show reviewed it, and I incorporated his suggestions. Then I brought it to Mulford as the last one--he was then on the state board of f orestry--and he made some suggestions. But that is an important thing. We hadn't known who the authors would be shown on the text. But Mulford came up with this idea: In view of the fact that we were trying to build up Pratt, why don't we turn over the text and let him publish it under his own name. And Pratt had never written a single word of it. I remember doing it, and on the side, my wife wasn't too happy about it, but it was a nice publication and Pratt was very happy. I'm merely indicating Mulford's approach. This was a joint venture of the School of Forestry and state forestry and the National Forest Service? That's right. Well, I had state and private, you see, my special job. Show was national forest, but it all worked out. I wrote the text and I incorporated the changes. I worked hard on it. That was an extracurricular job, but I enjoyed doing it. I've forgotten the name of the text, whatever it was, it was very well received. May I interrupt? I don't know if you have told Chita about-- I think it was this period — the thing you were commended for getting cooperative agreements. For fire protection? You mean Mulford? No, you. At that time, I've given my own story, I was given the job to try to get some better relationships between private owners, between the states, between the national forests. 221 Kotok: So I was called-- Fry: A liaison? Kotok: Well, to bring agreement. So it was, as a matter of fact, a job beyond the call of duty. I enjoyed it and I enjoyed the contacts it gave me with men that carried responsible positions, but more than that, my own chiefs recognized the value of my work as a matter of fact. So I felt per fectly well satisfied that these were not thankless jobs but in the line of duty, and Greeley and others recognized the value of that work. So this period before I became director of the experiment station, I had continuous contact with Mulford, that period at least immediately after the First World War to 1928. I visited, of course, at the school frequently, but it was specific jobs that we were engaged in. Then, I've already related how we selected California as the place for the location of the California Forest and Range Experiment Station, now called the Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Mulford wasn't there on some of the interviews we had on the campus. Dr. [Arthur W.] Sampson represented him, [and there were] Dean Merrill of the College of Agriculture and W.W. Campbell, President of the University, and Bob Sproul, who was then comptroller. When we arrived there, of course, Mulford tried to make things as comfortable as he could for us. We started in a humble way. We had three rooms in Hilgard Hall; they were partitioned off so we could make four rooms out of the three. Whatever facilities Mulford had were available to us. They didn't have very many facilities either, the forestry school, at that time until later. I was to be placed on the forestry faculty, and in order to avoid all the mechanics of that, they found an easier device to give me status. And Mulford had me placed as consultant in the agricultural experiment station, which gave me status then. From the very beginning, then, I sat in as a staff member of the forestry school, in their conferences and all. It was also agreed that whatever staff members I had on the experiment station would be available for guidance of graduate students, particularly, and for occasional lectures if it fitted in with our own work. So the ties became very close, and I felt, then, that I was equally a member of the faculty of the forestry school as I was of the federal institution. And I was so accepted by the President of the University and particularly by Dean Hutchison, who was very 222 Kotok: kind and considerate [and] valued my information. Between Mulford and the dean, I was even placed, then, on many committees of the academic senate. So I participated in the university activities from the very beginning. It took time, but I was more concerned—so was Mulford--in how we could build a forestry school. Now it so happened at that time that the forestry pro fessors did not mix with other schools on the campus. By good fortune, in my own proclivities for widening my interests I made early contacts with deans of other schools, very close ones. I began early to work closely with Dr. Baldwin Woods, then in engineering, and the Irishman, Mike [?], in engineering. So I made ties with the engineering school, which later became important when the New Deal came in. I made also close ties with [Dennis R. ] Hoagland, with [Ralph Works] Chaney in paleontology, [George D.] Louderback in geology, [Charles B. ] Lipman in the graduate school, Dean [Monroe E.] Deutsch — although I wasn't interested in Latin — on general things. Mulford encouraged that. He wanted the other professors to widen their interests. This is now very common; it wasn't then. They were a little closed shop working by themselves. Mulford had a very definite idea in promoting this widening of horizons. He felt that forestry was not accepted as a very defined science. It was not accepted as a discipline or as a profession, and we had to build up its stature on the campus itself. Then in discussions with Mulford as to building this stature, when I came there, worst things that happened to forestry by misfortune or accident, whatever it was, we hadn't created enough Ph.D's. Without a Ph.D. on the California campus at that time, you hadn't arrived. Then our task was to get the maximum number of Ph.D. 's — not that they added anything to the stature of the individual. There were many men in forestry, particularly in the national forest system of experiment stations that had contributed in their fields and had written texts far in advance of anything any individual getting his doctorate could prepare for his thesis. But that wasn't it. It had to go through the machinery of getting that hood on, and without that hood, forestry wouldn't have stature. So from the very beginning, then — and I want to note that — Mulford and I tried everything we could to induce foresters to take the advanced work for the doctorate. Now as far as the experiment station was concerned, we would offer every facility we had to help them. We would give the students summer jobs to expand not only the text material they might want for their thesis, but we would give them additional income so that they could continue. The forestry school didn't have many scholarships available for that purpose at that time. The most important one they 223 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: had was the Baker scholarship; I think that was $1200. To get a married man to leave a job, to undertake two years or three years for a doctorate, two years minimum, was asking an awful lot. So we had to have facilities. We didn't have available what they have now, all these federal grants. So we worked another device; there was some work going on at the station for which we could draw state money. It dealt with Wieslander's state type map. Therefore, this money that we would secure plus some additional aid, the agreement I had with the State Board of Forestry, we could use that to supplement any kind of research work that the station would do to supplement research work for which there wasn't sufficient federal money. The type map was one, and others. We had about $50,000 a year on that, or more, of state money, and we used that, then, to finance graduate students. And a good many of those who got their doctorates were financed by that state money for additional work. I've already covered some of them. The point that I'm trying to make about Mulford is that he recognized that forestry had to get more doctorate degrees to get status and standing on a university campus. Did you go with Mulford to faculty senate meetings? Not often. I wondered what his status was there. He had high standing as a person. He wasn't too aggressive; he wouldn't fight sometimes too hard. He avoided issues rather than clashing. He was mostly concerned at that time, except when he acted as dean of the College of Agriculture during the war, with a narrow point of view. But Dean Hutchison had a very high regard for him, Dean [Elmer Drew] Merrill had a very high regard for him. Then, the next period we have out of a clear sky a big grant was given by Giannini for opening up the Giannini Foundation and widening the field of economics work in the University. Mulford and I worked with Dean Hutchison to get the experiment station and the forestry school placed in Giannini Hall. That was a remarkable move for us. We were growing at a great pace, and we took one floor, the third floor, it was all for forestry. We invited John Miller [?] of entomology to join us on the third floor. Then we had some space on a lower floor. So we located, then, in Giannini Hall. Our ties were, of course, very close, then; we were in the same building, we met with frequency. It had one design, this arrangement; one, to strengthen the 224 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: forestry school by giving the professors facilities to do their own research work at any of the field stations of the experiment station. So Kittredge worked in Strawberry Canyon on the Berkeley campus. He worked also in the Pinecrest area on the Stanislaus. Krueger worked in Black's Mountain and on the study. Sampson worked with us on the San Joaquin Range. So these facilities gave the professors a wider opportunity to do a specialized job on their own research and to publish on their own. Also it was arranged that the experiment station itself would produce; we could publish cooperatively under University print, and a number of our circulars came out in University print, particularly those in which a forestry professor was involved. So it was mutual exchange. It was easier to publish through the University frequently than under the Department of Agri culture because Merrill, who was the editor here, was easier to get through. Oh , I see . It was an easier editorial embargo. [Laughter] It was much more complicated at the Department of Agriculture? Yes, it had to go through many hands. This was all designed to identify the station as part of the facilities of the school, hoping to attract better talent as students. And through that we were able to get a number of men who probably might not have come to California excepting for the fact that they had a chance of gettin g a job at the station and a chance also, then, to participate with the station in selecting a thesis. We were very generous in letting them take part of our work for their thesis. Josephson did that; Zivnuska did that, quite a number of them. Was this done in other schools? No, the only other school that did something like that was Minnesota, Zon at Minnesota. The one at Yale broke down, and they moved out from Yale. The one at the University of Pennsylvania broke down. At Oregon they never tried it. California, then, was the envy of the other stations, but none of them tried hard nor had the possibilities. I think some of them made a mistake not tying in immediately with a college that way. It was there to be had and we worked it. It was one of mutual value, but primarily to build better research, to build better students that might enter the forestry field. And forestry, I personally have held, is no 225 Kotok: better than the corps of men that they draft, and the schools are responsible for training those men. Fry: Was Mulford very deft, then, in working arrangements like this through the higher echelons in the University and getting them approved? Kotok: No, he had a good following. He had to be egged on a little bit. As I say, Mulford was not an idea man. Someone would have to promote the idea. But he was responsive to me, and I was very sympathetic to his point of view. Well, it would be unfair to say whether I was loyal or disloyal with him. I was completely honest with him; when I differed with him it was aboveboard. We never masked anything. I didn't have to have any pretensions. And he likewise with me. When he differed, he differed — kindly, respectful. We never passed an off-color joke. Never in my life time. Foresters are sometimes tempted to express something in an off -color way, but never in my life time — Fry: Apparently he made people feel they could voice differing opinions to him. Kotok: That's right. So he had this remarkable Quaker conscience, and Quaker concern. He and I differed politically, for example. He was an ardent Republican and I was an ardent Democrat. We'd accept that difference. Once in a while we'd josh each other about improving his party, but that's about as far as we went. We never allowed it to become a problem between us — points of view. We were concerned with forestry. Fry: I got the idea that Mulford felt that federal control of private forests might be — Kotok: He was opposed to going the whole way. He was for state control. He was willing to accept the formula I had hoped would go through when I was in Washington. I'll cover that a little later. At the early stages we thought of state control, which we did get through, and then it was wiped out. Then we were going to figure how we could get some cutting regulations on private land. We were in the area of merely exploring what the response would be. Many of the forestry schools were tempted to sell their birthright for a little gift — and what I'm talking about is that the lumber industry occasionally would grant some scholarship or grant some little aid involving a commitment that the school would go easy in criticizing malpractice on private lands. Mulford never fell into that trap. He differed with one of his colleagues, Fritz, who acted as consultant for the redwood industry and wanted to encourage financial aid from the industry. Mulford had 226 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry; no price tag. He wouldn't accept scholarships from an industry? He preferred not to work for them. There were some later offers that he accepted because the student was already in and the father had left some money. But he wasn't looking for that kind of money. He made one mistake that I chided him about. The Pack Foundation wanted to start a field sta tion tied in with most of the forestry schools , and one of the younger Packs came to California to confer with Mulford, who wanted that very badly. This was a case where I had in formation through Tom Gill, who was very close to the Packs, on the approach that Mulford should take with this younger Pack. In carrying out my mission, I conveyed this point of view to Mulford, but some way or other he resisted this. I almost felt like an intrusion. What was behind it I don't know. Nevertheless, he didn't carry out what we suggested and the Pack Foundation went up to Washington and didn't come here. We never mentioned it thereafter. Later he got some money and a piece of land from the Michigan-California lumber company, the Danahers , located on the El Dorado National Forest. So it worked out that way. So they have there a piece of property they can handle as an experimental forest. Mulford wanted that pretty badly, but it didn't work out. Another area where Mulford wasn't very clear what posi tion he would take, which Show and he were involved in, and I wasn't, dealt with to what extent the expansion of the national forests should be by purchase of forest lands that were in distress, particularly the redwoods. Mulford was never affirmative in either direction; he was very lukewarm toward the proposal, and that brought a little friction be tween him and Show. Not very serious, but there was a differ ence of opinion. Mulford was a great believer in the free enterprise system, but there was a certain inconsistency, because from his earliest lectures he emphasized the necessity of a substantial part of forest lands being under public control. He indicated that in France public lands were an important feature of their forestry; in the Scandinavian countries about 20% of their land — there was this little inconsistency, and yet fundamentally, without his ever defining it, he had great reverence for free enterprise. I think it was probably an aversion to Marxism and, later, communism. In that area he had feeling, but he hadn't explored it. There were a lot of shady spots in his thinking on that. Did you notice that he changed any to become more or less 227 Fry: liberal in his attitude toward free enterprise in the forest industry as time went on? Kotok: Well, I'm trying to indicate that I think he was muddy in that whole area. In ther period while I was still at the University he had a very definite idea that the U.S. has progressed because of the free enterprise system. This is speculation on my part, but I think it goes back to the Quakers. You know, Quakers have done very well financially. I don't know of any poor Quakers, in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. Now, they believe in integrity in business, and honesty, but the right to make a dollar and to see it grow is the pattern of American success. So most Quakers that I've known have been very successful in their financial affairs. So then, seeing Mulford as a Quaker, he wanted to maintain that formula of free enterprise, believing that with it you could have integrity, you could have conscience. He was not a believer in the buccaneers, the robber barons, but believed you could have the opportunity to prosper and conduct business , with integrity, conscience, and so forth, without regulation from government. Now I am trying to express as I see this man, this Quaker. And the Quakers had that reputation. He was confused in that area. Never having hit against social or economic strife, it was the general conscience of a Quaker for peace, harmony good will. Fry: Had he had any direct experience in working with forest mal practices? Kotok: I'd say none. Excepting as he observed it. He was never confronted with it. He worked toward improvement. His rela tionship with the lumber company was, perhaps we would need a law. Perhaps. He never gave up hope, you know, that man would finally find the wisdom for his own salvation to improve his acts on earth. Every year I was invited to the faculty conferences, but frequently when there was a very sharp issue at stake I found it advantageous to be out in the field. I didn't want to have to pass judgment directly or indirectly on conflicts that might have occurred. Fry: You mean to Mulford? Kotok: To Mulford. The advice that I tried to give in these meetings was on widening the scope of the curriculum to cover the new disciplines, an area in which I felt I had some competence 228 Kotok: in connection with running an experiment station. I would enter into the general fight on a four-year course not being sufficient to train an American forester, working for a five- year, or preferably even a six-year, course. When it came down to specific divisions of time and schedules I didn't feel I had any competence; I would never participate, and I wouldn't if the question came up of candidates for the school. I didn't want to be charged later with being pro or con. So I took a neutral position. A couple of unfortunate things happened to Mulford in this time, shows how he acted. There were two men on the staff — not at the same time, one followed the other — and some scandal arose as to personal actions of a staff member which led ulti mately to divorces. Mulford in those cases did not seek any advice from anyone; he never spoke of those cases to any member of the faculty, so far as I know. He resolved them by search ing his own heart and taking it up with the individuals involved and was able to get them to resign without scandal. As far as I know he never took up discipline or issued a rebuke of a staff member before the staff as a whole. When I brought to Mulford's attention that Fritz had been promoting a forestry school at Stanford that had come to my attention and that Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur was seeking my advice, Mulford was disturbed by this news. From certain things he told me later, Dean Hutchison would have preferred if Fritz had been forced to resign. But Mulford never did that. There's one thing I can't understand in this one instance; he took more abuse from Fritz than any dean is justified in taking. I would say that he gave the faculty, after agreement as to subject matter they were to teach, number of hours and periods, a completely free hand. To my knowledge he never interfered or suggested changes in their approach to students or activities. But that way he got himself into jams. Professor Harry Malms ten was not suited, for example, to teaching. He might have been, and he was, a very good research man, but he was a very poor teacher. Matter of fact, I was asked to pinch hit and give his course in fire protection. There again Mulford tried to prevent making an issue and sqeezing Malmsteen out. The method he used I can't tell you, because he never reported it, how he got men to leave. Whether he directly told them that they had to, I don't know, but I know he got altogether three men to resign. Another issue he supported me in: Fritz, who was then consultant — and still is — for the redwood industry, was taking exception to proposals by the U.S. Forest Service, and in 229 Kotok: support of the lumber industry, and was using University sta tionery ( You know that's happened now with the Secretary of the Navy.) and signing himself as professor in entering this issue. On the request of Show I took it up with Mulford, who in turn took it up with the president, and Fritz was instructed that he could not do that. He could not appear in a dual role. It wasn't a question of conflict of interest, but he was giving the reader the impression he was speaking as a professor of forestry. He could not speak as a spokesman of the redwood industry, as a professor. The year I spent as director of the experiment station was in closest tie with Mulford. He was helpful and consider ate, and without exacting a return price one could not but be generous and kind to him. After I left for Washington, I continued my contacts with him. This was from the forties to the fifties. Whenever I was in California I visited him. I'd bring him up to date on developments in the field. He'd bring me up to date on develop ments in forestry schools. The war troubled him. I assume again that was the Quaker in him. He wasn't happy about our being involved in the war. I never heard him express an opinion as a direct pacifist, but one could gather between his sentences that he felt that war in itself wouldn't solve anything. Perhaps he was correct. He never expressed an opinion against the dastardly deeds of Hitler, although I tried to pull him out on that. He just looked with horror at the whole thing. He knew I had some deep con cerns about Hitlerism. His concerns were great, outside him self, but he never sought to enter into conflicts. It wasn't because of timidity. I think it was merely his philosophy of life, that each one must approach the solution in his own way. He was very considerate in recognizing a good job done and generous in his praise. He was worried about, after the war, what jobs the forestry school would have to do. I discussed with him, at length, the certainty that there would be GIs returning to school — I used my own son as an illustration (he wanted to get his masters degree) — and there was early discussion about scholarship grants. I argued with Mulford that the schools ought to be preparing for this. To what extent he worked on that, I can't tell. I don't believe that the schools were prepared for the impact of all those GIs — California did a little better than some other schools in meeting the problem. If they wanted to, they had two or three years in advance. It was unfortunate. 230 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: I seem to have skipped the New Deal period. Mulford was much interested in the work of the CCC, a warm supporter of it. He felt it was a great thing not only for forestry it self, but for the rehabilitation of the needy and the destitute kids that were taken off the streets and put to work, was an important social move. He followed the advice of Bob Sproul, who was probably a strong Repbulican, anti-Roosevelt. The University had opportunities to get additional funds for con struction under WPA. Many other universities took advantage of it. California, because of the strong Republican Regents plus the president, was opposed to asking for any federal aid. We were self-contained and self -sustained. So we lost by that years and years of construction that we could just as well have had. It's very s trange , though , to see later when we got into nuclear physics we went hog-wild getting all sorts of help. That's an attitude that reflects probably the Regents as much as it does Bob Sproul. I raised that question with Mulford, and he said that was a subject he didn't want to touch on because he thought the administration had definite points of view. I had been traveling around and I saw a lot of other campuses taking ad vantage, and we could have done a lot of things. I wanted a forestry building myself, which we could have had, which was built later. Did Mulford ever run up against the high administration on any issue? On the campus? Yes. He sounds like such a gentle person. To my knowledge, he never did. I'll give you an illustration about a conflict. I stated that I used to get state money. And someway or other Mulford wanted that placed on — and it came independently to the station. It didn't go through the University budget. I'd discussed it with Sproul, he was the Controller. He said, "That's a fine thing. Then I don't have to show it against our budget. More power to you. Get all you can." So I'd arranged that you see with the Administration. Mulford wanted it placed into Forestry and then he'd give it to me. I said, "No, If you get it, it's your money and I want nothing of it." He kept fighting that. He took it up with Sproul. I appeared before Sproul and give him my point. He gave his point. No 231 Kotok: rancor or anything. After Mulford left, Bob Sproul sent a note out he wanted to see me. He said, "Forget about it. We'll carry it that way. It's the best way." Well, later Mulford persisted so much, I went to Sproul and said, "I'd like to have it transferred to the University. But I make this pre diction. It'll be dissipated and it won't be whole. He'll give five hundred dollars to this prof, and to this prof — and he'll have nothing to show." The thing I had to show was graduate students. I used it only for graduate students. That's what happened. The money went, was dissipated. Then was lost in the budget, and it completely wiped off. This was distinct money that I could control without asking anybody — anybody, you know. So then you see the joke about it was, I don't know what forced him to that — it wasn't envy — power — I don't know. I never explored that with him. I just let it go. And I had no hard feeling about it. Then we lost, you see, this opportunity for direct help. We had some, but not much. Fifty thousand dollars can go a long way. 232 INTERVIEW VIII The Forest Service and Power Companies; Claims — Swamp and Overflow; Kotok's Early Life. (Recorded November 5, 1963) Kotok: It might be well to cover the relationship of the Forest Service with the power groups. The two most important are perhaps the Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern Edison. The organic act by which the use of public lands could be made by power groups of course are fairly well known and written. In order to cross federal lands, the power companies have to get permits to carry their power line, and so forth, and where public water is in volved, or shore areas where reservoirs are to be built, then they have to get also a permit and also approval now by the federal power commission. So there are procedural requirements as to business that transpires between the Forest Service and the power companies. It is, however, interesting to note that the approach of the Forest Service toward the power companies was not one of con flict but determining how best the general conditions to pre serve the values that the Forest Service wanted to preserve could be made and still permit, of course, development of hydroelectric power in the state. The Forest Service has been rather fortunate in that the engineer, of the Forest Service, Walter Huber, quite a noted federal engineer — also very active in conservation movement, a member of the Sierra Club — and Frank E. Bonner, another very capable engineer, raised in Montana — worked here — understood the problems of the power companies but recognized, also, the question of protecting the public values that are involved in such developments. I might cover some of the kinds of problems in my own experience to illustrate how this relationship with the power companies developed. My earliest memories go back, of course, to the Western States Power and Electric Company, which later became the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. They had development under way in 233 Kotok : Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: the Eldorado National Forest when I was supervisor there. This involved a number of things: one, it was to carry water from the Lake Tahoe side over to the Sacramento side, which meant the overflooding of Desolation Valley and bringing the water from Desolation Valley into the American River. Desolation Valley had been a very high recreational area, and flooding parts of it would destroy its original character but would still retain a lot of fine recreational characteristics. I proposed then to the power group that they would help me finance the building of a trail and also markers signs, what ever else was necessary, in order to maintain the recreational values of Desolation Valley. And without any hesitation, they underwrote the full cost of the trail which we built into Desola tion Valley from Fallen Leaf Lake area, the other from Echo Lake into Desolation Valley. They also helped to finance a road into Echo Lake and there was no question about it. Their development in Twin Lakes on the Makonomee River also presented no difficulties in their underwriting the building of some trails and roads into the areas that were to be flooded then for recreational purposes. There never was any aversion on the part of the power groups to utilize impounded water for recreational purposes, and on the Sierra forest, an area I visited often, at Shaver Lake the Southen Edison turned it over to the Forest Service to be used for recreational purposes. So the attitude of the power companies towards maintaining recreational facilities on their developments presented no problems and generally, they were in agreement with the Forest Service. Did the Forest Service want to administer these? We preferred to, because then we had unified requirements, and so on. So it was by understanding that the Forest Service would take care of the camp grounds, although PG&E in one case, and Southern Edison, paid for the cost of making some of the minimum developments which were sanitation and bringing water to the camp grounds. Did the power companies ever pay anything toward maintenance and upkeep in the administration of the camp grounds? No, they did not. Whatever the Forest Service could do under its own appropriation, that was done, excepting they did help in the initial installations, for sanitation particularly for bringing water to the camp grounds. 234 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Well, another area in which there were possible conflict with the power companies was also resolved. The high tension power lines frequently, when they broke down, would be a cause of brush or forest fires. We had a number of cases where the evidence was quite positive that a broken line was the cause of a serious fire. During my period, when I was in charge of fire control, v,e had about four such fires, and in each case, both sides to the controversy, the Forest Service and the Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern Edison, examined the evidence as unbiased as two groups could do, and when it was ascertained that the fire really started spontaneously from where the break occurred, in each case the power groups paid all the costs of the fire. In some ways, of course, they — the power companies — had to be careful. If such a fire spread onto private lands, it left them open to claims of damages by a third party. The Forest Service took the position that the third party itself would have to carry out its own negotiations or law suits. I know of no case where we had to go to court to settle one of the damage suits, and we had a number of them. We went further. We suggested to the power groups, if they didn't want to trade their land inside the national forests for some other lands, that they ought to put it under permanent management. If it had timber, it ought to be handled for timber. The PG&E has added to its staff a forester who handles their lands in the same way as the Forest Service. Timber lands? Timber lands. Their open land inside the national forests that fell within an area where permits were issued to stockmen for grazing, they accepted their share of the fees for their land on the same basis as the Forest Service. So their land and the Forest Service land was handled as one piece of property, as far as the permitting was concerned, as to the number of stock that would be permitted on it and the fees that would be paid. So the power groups then were very anxious , speaking in present- day terminology, to maintain a good image of the enterprise, and approach their problem as a mutual problem between the Forest Service and the power groups. One incident occurred, though, that might be interesting. During my period as director of the California Forest and Range Experiment Station, we developed the San Joaquin range in Madera County. A big power line passed through the range when we bought it, so that didn't involve any problem as far as issuing them a permit because they'd already established their rights to the range. But we wanted power, of course, for our facilities there 235 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: and apparently they weren't prepared to use additional facilities to take off from the main power line, so the station established — built — its own little power outfit run by gasoline. About that time, the Rural Electrification Administration, REA, was established and was making considerable headway clear through the United States. The power groups of course in Calif ornia were very much concerned not to give a toehold to the REA. Well, the farmers surrounding the San Joaquin range were very anxious to have power. They'd been living since the 1860s with kerosene. The power groups asked what I would call a deposit and a fee for establishing that way beyond all necessary — something like five hundred or six hundred for each farm in order to get the power taken off from the main power line that was going through the country. That concerned me. The power company was willing then to give us power, at the station, but not to the farmers unless they came through with this additional fee for a take-off from their main line. That disturbed me and I thought it would be important for us to bring it to the attention of some of the key men in Southern Edison. (This was the Southern Edison Company.) We did that in an indirect way; we sent one of our men over to the vice-president of the company and told him that of course we wanted power through there, the farmers did, and there were a lot of questions being asked regarding REA. And he wanted to know what was this REA and how do you go about getting REA. This had the desired effect. Power was established within two months throughout that territory. Pretty subtle blackmail. [Laughing.] Yes, by indirection. We were trying to awaken them to the facts of life, and actually we would have told the farmers, if they hadn't put it in, that they could apply to REA. Well, it merely shows their attitude. It was rather interesting. I was up there when the final power lines were put in and the juice was run through each home. All of the electrical supply people from Fresno and Los Angeles, were all in the countryside trying to sell all sorts of electri cal gadgets — stoves, mixers, freezers. Mind you, here were these people who hadn't been able to keep fresh meat or anything fresh because there was no refrigeration, excepting if they could buy ice and transport it and keep an ice box a long distance. So it completely changed the character of life on the ranches surround ing that country. How they stood it that long, with all the diffi- 236 Kotok: culties of not having juice to run the minimum apparatuses that a modern home requires, let alone lighting. Well, in toto, the power groups were responsive — recognized their responsibility. They've handled their lands judiciously and are not in conflict with general public interests. But, in closing, there is one other area which ought to be noted. In constructing dams and reservoirs on any main stream of California there are [conflict, regarding] certain changes in the stream itself affecting particularly fish, with industry that we knew would be a serious problem. As early as 1915 or '16, unregulated development of dams and reservoirs was already being noted by people interested in fish life, on some of the streams where salmon used to go all the way up — they couldn't pass over the dams and reservoirs. It was a problem everybody was talking about, but no action was taken. Show, regional forester of California, along with Frank Bonner, their engineer, tackled this problem more positively. In view of the fact that no dams or reservoirs could be built without federal approval — the Federal Power Commission and Forest Service being parties of interest — since the streams originated or were running through national forests, interjected itself into the question of permits and sought agreement with the companies that a minimum flow of water would be permitted to flow in the streams so you wouldn't have complete drying up of any stream, the minimum flow that experts on fish would determine would be necessary to maintain fish life, in this case, it involved mostly trout. Now the minimum amount of water was important of course to maintain fish, so they could live and also the vegetation and material that they lived on; but likewise it was important to have a minimum amount of water for temperature — the smaller the amount of water in a given streams, the higher the tempera ture would rise as the thermometer rose in the surrounding country. With the best expert advice then, that was a long, hard-fought fight. The power companies were not prepared to concede on that, but finally with the pressure from the Federal Power Commission and the fine work that both Show and Bonner did, California was one of the first states where the permit required minimum flows of water, which is now commonly accepted on other streams that are being developed. So that was one area where the conflict was a little sharp. Fry: Yes. What about the patrolling of the streams? Who checks the amount of flow? Is this the Forest Service? 237 Kotok: Well, now there is a very interesting way it can be done. We've never found any cheating. You see, the flow of the water is registered automatically on mechanical devices. Fry: Oh, the tapes. Kotok: The tapes. And the companies have never hidden these records. The records are always available to show the amount of water the reservoir contains, because that varies with the total amount of rainfall that may fall on the watershed. It varies with rainfall or snow. A full record is kept as to what the reser voir itself needs, and then the flow it gives off is also shown on automatic records. And we've never found them to cheat. It actually means that this flow of water that is permitted to flow free reduces the total capacity for power production and it costs them money. In this fight we didn't get much support from the irrigation people, trying to maintain the flow, because they thought that they might suffer from the consequences in drought years when they would need the water and we were giving it to the fish. That was the argument they used. They didn't want to give it to the fish; they needed it on their land. In this fight for maintaining recreational facilities in the state, not merely involving the areas inside the national forests, because the streams flow, you know, outside the national forests, the sportsmen groups are rather divided. There's no unified group — they're trying to get it now. There were the hunters' group, the fishermen's group and the I zaak Walton League, broken up into so many fragments that a single spokes man for the group wasn't available. So part of the job of the Forest Service in some of these issues was to muster together the recreational association groups to come forward with one single plan, rather than crossing each other, as to what they want. Fry: I was going to ask you if they all did have a similar point of view, that was identical enough to get any unity. Kotok: In a general way they did. It is rather interesting; I haven't touched on that at all . In the early days the Fish and Game Commission in California was a political machine, a strong political machine. The wardens were selected by politicians — there was no such thing as civil service, or technical men on the Fish and Game Commission in the early days. It expressed the opinion of two groups only: one was those that sold ammunition and fishing tackle and so on, and the big ammunition companies. Therefore they were chiefly interested in selling gear and ammunition. They persisted for a long while. The men who ran 238 Kotok: the thing in the legislature — Fry: The party in power. Kotok: We foun that those men were interested in sporting goods business. And then at that time, the conflict of interest was not very prominently voiced. There were a few men from Sacramento on that committee: one from San Francisco. There was another group that was represented on it. Fry: Legislators owning interests in sporting goods and equipment. Kotok: That's right. Then there was another group that also were interested in fish and game naturally, the industrial fishing groups around San Francisco harbor, Los Angeles, and so on. They were organized but they had two or three in the legislature that were supposed to represent them. We found with that group, there was a technique used which is now looked upon as a vile act. The legislature would put in a bill, present a bill, that would seriously impair the fishing industry — knowing full well that it would never pass. Generally the one who intro duced it was tied in indirectly with a law firm, which would then seek to kill that bill for the fishing industry. Fry: My! So, in other words, they would create their own issue for a lobby. Kotok: There's a name for that kind of a bill — it slips me now. It was a racket . Fry: So their lobbyists could be paid. Kotok: Could be paid. So they pressed for that kind of a bill. These kinds of bills would appear periodically. Those of us that were concerned about fishing and the recreational possibilities of fishing and hunting tried to organize the legitimate organiza tions to fight that kind of undertaking. It took a long while before we got the Fish and Game Commission organized not on a political basis but on a civil service basis. Now, this doesn't mean however that there weren't some good men even under the old system. They had some very capable men who did some splendid work in fish hatcheries, and California was way in advance of other states in this. Fry: When Mr. Show was regional forester and was trying to tackle this problem of minimum flows, did the Fish and Game Commission at that time use civil service? 239 Kotok: Yes, but they weren't powerful enough. They had no means of exercising any power, because it was a federal question and not a state question. The permit was granted under the Federal Power Commission, you see, so it was a federal question. The state could have entered in as a party of interest. I don't recall whether their help was asked or not, excepting their help was probably asked indirectly insofar as our congressmen and senators had general federal influence. Appeals to our elected representatives in the Congress were used, insofar as it was necessary to use them. But the issuing of permits was purely ane executive branch action. The general request for a permit from a power company must depend upon the decision of the Federal Power Commission, which weighs certain evidence as to how it will affect other interests involved in the development — the surrounding land area, the recreation, and so on. Now, there's another thing that's interesting to note where the federal power was exercised — the power, I mean, of the executive branches — in the development of projects in which federal money was put in — flood control, hydroelectric — like, take Central Valley; there the Forest Service had to deal through the Interior department, because Interior and the Army Engineers on those projects were the chief builders of the facilities and determined the conditions. We had — I'm frank to confess — as I recall, that we had more difficulties working it out between the federal agencies than we had with the Federal Power Commission, which was also a federal agency. But those who felt possessiveness, like the Interior department, were not going to be dictated to, and the Army Engineers frequently took that position. There's where we brought the pressure of our congressmen. These bureaus are more responsive to congressional action than the FPC , because, you see, the others depend upon appropriations for other acti vities of the bureau from the Congress. The FPC has no activi ties that it has to support. So that's the pro's and con's of the development. Fry: There is one other thing. Did the Forest Service ever try to clear out trees in a reservoir site? Kotok: I'm glad you raised that question. As soon as Show and Bonner had shown that we would take a more positive position as to the development of reservoirs, the question of clearing reser voirs of floating dead trees was part of a requirement that we introduced, and which the FPC accepted. The Forest Service only had to look at Lake Almanor, which was granted before the Forest Service activated itself in this, which was a distressing scene. 240 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: There it was, a hideous sight of snags. Therefore precutting of all trees before the reservoir was filled was one of the requirements that the Forest Service injected, and it was done — that is, on all public land. From then on. From then on. And in order to reduce the cost, the Forest Service generally would handle for them a pre-sale of the timber, as timber rates went up, if it was saleable; it would arrange with the closest lumber companies to log the area before it was flooded . I guess those generally had pretty valuable timber in them, didn't they? Some did; some didn't. They varied, of course, in location. There was southern California in the brush field, where you didn't have much timber. Put it this way: it wasn't merely a question of getting rid of the snags. It was to protect as far as we possibly could the natural environmental scenery involved in the development of a reservoir. Now, we couldn't do anything between high and low flow, which produced a mud flat for a period, on low flow; you could not do much about that. But outside of that, the major emphasis was to maintain the general scenic effect of the country, and snags do not add to the general beauty of the scenery. The differences in needs of flow between power companies and irrigation districts was left between the power companies and the irrigation districts and other federal agencies to iron out, I guess. The only thing (on which) the Forest Service entered into the fight was this: the preparation of the ground itself, the removal of trees. The preservation of surrounding area, if it was on public lands, to protect it, you see, during the period of construction, and if any damage was done, to rebuild. Regrading of roads that went through the area, it dealt with that. And then it only dealt with, as far as the water was concerned, the minimum flows necessary to preserve fish life. The disposition of the owner's water was outside of its sphere of influence or interest, and that negotiation, of course, the Federal Power Commission would have to determine with the people involved. That would be the irrigationists. Now, you see, there's another reason - and that's where the Army Engineers come in - there's another reason why we built 241 Kotok: Fry: Ko tok : Fry: Kotok: reservoirs. In part it was flood control. In flood con trol, a reservoir is built to retain water, say, that would be used, but before another rainy season comes, it must let it out in order to be ready for the rainy season excess flows. Therefore, instead of the water rushing immediately down dur ing the rainy season, at high peaks, it can be held back and let out in slow stages. So a reservoir, then, that has this triple purpose or the dual purpose of irrigation and flood control, or irrigation, flood control and power, must adjust itself for those three needs by a very delicate formula. And it is with great care — this is where the Army Engineers come in; that's their chief responsibility — to determine when with the prediction of rains and flow that may come, to maintain an area within the reservoir sufficient to hold excessive flows of water that would increase the danger from peak flows and flood damage. Would you want to make any contrasts between publicly owned power dams and privately owned ones? Did you have much exper ience with them? We had some. Of course, there were a number of dams in which all the water rights were privately owned. It might be interes ting to tell you how some were acquired. It's a story of — I wouldn't call it greed, but it was a manner in which public lands were acquired in the early days, by hook or crook. Now, in the organic land laws there was what we called swamp and overflow lands. When public lands were divided and when the national forests were created, a township having thirty-six sections, it was agreed that the schools and the state should get two sections, sixteen and thirty-six. That went as state land and the state could dispose of it as it wanted; that was a bonus. The rest of the land was to remain in public owner ship, excepting such land as was at that time swamp and overflow, and that went under another law. It could be acquired. Now, those who knew about potential power development and the impor tance of water schemed around, and in it were some people that were tied up of course with power companies that then existed. They acquired by hook or crook, having people make claims on swamp and overflow lands. Was this really swamp and overflow land? No, and this is the story I'm going to tell you. After the national forest system was established, one of the activities that the Forest Service undertook was to break down and fine claims that were made for public lands that it could be proved were secured under false claims. They were in two characters of land and that was one of the early jobs 242 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: I worked on. One was what we called the Act of June 11, 1906, by which farm lands, you know, inside the national forests could be claimed as farm lands, and they found that a lot of those were taken up for timber, or weren't taken up at all, so they built a hut without a floor and would come up there for a summer and stay a couple of months and probably plow, plant two or three rows of corn, and they'd claim they had a farm claim. So we tried to examine those and prove that they were secured under false pretenses. The other was swamp and overflow land. Now, one of the areas of swamp and overflow land happened to be on the Eldorado forest, and as supervisor of course I was supposed to review that area and find out whether it was swamp and overflow, who had secured it, and see if we could break the claim. By that time indirectly its ultimate rights went to Pacific Gas — western states, but that's immaterial, who would get it because the original claimant for it was an individual who was going to sell his rights to a power company. Well, the area was a lodge- pole pine area, a common tree in the moister areas of the Sierras There was no indication of any kind of swamp or overflow. The evidence they adduced was that they had gone over it — this is an old trick — in a boat. Actually, they had a boat on a wagon, and they rode in the boat and the wagon drew the boat . We had some evidence on that, that that's the way he crossed. Yes, he crossed in a boat, but the boat was on a wagon. He hadn't even bothered to put water on the land like some of them did. Well, anyway, the case was being heard between the registrar and receiver, who was no one less than the father of Hiram Johnson . Oh yes . I was to present as an expert the evidence that it was a lodge- pole pine area, timber of high value, and it wasn't and it never was swamp and overflow land. The evidence I was to adduce was the nature of the timber type, lodgepole pine — where it occurred in the U.S., where it occurred in California, what the species was. Now the old timers, because there was some runoff that sometimes would be swampy a little bit near the lodgepole, called the lodgepole pine in California that they found tamarack, and tamarack in the lake states is a swamp tree. I appeared with the evidence, using Sudworth* as my authority and other * George B. Sudworth, Forest Trees of the Pacific Slope (Washington Government Printing Office, 1908) 244 Ko tok : Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: I don't want to belabor very long my own particular life history, like thousands of others of immigrant stock who came to America for one reason or another. Briefly, I can state this. I was born in an area between the Ukraine and the Crimea, in 1888. My folks by European standards were quite wealthy and were able to have what people of reasonable wealth have — special teachers for their children, they traveled about whenever they wanted to, open home with high entertainment. Could you tell me what your father did? My father had inherited money, but actually he started the first brewery that was established in Odessa, Russia. He was among the first brewers; he worked with a German. He did this with his inherited money, then? Yes. They were doing very, very well. He had a German partner; he brought the know-how. My father brought the Russian point of view. My father and my older sister became politically in volved in the politics, and my grandfather, who was a sea captain, we found out afterwards, actually was engaged in bringing contra band out of Russia, or into Russia, contraband — really, men who were trying to escape from Russia he would take them to the Black Sea, to Turkey. And your father also? My father was also tied into that; he was supposed to help par ticularly officer groups that were involved. It wasn't merely the common folks, but you see there were many in the officer group that had revolutionary tendencies. When I speak of revo lutionary tendencies, they were opposed to the extreme points of view of the tsar, and the church particularly. Was your father a Jew? No. Well, anyway, they got involved, and pretty badly involved. My sister was very active; she was in the gymnasium and she got involved, and my father I suppose accepted that. My earliest memory was — we lived in a palatial place there — of police surrounding our home and entering early in the morning, searching, and my father burning up things in a stove while this was happening, destroying whatever he had. I recall that he was arrested and I went to visit him in the police station. As a child one has only memories of excite ment, the significance of that was not so great. My father knew then that he'd have to escape, it was too hot. The police • - • • • i 245 Kotok: were watching him, that he'd try to escape; because of my grandfather being in Turkey, he'd try to escape to Turkey. So they were watching the seaport. But instead of that, he secured a false passport, which was easy to secure. I went with him, as necessary for a passport, as a sick child that he was taking to Vienna for medical treatment. He proceeded all the way through Russia, and I traveled with him. We were to be met by the underground, and to me it was all very ex citing. Fry: You were about how old? i Kotok: Oh, about four and a half. I can remember — we'd be met and they'd have toys; then I'd be passed on to someone else. We moved on. Fry: This was largely by train? Kotok: By train, and shorter distances by droshky, and we finally got to the German border and in the final escape my father wore a Russian army officer's uniform. He escaped, said good-bye to me, and that was that. I was returned by the underground to my grandmother, who lived near Russian Finland, right near there. So that was one incident. It was an exciting moment for a child. I remained with my grandmother for a time, and then my mother came up and stayed with us, and my father pro ceeded to New York and to New Jersey. He went into the tanning business and lost all the money he had salvaged. That was during the Cleveland depression. Fry: In the 1890s. Kotok: Eighteen ninety-six. Anyway, my mother and I traveled around in Europe for a little over a year and a half. My mother lived entirely on whatever they had been able to squeeze out of their possessions in Russia, plus selling jewels. We lived practically on jewels then. We traveled through England, and Holland. The last place, we were in Germany, and we shipped in a boat from Holland. I can remember watching Kaiser Wilhelm arrive in Kiel, a great affair. So it was all excitement. So we arrived in New York and then went on to Orange, New Jersey, where I spent my first year. My older sister knew English, and we kids knew Russian. I picked up some German. We had a spread of all ages and my older sister wouldn't go back to college; she went to work. She was too independent. So our whole life had to start all over again, from broke almost . 246 Kotok: But the important thing is this, this process of Americanization is rather interesting. Fry: How old were you when you arrived? Kotok: Seven. My little kid brother was just kindergarten age. Well, I know he couldn't take care of himself and the teacher told me to take him home. [Laughter] My sister, who was a couple years younger than I was — we were all in the same class, you know. It was a one-room schoolhouse in Orange, New Jersey. I've never forgotten it. I've never forgotten the first teacher, Mrs. Box. She was so considerate. My dad wrote out and told me what to say, "I do not speak English." This was the American process, you know. She was very deliberate with us; she would go over things. I can remember, she would take the three of us — no, we got rid of Louie ordinarily because he couldn't take care of himself. And I can see that poor little kid — it must have been awful. But my mother said every body has to go. And we didn't want to take our kid brother, you know, my sister and I. With all this background, the amazing thing to me, having no English blood at all, the Anglo-Saxon myths — the mythology, the songs — became part and parcel of us, as though we had been blue-eyed Anglo-Saxons that had arrived from England, a whole family of them. That's the remarkable thing in our Americani zation system that we don't appreciate. I felt on later visits to England, I felt more at home there than any other country I visited. I felt it was my Thames, changing of the guard was my changing of the guard, going up to Windsor or sitting there at the foot of Victoria's statue, watching the changing of the guards, Conan Doyle was my Conan Doyle, Shakespeare was my Shakespeare. I don't think we recognize that the average immigrant — taking myself as a case — the schooling process that we have, plus such things as the home itself furnishes, we absorb and become part and parcel of the American tradition. Fry: Did your neighborhood consist of a pretty heterogeneous group? Kotok: Well, when we lived in Orange, New Jersey, that was a profes sional group of financially better-off people, I would say. On that score, during that period, it was a typical semi- rural area. We used to go to Lewelyn Park and steal wild cherries on Edison's place, and climb trees. Those were big adventures. This question of being a foreigner never arose in that early time. Later my father went into many enterprises, but the most important one, he was one of the early starters — he always had some wild ideas — he started one of these tobacco stands, in 247 Kotok: Fry: Mrs. K: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: the big office buildings. He had a chain of them. I should think that would have been pretty lucrative. They call them cigar stands. He was doing very well, and the American Tobacco Company offered to buy him out and give him a job, and he wouldn't do it. They finally licked him and bought out all the most important places , buying even a building in order to get rid of him. So he again went through the grinder. Then he had other activities; he underwrote people that wanted to start a laundry business. My brother-in-law was an expert on laundry machinery, and he would help them to underwrite the laundry business; he'd get them started in a good location. So he was sort of a promoter, always in activities in which he had no experience. [Laughing] He was very venturesome. So he made money, lost money, made money, lost money. He had ups and downs. But the question of money was never raised in our family. I don't recall anyone speaking about that. As far as my father and the children were concerned, they did the best they could. I registered for Columbia and found they had no money, so I had to go to City College. And that was that. Nobody crabbed about it. He said, "We can't make it, son." So that was that, we just accepted it. A hundred dollars looked like an awful lot of money when you didn' t have it. So the best he knew how, we all got our education. The free system of education in New York made possible my own education; otherwise I'd have had a tough time. I suppose I'd have worked my way; we'd have found some way to devise it. My brother went to a paid institution; he was able to get along. He went to Union College. He went to New York Univer sity for a while, then he got broke and he'd go to work. He was sort of an independent cuss. Well, anyway, there's nothing particularly significant about one immigrant boy, among thousands of others, excepting that our families were concerned with giving their children an education, and not to get them out to work, in contrast with some other immigrant stock. They had preferences what they thought we ought to do, but permitted us to go ahead and find our own educational interests. I started off as a chemist. My dad was very much interested in it, and he actually got me a job (he had a lot of contacts) as soon as I graduated as a chemical engineer. Graduated from where? City College. And he got me a job with a company producing 248 Kotok: Fry: Ko tok : Mrs. K: Kotok: textiles, a big textile outfit that he knew. I remember coming in there and the big boss takes me out to lunch, and everybody was wondering, "What's all this?" That was the worst thing that could have happened, because everybody sus pected I was a stool pigeon or something. He took me out there and asked me, "How much will it cost you to live?" I figured it out, and he said, "That's what your pay is." [Laughter] Not more and not less. And they started me off. I wanted to go into dyeing — that's a very interesting field, dyeing of wool and silks and so on, but they started me off in New York at one of the distributing points to get the feel of cloth, how it sews, you know, what distinguishes, how to tell — I had to count with a microscope the number of warps and woofs. [Laughter] That kind of dulled on me, and then I was supposed then to go to their factories up in Mew England. And I asked around in the company as I got acquainted, and they said, "Everything here" — it's Prince and Company, one of the big outfits, still is — they said, "It's all nepotism here. You'll get nowhere." So I asked this man who was manager of all this one department that I was assigned to. He said, "I only got $25 a week." Well, I thought it over and the money wasn't it, but the whole thing didn't interest me, the nepotism, and so on. And then everybody looking with suspicion at me, that kind of made me uneasy. I came home and told my dad — I'd heard Gifford Pinchot's speech — that I decided I was going to take forestry. He didn't say a word, just, "Go ahead, and we'll help you the best we can." At that time they were financially — not broke, but not very well off. [Laughter] Sort of in transition from the two extremes. Yes. During our period when we lived in New York, it was really funny. We would live in a very very elaborate apartment house, I mean gaudy. Then we'd move into a brownstone. Then something would happen — we'd go broke or something — and out we'd move somewhere else. We moved with the fortunes of war. We accepted it as a matter of course. Now, my closest friends happened to be men who continued their education, from City College. I knew quite a number in Columbia who continued on in graduate work. One of them be came quite a noted artist, Henry Wolf. He taught here in the art department at Cal a generation ago . Then there was Paul Schultz, who became a noted architect. He's passed away. There was Gottschultz, who got his doctorate at Columbia and taught English there. He married a sack of money. So those were my closest friends. Then there was a 249 Kotok : Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok : Fry: Kotok: Mrs. K, Kotok : Mrs. K. Czechoslovakian, a fellow named Katz, who was quite wealthy, a close friend of mine. We used to have musicals. Some played piano, and like that. I played no instrument, so I turned the sheets. {Laughter] We also used to go to the opera, try and get a job there so we could see the opera. So I carried a spear many a time . You've actually been on stage at the Met then? Oh yes. Then there was a period I got interested through Schultz and Wolf, I went to the National Academy of Design. My father said, "You want to be an artist, go ahead." So 1 went there. You still paint some? No, I never painted again. Watercolor was my forte, although I did some oils too. We'd go out to the Hudson to do sketching. That was the Hudson School of Painting at that time. The Con necticut Valley was one, and the Hudson River was another. I had some very distinguished teachers — William Chase. I re member I got kicked out of a class one time, of Chase's. We used to have self criticism. You'd take your painting and put it up, whatever you had, and then he'd ask for criticism. He turned to me and said, "What do you think?" I said, "It would look much better with a piece of crepe around it." [Laughter] He said, "You've said enough. I'll dismiss you." Was he a rather temperamental teacher? Oh yes. But he was a splendid critic. Anyway, I brought some paintings home to my dad and he looked at them and he said, "Well, I don't know. If you want to be a painter, go ahead." He says, "You'll starve to death." And probably he was right. His younger sister, Rose, literally took some of his paintings out of the trash can, and kept them. Most of them were on cardboard; I couldn't afford canvas. The fact remains, they're nice paintings. They're very nice paintings, particularly the one still life of daffodils in the green glass vase that was absolutely lovely. The first time I saw it in Rose's house, I [moans]. She said, "You aren't going to have them. You didn't care enough about them to keep them out of the wastebasket. " [Laughter] Of course, he'd thrown them away in discouragement. Kotok: Well, when I left that, yes. So my adolescent period was one • • • • • ' ' • . i . ' • . • '..'•• ' . ' . . . . .. . . ' ' . • : , .,...' • • . . : ' ' '• ' i ' ! ' ! ' . • • - ; ' • . • • • ' "': • • . 250 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: of interest in the arts and sciences. When Paul Schultz was taking his graduate work in architecture I used to come down and paint for him the fronts that you have to have, you know, the elevations and all — I'd paint the trees and the horses. There was always a team of horses, you know, in front of the picture, to give it perspective. So it was an interesting period. But the strange part about it, we didn't get involved with womenfolks. Yes, we went to affairs and so on, but of course City College was an all-male institution, and my prep school was all male. We didn't get involved at all with affairs, none of them that I knew of. Was this just by default? No . Excepting the ones that we met in the art gallery — we met quite a number of girls there though, but there were no cases. It was just straight business, looking at the paintings. We felt no particular shock — we painted nudes from the very begin ning. You know, how the painting classes start, first with statuary, you know — shadows and dark. And then they go to still life and the next stage is painting the human form. The important thing that they were trying to get across was that the form is made of a skeleton, of things that are joined to gether. The object of painting of the nude was not merely to get a nude but it was to show that it was a living structure. So it was from a structural standpoint and we accepted it as a matter of course. No great shock or anything else. So to me, the important thing was, as I said, in spite of the area in which I lived, in which there were immigrants all over — there were Italians, there were Irish. Yes, we used to have some conflicts — as a boy, the time we lived in New York for a period — between the Irish gangs, the Italian gangs, the Jewish gangs. I got stabbed one time, but I never told anyone. I went to a friend of mine whose uncle was a doctor, and he patched me up, and I threw away the bloody shirt. My mother said she was missing a shirt and we left it at that. [Laughter] This was when you were living in one of your less elegant houses? No, we never lived in the slums itself. You know, there's a sharp line. So, if you go over that — that was the time we lived in Brooklyn. You know, there was a remnant of the old Irish, we called them — like, you know, south of San Francisco — it's that same kind of group. It was the remnant of the Irish that were left that still spoke with a brogue. Did they have hostility toward you because you came from Russia? 251 Ko tok : Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Gangs, boys — it was just gang fights. Not because of your origins? Oh no, no. Of course, the race — they would call me sheeny, probably, one time, and they'd call this one a Dago — that had no significance. The conflicts were because they had nothing else to do. There weren't many outside activities for those kids. For example, we used to go when we lived in New York at that time we lived — oh, there was a period. My father also owned a piece of very valuable property which is now part of the Yankee Stadium. And he owned quite a lot with a number of other people. And then the pressure came and he had to get rid of it at quite a loss too. But anyway, he got rid of it. Years afterward, we asked him, "Dad, why did you get rid of that valuable property?" And he told my brother and myself, "That was in order that I could send you sons-of-guns to school." So we lived actually on a farm; we had a cow, we had horses. My mother drove us over to the elevated station so I could go in to New York, and it was a real farm. Early suburban living, I guess. Well, it was still, Coon's Bluff, you see. The Irish, you know, had some of that. There were some Irish. We used to go out to Bronx Park, which was a wild area. It was very in teresting for us kids. We had suburbia at its height. But it had some handicaps; it took us two hours to get into town. I remember Mother had a horse, and we'd get it together and she'd drive us over to the depot and back. The depot was to take the elevated railroad to New York. So that was an inter esting career. So our wandering around brought us to a lot of different parts of New York. It sounds like you probably had more contact with different levels and types of Americana than a lot of native Americans had. That's right; we probably did. But even in New York, we lived in every part. We lived in the Irish part. When we lived in Brooklyn, we really lived in the high class area. Then we lived in the Bronx part afterwards; we moved into a brownstone, which is now an all-Negro area. 252 Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: But that was a relatively upper middle class? Oh yes. You were in the upper crust then. We had the brown- stone house. I never knew, of course, and Father never gave an accounting; he either had a lot of money or he'd be broke. He was very generous when he had money, very, very generous. So that ' s the way we went on . Did you change schools a great deal in high school? No. I went to Thompson Harris High School — it's now abolished. It was really a prep school. It was very difficult to get in; I don't know how I got in. There was no tuition for some. All it was, was my car fare. We lived in the Bronx then most of the time, up on the ranch, and my mother would drive me down. I was prepared to go to Columbia, but we didn't have the money. I guess I made the decision myself. My dad really wanted me to go on to Columbia and he was going to raise the money some way, and then I found out I'd be accepted in City College. It was difficult to get into City College. They didn't have an exam, but you had to have grades. They took your grades that you had in prep school or high school. They had positive grading; you had to have ninety or better. No percentages allowed. No, the actual grade. If you were a 90% student, you could get in. It was very difficult to get in. And there, of course, I met the immigrant boys, the Americanization plan — men who never would have gotten any education; some very distinguished men. There's one interesting thing about City College: next to California, the percentage of its men that take graduate work for the doctorate is the highest in the United States. Califor nia comes first. And it did at that time? Well, I don't know. At least the ones you ran around with. Everyone took it for granted. And they were mentally the most capable. They came from low income families who were anxious to see their children get ahead. Some of them got scholarships. One of the distinguished ones who made a lot of money — Baruch, you know — got his schooling there. Mrs. K. And Leonard Bernstein. 253 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Quite a number of distinguished men. And Justice Frankfurter, he got his education there. It's very interesting what really happened at City College. It started as a military school, actually under a military system; West Point ran it, General Webb ran it. So he ran it just like West Point, you know — grades, everything else. I came after that. John Huston Finley came in when I was there, who came from Princeton. The impor tant thing is this, there were waves of immigrants that came in, and the free college gave them the only opportunity. The first were what I call the Gramercy crowd — from Gramercy Park. They were a Germanic group, German Jews and Germans. So the first group that were Anglicized were really that Germanic group; that's Frankfurter's group. And we knew quite a number of that group. Baruch was another. They were the well-placed Europeans that came to America. So that was the first group and their early students are represented by that. Then the next wave — see, they came in waves — were the great Russian, Jewish, Russian, Polish, and so on. So you find predominantly Russian, mostly Jews. They were Americanized through this system. I raised it with Dr. Gallagher who was there, in a study that we made. There were other waves, but not as definite. The Italians came much later. They weren't for getting their children to school. Yes, I guess they sent many of them out to work. So then came the Italian wave. Now, the Irish wove in among them. That potato group didn't go to college; they became policemen and firemen and so on. So that group isn't present. Then the Irish started coining in a little. Now, there were practically no Negroes. In my class, there was one Negro. There were a lot of reasons for it, because the Negro didn't make good grades in order to get in. He just had too many cultural disadvantages. That's right. So he didn't go because he couldn't be accepted on his grades . Couldn't make above ninety. That's right. Generally, those that made over ninety were in families that encouraged scholarship. You don't get ninety just because you have a good head on you; you have to apply yourself. So the homes where scholarship was encouraged pro duced a lot of nineties, and the Negro family wasn't that kind of home. So there was, as I say, only one Negro in my class. 254 Kotok: Now there are other waves coming in in which I'm interested — Puerto Ricans, more Negroes, and now women are permitted. It follows very closely the formula for development within that little city, what the system [is] that we've tried to develop in California as a whole. It's a rather interesting development, identical in its general characteristics, you see, that it has a series of these city colleges now, you know, the same as we have here. They have Brooklyn College now — see, trying to divide it off. So I was subjected to, actually, a West Point training in the early days of City College. I mean, it was exacting. For example, in math I went to the board every day, five days a week. You went to the board with a problem, so you had to study. And they were completely heartless; if you didn't make the grade, you were flunked out. Fry: The pressure must have been tremendous. Kotok: It was. They used to lose around thirty percent of the fresh man class. They figured on that regularly. I've just been reading a report. They're not losing that many, and they've been having difficulties. About thirty percent. They were heartless. That's the West Point — you either made the grade or you didn't, no if's, and's. And it was a positive grade; it wasn't the way you scaled up. Fry: No curve? Kotok: No curve. Fry: And no dean to call you in and say, "Are you having a problem?" Kotok: Well, there were very helpful professors there. Yes, help would come, but it was a very exacting one. You were on your own; either you could make it or you couldn't make it, the same as the military academies. You're on your own now, and it was expected you would study about four hours a day. But four hours — these average kids don't put that much in now, in college here. I don't think so, do you? Fry: I don't know. I guess they don't. Kotok: Four hours. That's what were required, just to go through the mathematical problems themselves. You were going to be called every day. There were no escape mechanisms. And they had some very distinguished profs — men of broad reading, men of broad interests. It lacked, of course, many of the things that colleges have. The campus life was relatively dull, although 255 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: groups of us would have some activity. It was a commuters' college, wasn't it? That's right. Well, it's like commuters' colleges are any where. There weren't many of those activities that you would have in campus life. Nevertheless, it was an experience that brought its own benefits. I found this, when I went to take my graduate work at Michigan; I found the courses so doggone easy, compared to what I had, that I took more extracurricular courses and the regular courses without credit or anything. I mean, I would just take courses. This would sound attractive and I'd go over and register for it and I'd take a course. I found I had more time on my hands than I knew what to do with. What about campus politics, anything like that? At City College? Yes, there were politics. Did you enter into them? Yes, very much so. We had a newspaper, the Mercury, and I was a shot on that. Then I liked sports; I played lacrosse, which was a hard game. We had good teams — I mean, we had more intramural sports than these kids have here. Everybody belonged to some team. Where they participated. Yes. Didn't just sit and look. That's right. We had groups that participated and I went out every afternoon practically and played lacrosse, or football — almost like touch football, without severe contacts. That is, if you touched a man, he was down. You didn't have to knock him over. [Laughter] So we had sports galore. And there was always the gymnasium if you wanted, but I liked outdoor sports. So I played. Some played baseball all year round, some of them, unless the snow was on the ground. What were campus politics like? with real politics? Were they closely connected Well, there were fraternities, and right from the beginning the one that I could join — and I wouldn't join, couldn't join anyway, because most of my friends were Dekes, and I couldn't accept a fraternity under any circumstances. So that left me out, and I wasn't interested in the others in the same way. 256 Kotok: Fry: So they used to gather for luncheon, you know. Well, we used to kind of laugh at them because they controlled nothing. The independents controlled most — the newspaper, the debating society. They had a very strong debating society, very much like Stanford and Cal. That was one of the big activities. And some of them became great noted lawyers, as a matter of fact, the same as here at Stanford and Cal. You notice, some of the politicians were on those debating teams. And I entered into that . Then they had plays. Some drama courses. There was a self-motivated drama group, with some of the instructors who were interested in drama. So we always had something going. Those were the campus activities. These are the things that we didn't probably have at the campuses. Excepting for plays or the debating society, the campus was dead at night. No activi ties on the campus — that's the distinction. Did you notice any difference between the student politics at City College and those at Michigan? Kotok: Fry: Kotok : Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Oh, I learned so much at City College, right in the midst of it — Where? When I got there, I was At Michigan. The group I joined was with the engineers, and they controlled practically everything excepting the football team — the athletics . They controlled the paper and — all the gravy jobs. Were these ever connected to real political parties, like Progressives? No, no. Never in my whole period was a political question ever raised in a student gathering, that I know of. Never. Nothing. The only thing, we went out and took jobs for politics in New York for pay, for either party. So one year I was a watcher for the Republicans, and got paid. Two years, I got paid by the Democrats, as a watcher. I didn't care who got elected. It didn't mean anything to me. When did you get to the point of having political convictions along party lines? My conviction on politics came perhaps in California. I got interested with Hiram Johnson. He stood for a cause, a cause summed up as against the power of the Southern Pacific machine in California. That was the first thing that interested me. 257 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Mrs. K. Kotok: Naturally it would come easy for a forester to grasp the sig nificance of that; we were fighting specialized groups, you see, who were trying to break down the national forest system. And Southern Pacific machine was a symbol of money power trying to control government agencies. So that was my first interest. So which way did you go? then? Did you stick with the Republicans No. I registered right from the beginning as a Democrat, my first vote, but I voted for Hiram Johnson as a Progressive. The party to me was — you had to tie up to some party. Siskiyou County was very strongly Democratic; it had a large number of southerners, southern Democrats, and I fell into the pattern very easily. We used to celebrate our defeats every year. [Laughter] We wouldn't win, but we were doing better every year. It's interesting to note that when Wilson got elected — I was just a mere forest assistant — the superior judge came to see me with a group. He said, "Our party is in. You must get immediately a promotion." "But," I said, "we don't do it this way here." He said, "That doesn't matter. We have won." [Laughter] To the victor belongs the spoils. They felt tho roughly disappointed in me, that they shouldn't start a movement immediately to get me some creamy job. We had won, we had won. So we celebrated. That was a great event to have celebrated — the victory of Wilson. Then, after our marriage, our interest in politics broadened, simply because the issues were a little bit more clearly defined, particularly in California. The national issues could easily attract me against the dogmatism — and I called it dogmatism — of the Republicans. Not that they haven't had great men and great leaders and all that, but it was dogmatism. And to me, the Democratic Party had greater appeal, as being forward- looking, daring. And it appealed to the youth, you see, and that was what the Republicans failed to see. This was during Harding and Coolidge? Yes. Then as I got contact in my own work with politicians and all, and was able to evaluate, my firm belief in the Democratic Party was strengthened. Wilson had an enormous in fluence on me. He was the first intellectual of our generation to serve in the capacity. In spite of the fact that Theodore Roosevelt did so much for conservation, my wife and I felt very strongly anti-Roosevelt 258 Kotok: Mrs. K. Kotok: Fry: Mrs. K. Kotok: for the simple reason that he was a jingoist. I was against jingoism, and time has proved that probably I was right. His attempt to hold onto all the islands that we had won in the Spanish-American War. Then he topped it off by dividing his party, which both con stitutionally are against sundering a powerful party for any reason. When he ran as an independent, then we were off of it. The Bull Moose aspect. That was an awful blow. So our politics came as we matured, and as I say, my own value of the politics were in terms as I knew congressmen, as I knew senators. And when you see them at their true worth, you get a little more balanced judgment as to what they stand for as an individual, and collectively, as a party. For example — and I think I noted that in my talk — through all my experience in the Forest Service, over forty-two years, something of that kind, I never had to respond to political pressure that I didn't think was in the public interest. And I'll give you two inci dents to show what I'm talking about. When I was supervisor of the Eldorado — this was during the first World War — we had a telephone line that we used for fire protection, and we only would put on that line certain hotels and so on, so people could report fires to us. The Wilson administration had come in and the Democrats felt them selves quite uppy; and there was a strong group there in El dorado of Democrats, personally very good friends of mine, and included among them was the postmaster of Sacramento who had a place on the American River. And he wanted a telephone, and he brought all sorts of pressure on me to issue him a telephone, clear through McAdoo, who was then in the Cabinet, and the Secretary of Agriculture and down through the regional forester to me as a supervisor. I stood my ground that this was the rule, and we ought to apply it. I was completely supported, I didn't give in, and I made quite an enemy. His name, the postmaster, was Fox. To give you an illustration of pressure, you see. During that same period the Blisses complained that we weren't fighting forest fires on privates surrounding their property. They brought it up through McAdoo, who was then visiting in California, and that again went clear through channels, through the White House, down through the Secretary of Agriculture, back to me. "What are you doing about that?" I was completely supported in the position I took. 259 Kotok; Fry: Kotok: In a general way, the only time during the Roosevelt administration — Franklin — when the CCC [Civilian Conservation Corps] was put in, special technicians could be hired to be foremen and so on. Fechner, a union man who was in charge of the CCC, made a requirement that we canvass the Democratic committees, the congressmen and so on, for clearance of these names. We didn't like it, and this is the way we overcame it in the Forest Service. We never responded even to that pressure. We did that very simply. We wrote then to this committee, "We approve this man. It would be better advantage to you if he is a Republican, because you'll get more support. Don't ask him the question." And we made it stick, in spite of this embargo. We'd clear him rather than let the political machine do it. That pressure was terrific. Yes, sometimes we'd have to bend against severe political pressure, but we'd never give up in principle. So my own ex perience — my own personal one — then, was I have never had to subject myself to political pressure. However, I would have been stupid if I hadn't recognized that an act of mine would involve political repercussions, and so far as I could there fore protect myself under such circumstances, I would take whatever action would be necessary — not to sacrifice principle, but not to raise an issue at the wrong time in the wrong place. Or increase an issue unnecessarily. That's right. I'll give you one illustration. When I was back in Washington, Senator Thomas of Oklahoma had some pro perty through which a road that the CCC was to build would have to pass. Naturally, the question that the Forest Service had to decide was not a conflict of interest, whether that road was necessary or not, and the decision of the officers on the ground was that the road would be necessary. It enhanced of course the value of the senator's property considerably. Drew Pearson found out about that, and he was trying to make a scandal out of it. That's all right — good newspaper report ing. And it is very curious. We had the whole record available for him and showed it to him. We had nothing to hide. The correspondence that went on — we had to get permission from the senator, you know, to pass through his land — there wasn't a single word that would show that we were in any way bent. And there was an evaluation made by our own staff men, by an engineering group from Washington that didn't even know Senator Thomas, that made the judgment on the facts. Then Drew Pearson withdrew the attack he was going to make. So there have been attempts at pressure. 260 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: The Chief of the Forest Service during the Depression period, Silcox, told a story that was quite interesting. McKeller, senator of Tennessee, wanted the selection of CCC men to pass through his office, the overhead. As I said, we had these devices by which we tried to dodge that issue. We had gotten in quite a number of forestry graduates who needed jobs, and could do the job, without asking them whether they were Republicans or Democrats, whether they were for McKeller or not. McKeller came into Silcox' office and he said to him, "You're getting nothing but a bunch of carpetbaggers down in my district. I want them out." And Silcox, having been born and raised in Charleston, South Carolina, could put on that southern accent when he needed it. He said, "Senatah, it well behooves you to think twice befoah you tell me, a South Carolinian, about carpetbaggers. It was Tennessee you're talkin' about." [Laughter] Tennessee, of course, had that division. And that ended the conversation. And the senator said, "I beg your pardon." You don't tell a South Carolinian about carpetbaggers. So these political pressures have been attempted. In the main, the Forest Service has been able very well to escape them. We have been honest, however. We have never entered into a political fight as pro and con as to candidates that were running for office. About that, we were very exacting; a man who transgressed in that had to leave. And we haven't had a single case that I know of. Now, after we retired from the service, we were very active politically. Lyle Watts in Oregon helped defeat a senator who was running for office, and that's how Neuberger got in, the husband of the present Senator Neuberger. He helped build a case against him that the incumbent was selling out to the lumber industry and others. Yes, that was a kind of a Hiram Johnson type thing. Well, I imagine that foresters probably make pretty good campaigners after they retire. In certain areas, they can be very effective. There are two or three men that have reared their heads on the political scene who were effective — Lyle Watts did a remarkable job there. Has he ever run for office? Do you know of any? Well, there were some that desired it. We never ran for office that I know of. Yes, there was. We had one man in Montana, Republican, two in Montana — and one of them afterwards, after he got defeated, got his job back again on the Forest Service. Very able man; I can't remember his name. The other one was 261 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: a sort of double-crossing fellow. We were happy when he was defeated again for Congress. He made it to Congress once? Yes. He bit the hand that fed him. Now there is just one little comment I do want to make. The Forest Service has had its snakes in the grass, too. Not very many. The pro fession, particularly those professional men in the Forest Service, looks askance if an ex-member of the Forest Service takes a job where he has to handle cases in which there is conflict between private enterprise and the public, in forestry, and in which he has to necessarily color the case he thinks, in order to win for his client. You mean the private foresters working for companies. After they leave the Forest Service, where they are special spokesmen for special groups, and purport to give the inner workings of the Forest Service and know how to manipulate and so forth and stretch the truth sometimes, in order to make the best case. We've had a few like that. One was a man in range, a fellow named Metcalf in Nevada. The best advice we ever got was from another forester who said, "Don't answer Metcalf. You see, when he swings his hammer, don't put an anvil under it. Let him swing in the air." So we killed him off by completely ignoring any statements he made. Fallacious and double-crossing and he thought he was doing a good job for his employers, way beyond the need, and it didn't help them. They funny part about it — when you carry on that kind of campaign it reacts quite in the reverse from what they think. So Metcalf, he was one. Then we had another one in Colorado whose name slips me who also got off the reservation. And he died a natural death, by completely ignoring him. The industry itself saw that the advice he was giving them was leading them nowhere. . Then we had another one that went with the lumber industry, the pine association. We made him, we created him, he got all his ed ucation with us practically and he too snarled at the Forest Service and committed a lot of indiscretions that were un necessary. The industry itself finally got wind of it, shut him up. Altogether, I only know of around half a dozen perhaps of that character. On the other hand, there are other men who have taken jobs that have been very helpful in adjudicating differences between the Forest Service and the special interests that have a case. 262 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: One, who is now a Calif ornian, is Chester Morse. Now he undertook to handle cases for the recreationists and the pack outfits. He's done a very good job, showing them how far they could go, and presenting the case of the packers. As a lobbyist? Well, working with the Forest Service where they had issues between them. For example, rates and privileges, and so on. He's worked it out and he's done a remarkably good job. He was helpful in that case. And then we've had Walter Huber, and Bonner, who afterwards went with the power companies, and they were exceedingly helpful in ironing out differences. And that's why, in part, the story I told you about, that is due to the kind of men that they hired. So they hired Bonner; after he retired, they hired Walter Huber, and they were important advisors to those companies. And it was in the interest of solving a problem. Sure, they wanted to protect their client's rights, but they were free to tell the clients, "You've gone beyond what you should expect," giving them can did and honest advice. So we've had men of that type that have been very, very helpful. Another one was Bill Greeley, who was a California gradu ate, and Chief of the Forest Service. He went then with a lumber company and he tried to bring the maximum cooperation. During the War, without Greeley 's help, the Article Ten that came out and was accepted as a code of ethics for the lumber industry, could not have happened without the help of Bill Greeley. So Bill Greeley never sold his birthright for a cheesecake. So we have had men of that high regard. E.T. Allen was another one that worked with western forestry. Sure, he pled the case with the Forest Service when he thought the Forest Service was wrong. Sure, he asked if grievances were there, to mitigate the offense to the maximum, but it was always with the high purpose of getting agreement between the conflicting points of view, between the Forest Service and the special interests. And his own principles of conservation hadn't changed. Of conservation hadn't changed. That was true of Bill Greeley, and he had difficult times with the industry to get them to line up, and the Pacific Northwest aren't easy industries to handle, but he handled them. So once in a while, Forest Service men would get a little bit excited when these men who had left us were working for others. They'd say, "Well, they always felt that way. It was easy for them to sell out." They didn't 263 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: sell out. They accepted the very onerous job of bringing peace and harmony between conflicting points of view. And I for one have never taken that position. Now, there are some men who couldn't hold that kind of job, as Greeley was able, to be willing to eat a lot of crow in order to slowly but surely win over an opposition, to a mutual point of agreement of self-interest. So, in the main, that's the way it's been. Now, some of our worst offenders — and I think of two that we ought to cover — men who found it advantageous they thought to fight the Forest Service, were men who went to the forestry schools as professors. You mean, as opposed to those who grew up through the Forest Service? They were in the Forest Service; then they became professors, and then all of a sudden they felt it incumbent upon themselves to prevent what they called bureaucracy grasping the Forest Service. They took peculiar positions, not sustained by their professional training, in support of industry frequently, in support of state versus federal. Not all, but some did, and they lost out ultimately in the support of their own alumni later. The only one I've mentioned here is Fritz. I think that he lost out ultimately. He thought it was always incumbent to show up the Forest Service. You also said that Cal didn't have very many men like this, and that some other forestry schools have as a school had certain projects underwritten by the lumber industry, which more or less put them in — Yes, which put them in bondage. Yes, the University of Washington, at Seattle, was more or less indebted to the industry; Corvallis sold its birthright a little bit — although the dean before this last one tried to fight it off. But my own university, Michigan, when they undertook certain kinds of work, I think they sacrificed. But they finally woke up to it. There was pressure put on Idaho, and the dean there fell into the trap. In the main, a school which does a job presumably on research, or whatever it is, for pay — that's what it amounts to, for pay — without protecting themselves that it's public property, whatever they do, can get into a lot of difficulties. That's why the University of California in doing its research in the products laboratory, everything is public patent. It will not do a private job for someone — 264 Kotok: in contrast to the research organization that's built up, you see, independently at Stanford, you know, the Stanford Research. They're paid for it and it isn't in the public domain; they frequently are in conflict with public interests, California is in a better position in that respect; it's maintained its integrity. It will not do anything for a special client. And I hope it maintains that. But when they take these donations for a special consideration, then they can't be forthright. I mean, they can't be open and clear. Let me illustrate. Fry: Kotok: A lumber company made some grants to the University of Washington, and when the conflict came about regulating or not regulating cutting on timber lands, the University of Washing ton had to practically keep its mouth shut. It didn't indicate the area of public interest. Then the industry used another device, and that one we've had in California too. They'll give, you know, a special job to a professor. Consulting? A consulting job — it's now become a very sickly thing. In that consultation, frequently they're asking consultation to fight off a line of action that's being proposed by public agencies. So when I related the story about Fritz, you know, with the redwood organization, in part it was the fact that he was trying to fight for the redwood industry any form of regulation as to what would be done on their land. He was going to advise them; that would be sufficient. That's how he rationalized it. But he was being paid, and when he used University stationery, I as a forester could very well object. He couldn't be speaking as a professor without stating to everybody, "I am now speaking as a paid hireling of the red wood industry." It worries me, you see. There was one case in California that was almost scandalous; it involved professors from Stan ford and also from Cal. When the Golden Gate bridge was built, a certain kind of cement was used. The professors were consultants, and built a case for a certain kind of cement as against another kind. But it was hard to disting uish when they spoke, you know, as public servants of the University of California or Stanford, or as consultants. And that was rather a ticklish position. Now, there's no quarrel for them having a consulting job. But when they appear before the public, it should be clearly stated who they are speaking for. There's some objection right now to those that are tied in to some of the military tasks that we're doing on the campus. I've heard some comments. When Teller speaks, who does he 265 Kotok: speak for? And particularly when he's making speeches for money. That's another area where you get into a little delicate matter. For example, this extreme case. Let's assume there was a professor on the University who was particularly a public institution, and being paid to teach, and he had a point of view on a very delicate subject, the position of the Birchers. And he goes out and makes speeches pro-Birch. There would be concern, wouldn't there? I'm taking an extreme case. Well, there are some that almost [do] that, you know. 266 INTERVIEW IX Ties of American Forestry and European Forestry; Kotok's Personal Contacts; Visitors to the United States Such as Shenk and Others; With International Organizations When in the Washington Office. (Recorded January 9, 1964) Fry: [Reading] Let me enter this list of honors on the tape before we begin our session today. June 28, 1947, Medal of Honor of Chevalier du Merite Agricole (Tom Gill, Henry Solon Graves, Lyle Watts, Kotok); Honorary professor of University of Chile; fellow of the Scientific Society of Venezuela; honorary member of the scientific society of Israel; member of a society of agriculture in Mexico. Now, we have on your agenda for today — Kotok: I want to indicate the ties American foresters have had with European forestry. American foresters have had ties with European foresters from the very early beginning, with the establishment of the Bureau of Forestry in the Department of Agriculture, and later with the establishment of the Forest Service, when the national forests were es tablished. Perhaps we ought to start with the first European forester who had an influence in American forestry — Professor Fernow. He was a German-trained forester who was invited by Cornell to start its forestry school; later, when he left the United States, he took residence in Canada and became a professor at the University of Toronto. He left a Germanic imprint in many ways. First, he was connected with the original Bureau of Forestry in the United States and headed it for a while, Fernow did (he became an American citizen) , and he also was the teacher and guide for 267 Kotok: two men who became important in American forestry — Roth, who became dean at Michigan, was a student of his, and so was Mulford, who became later, of course, the dean at the University of California. It can be said, then, that he left a very definite imprint on American forestry. He published minor papers that were used as texts both at Cornell and Michigan, and to some degree at California. Another German who had considerable influence on Ameri can forestry was Shenk, who started the Biltmore Forestry School. Shenk was a distinguished German forester and teacher who was invited by Vanderbilt to organize his Biltmore estate for forestry purposes and also to start the forestry school. The Biltmore students were also required to take one summer's work in Germany. So the ties of American forestry with Germany were established in connection with their schooling. The Biltmore school had some very noted foresters who gradu ated and participated in the whole American forestry movement. There was one other man that might be mentioned — a German, who also had an influence on American forestry — von Schrenk He started in the Bureau of Forestry and specialized in utili zation, timber testing, and wood preservation. He gave the leadership to the cooperative programs that were established by the Bureau of Forestry with universities — one, for example, at California, which I already recorded; University of Wash ington; Purdue; and Yale. These cooperative agreements were generally tied up with the engineering schools of the insti tutions, and they dealt with questions of timber as a commodity used in construction, both of structures and for railroads, poles, and so forth. So preservation was important and timber testing was important. These cooperative agreements continued until the establishment of the Madison Forest Products Labora tory, and the work then was terminated at the universities and placed in one central institution. Von Schrenk, also Germanic in his approach, had a considerable influence in this whole field of utilization. Of course, it should be noted too that Gifford Pinchot spent a year at Nancy and therefore was exposed to the French forestry. Pinchot also was influenced considerably by Schlich's work, a German who was connected with the University of Oxford and later became the leader of Indian forestry. Many of the organizational forms that were instituted in the Forest Service followed closely Schlich's work in India. What I mean is this, that the key to the organization would be professional foresters; that rangers could come up through the field but would have also an opportunity to continue their in-service training to rise to higher positions; decentralization to the maximum amount, giving considerable responsibility to the man 268 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: on the ground. These formulas that Schlich had so success fully used in India were closely followed by Pinchot and his group in the early days when the Forest Service was established, These few men that I'm recording as they influenced American forestry left more than their own individual person alities as they affected the foresters whom they taught or contacted. But it also gave the basis for the texts that the early forestry schools used, which were in the main Germanic, and to a lesser degree from the Nancy school at France. Of course, it wasn't long before American foresters found that the complexity and variety of species that we have to handle in the United States, and the differences in climate and differences in use, required that we had to modify Germanic texts or French texts to meet the problems that we found in the United States. Nevertheless, it must be said that our real beginnings can find its origin in what these European professors gave as the impetus to our American forestry education. This would have been at the turn of the century, is that right? This would have been, yes, at the turn of the century, in the early 1900s. I now want to record a little bit of my own contacts with Europeans and European foresters. Immediately after the First World War, Shenk returned to the United States. But it's best perhaps to note that when the First World War started, Shenk was at Biltmore, and he decided to return to Germany and join his regiment, which was called to the colors, and he fought as a German officer in the First World War. The Biltmore school then terminated; no one followed him. I can't find or recall any comments of his students re garding their professor having left the United States to enter the German army. It is interesting to note, however, that a number of the leading officers in the Tenth and Twentieth Engineers who were American foresters were graduates of the Biltmore school, among them Coert Du Bois, Swift Berry, and there are a number of others whose names I can't at the present recollect. And the fact that they went to school under a man who went to the German army cast no aspersions on their patriotism at the time? No, none whatever. So they proceeded as American officers and 269 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Shenk proceeded as a German officer. My own meeting with Shenk, however, didn't occur until after the First World War when he returned to the United States. He offered himself as a lecturer, for fees, to American institutions and forestry groups and lumber associations. I attended a couple of his lectures on these tours. He spoke largely about the importance of forestry in the world development. However, on closer examination, I found that Shenk was here for a more definite purpose than merely lecturing. As a result of the war, German holdings in the United States were, of course, confiscated by the Alien Property Custodian, and Shenk was here trying to recover assets for Germans who had invested in the wood-using industries. The matter wasn't settled until the final reparations settlements were made with Germany. How he came out as a spokesman for the German investors I don't know. I merely want to record that he was here for a definite purpose — to advance forestry not to readjust his relation ship in the United States (he determined to remain a German citizen) , but he was here primarily in order to secure the benefits of any reparation that might be made of German pro perty that had been taken over by the Alien Property Custodian. You mean as a lobbyist? Yes. There's nothing bad about it, excepting that he came under false colors. He didn't come here to establish good will; he came here to establish property rights for German owners. And it was all legal, but nevertheless, a little two-faced part in his appearances before foresters and timber owners. Did you hear his lectures at this time? Yes, I heard two of them. He was very convincing, he was a very affable man, and I got to like him very well. Our own personal relationships were established at that time and I continued for many years to correspond with him. He had much to offer us, and he was a forthright teacher. Nevertheless, he still believed in the Germanic approach to forestry, which time, as I've indicated, showed we couldn't blindly apply without making great modifications to meet our own conditions. In fact, I wrote a paper at one time indicating that blind following of Germanic texts and European forestry brought many difficulties, particularly in New England, where we tried to convert the mixed hardwood-conifer stands to pure coniferous stands, and it brought on many problems both in the incidence of disease, incidence of insects because we weren't cognizant of the ecological character of our own forests in trying to apply forestry of a different ecology. 270 Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Was this paper written when you were with the experiment station? It was a paper that I wrote, I think, for the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia. I'll find it. The next foreign forester that I met was Franz Heske. Franz Heske appeared here in the late Thirties. He was professor at Tarant [sic]. He came here with his wife, a remarkable woman. She was of Czech nobility. His own origins were rather in the European formula of common stock, and his marriage with nobility was a step to push him up in the status symbols of Europe. When he arrived here, I had the pleasure of piloting him around California, and we found both his wife and himself very companionable, knowledgeable people, and we enjoyed them im mensely. He had spent some time in Canada before he arrived here, and before that he had had an extended trip as a consul tant in India, and a tour of duty for the Foreign Office of Germany . In India. In India. Well, forestry is important, as you remember, in India. But he went there presumably as a forester. We accepted him at his face value. He was generous in acknowledging the extension of privileges that we had given him and the help that we'd given him to visit here in the United States. He made contacts clear through the United States with foresters, and everyone was quite impressed with him. Later he returned to Germany and we continued our corres pondence. He was full of praise of what Germany was doing under Hitler — rejuvenation — and he was particularly impressed with what Hitler was attempting to do to make the forestry activities more important in the Reich. He finally wound up by a very generous invitation for me to come to visit Germany as their guest, and that he had discussed it with Goering and with Hitler, and they joined in inviting me to see Germany as a growing power in every direction. This, of course, made no great appeal to me. At the same time, I had also received glowing letters from Shenk, also commenting in the most favorable terms of Hitler's rise to power, Shenk was at this time back in Germany? . .• • • • . • ........ . . . '• • • • • • . • , • • . • . , • . . . . ' ' • • ••••.• '• •• • ' .-....- ! , . ' ' • '- • , • ' • • 271 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Germany. He was at Darmstadt. So from two sources I was receiving cordial invitations to come and see the Nazis at work. This is still before they entered Czechoslovakia, I guess, and Austria. This is before. As things became more involved in Europe, and the handiwork of Hitler was more clearly defined, those of us who had had contacts with both Shenk and with Heske began to read the story in a different light. It was obvious that Heske 's trip through India, through Canada, through the United States might have been motivated for securing informa tion that might be helpful to Germany. How far we were justi fied in those suspicions will never be known, but nevertheless the evidence was heavy that he wasn't making these trips in order to advance forestry alone. He was a voluminous note- taker, and in the stories that he told — that amazed us, that he had been given the right by the Reich and by Czechoslovakia to travel between Sudetenland, which was a part of Czechoslo vakia that was in question, and Germany, and that he had made frequent trips, consultation, particularly the approaches between Germany and Czechoslovakia. He was able to get around in Czechoslovakia with ease because his wife was a Czech and came from Czech nobility, and when we added it all up to gether, it confirmed our opinion that his trips to Czechoslo vakia and his trips to India and other places where the Reich's interests might be at stake, were not completely aboveboard. I decided, therefore, to terminate all my com munications with both Shenk and with Heske. We didn't hear from Shenk for a long while then. After the Second World War finished and our American troops were occupying Germany, Shenk again opened up his correspondence with Americans. I received one communication in which he spoke of the great difficulties they were having with their severe rations. It was an open invitation, if we wanted to send him delicacies of whatever kind, they would be deeply appreciated, I as one ignored it. However, these same solic itations for gifts were received by his former students at Biltmore, and collectively they raised a pot and actually sent him not only goodies but American money that he could use in exchange later. Shenk moved to his old residence, this palatial place that he had once owned at Darmstadt. The Americans that were assigned to Germany ignored him, although he always tried to get in touch with them. Kircher, who was the head of the American forestry group in the German occupation area, avoided him, although Kircher himself was of original German extraction. 272 Kotok: When I visited Germany I passed through Darmstadt a number of times but I never took the opportunity to call on Shenk. As far as I was concerned, it appeared to me that he was playing the game on both sides — a German in the first place, in support of whatever the German government was in control, including Hitler, and a good friend of America when he thought it would pay dividends to himself or to the Germans . I didn't hear from Heske for a long while, until the end of the Second World War and Germany was occupied by the Allied powers. Heske was held tentatively as a prisoner by the British in the British zone. Then the American groups, including myself, began to receive communications from Heske, asking us that we clear him before the British that he was not either a spy or a member of the Nazi Party. Some of his American friends extended themselves considerably to help him; I felt that I couldn't with clear conscience be a participant in that move. So much for these contacts with the German foresters that came to America. During this same period, while I was still director of the California Station, and before the Second World War, we had a number of other European visitors, and I always felt it was a privilege to guide them around and to give them every opportunity to see the California forests from one one of the state to the other. Fry: Kotok: Among the men that I had the privilege then of meeting and guiding around, one, a very important Finlander, Cassandra, who later became Prime Minister of Finland. He was a noted botanist as well as a forester. (Just a moment; I'll maybe recall some names.) Okay — Eino Saari from Finland. (Are you cold? Wait, we'll put the heater on.) That's all right; I'm always cold. Eino Saari, a Finlander, a professor of Finnish forestry at the University. A number of very noted Swedish foresters [came to California]. Their visits proved profitable for those of us who had the opportunity to visit with them and to travel with them, not only to get their own reaction as to their observations of the California forest situation, but to bring us up-to-date of some of the more recent movements in forestry in Europe. And incidentally, particularly the Swedish and the Finnish foresters gave us an inkling of the trouble that Europe was in and the storm that was gathering that would finally wind up in the Russian-Finnish War that preceded, before the Second World War actually started. And if one might reflect 273 Kotok: on comments that these leaders made, that a war with Russia would be inevitable unless the Finns were prepared to readjust their boundaries, so that the threat on that regard could be eliminated. The old boundaries between Finland and Russia left their capital completely vulnerable to direct attacks from the Finnish side. I also recollect that some of them who were ardent and patriotic Finns felt that they were being guided by German influences that were egging them on to outright war with Russia. In retrospect we can say they were right in their judgment. I merely record that as an observation that these visitors made. Fry: This includes Cassandra? Kotok: Yes. All of them. They were startling comments as one looks back. Of course, they were a little freer in speaking to me because of my Russian origin, and since my grandmother's home was actually on the Finnish-Russian border. So there were many things in common that we had, having lived in that harsh, frozen northland with the long, long winters and the very short but lovely summers. My next extension into the foreign field actually started when I became assistant chief of forestry research at Washington. Watts [Lyle] and likewise Earle Clapp before him, were not par ticularly interested in the foreign field or in foreigners, and it was given to me, then, the task of being the represen tative in that area of operations as far as the Forest Service was concerned . Fry: This is how you first got into your international interests, then? Kotok: That's correct, yes. By the mere fact that I could adjust myself to European contacts a little easier — foreign contacts a little easier than the heads of the Forest Service or any of the other divisions. Here again, I might note that my knowledge of some foreign languages, the main European languages, furthered that selection, perhaps. So as we went on and we got into the war, I carried most of the load of the international organizations. My first assignments in the foreign field had to do with the Pan-American Union, which later became the Organization of American States. I was selected by the Department of Agricul ture and by the State Department as the American delegate. I've already noted the number of places that I attended as 274 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: American delegate: Chile. at Caracas, at Brazil and Uruguay and Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: This was all under Pan-American Union? Pan-American Union, later to become the Organization of American States. Then, when the task began of trying to get forestry into the Food and Agriculture Organization, again I had a prominent part. I was one of the delegates that formu lated the American position for foresters in the Food and Agriculture Organization, working with Graves, Watts and Tom Gill. There was a further extension, then, of my contacts in the international field, and I had the pleasure, then, of being an American delegate to Quebec for the formal signing for entrance into the Food and Agriculture Organization. Later, when the Marshall Plan was being considered, the work was actually assigned, as far as timber products — forest products — was actually assigned to the Department of Commerce, but the Department of Commerce on their own accord asked me to chairman the American representatives on the Marshall Plan dealing with forest products. There again, I had the fine opportunity of meeting with the European opposites who were considering the forest products items in the Marshall Plan. Later, in connection with a trip that I made to an FAO meeting in Europe, the forestry division in the army of occupation asked that I visit Germany, in connection with the application of the Marshall Plan. That I've already fully recorded. You mean as a consultant? As a consultant. That I've also recorded. I'm merely relating how — tying in with all these international activities. The Food and Agriculture Organization was already estab lished, and on one of these visits, I received an invitation from France — their Minister of Agriculture — to visit France. Under FAO? No, as a guest of France, of the Department of Agriculture. I received approval of that from the State Department and the Department of Agriculture, and I had an extended visit then in France to examine not only forestry activities in France at that time, after the war, but also to observe the use of American material and the Marshall Plan. The French extended themselves considerably. I was one of the first Americans that had visited some of the parks immediately following the war. And there again, my little knowledge of French was very help ful. I traveled from one end of France to the other, prac tically. There again, our international ties were tightened up. 275 Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Was this primarily in forest products? I covered both fields; that is, I covered for the Marshall Plan the use of the forest products that were imported from the United States, but for the forestry groups I took notes on some of the activities, particularly dealing with torrent control. Torrent? Torrent control. That's the term they use. We call it forest influences — it's flood control. So I traveled through the mountains to see what the engineers and foresters had accomplished in torrent control. It was an interesting trip, and I made permanent contacts with people that I continue to — It was at the end of this trip that you were presented with your medal? No, that came later, as a friend of France. As American delegate to the Food and Agriculture Organization, of course I kept very close contacts with FAO. I was selected as chairman of a special committee to work with the International Research Organization, which was an old institution dealing with forestry research which had somewhat lapsed during the war and was being reestablished. And I was asked to meet in Paris with a delegate from France and one from England to advise the Food and Agriculture what relationship they should establish with this International Research Organization, in which the United States was a member. We made a specific recommendation after studying the matter for three days. These contacts in the international field by the research organiza tion in forestry at Washington, I m;Lght record, is continuing now on a wide scale. Yes. Is it under FAO? Do you mean the one under FAO? The whole international field is still handled by research. Under the U.N. No, you don't get me. As far as the Forest Services organiza tion is concerned, the international field work is still being handled by the deputy chief of the Forest Service in research. On some of our trips, we were invited in connection with a meeting of Food and Agriculture as guests of Norway and Sweden, and an American delegation traveled through as the guests of the Norwegian and Swedish governments. They extended 276 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: themselves considerably to show us not only forestry, but the points of occupancy in Norway by the Germans, and they related to us in great detail the underground work both of Americans and Norwegians in the strife with Hitler. On the face of it, in view of present disagreements and tensions, it would be well to record that in these early days immediately after the war, the position of Americans in Europe was very high. There was not only interest in us, but appreciation, and in other ways they made us feel that they were indebted to us and appreciated our efforts. Outside Germany, I guess. [Laughter] Well, in Germany when I visited, I visited around — I did not record one interesting visit. Traveling in Germany in con nection with that general inspection trip that we were making, I ran across an old professor (whose name slips me now) who had visited the United States — an old German professor. We were instructed by General Clay that we take along with us interpreters and not speak the language with them — a rule that was later changed, I found that the interpreter that we had wasn't too accurate in his translations; I'd have to catch him up now and then. But when this old professor met me, he extended his arms and in a loud German voice before the group said, "Oh, so Sie sind Herr Kotok! Ah, jawohl, jawohl." I unfortunately had to indicate to him that I wasn't speaking German — I had for gotten my German, Then I got him on the side and he had tears in his eyes, and he related some of the difficulties that the old professional men had, having to live through the strife and who appeared to be Nazis when deep down in their hearts they were considered as obstacles to the whole Hitler regime. Their rations were inadequate; the ones that had good rations were the farmers, who were able to keep out some of their products. I couldn't resist, then, to leave him a gift that I had secured from the PX — bundles of delicious food that I could pick up. Perhaps we might quit there and pick up a new section that we haven't covered, that you say you haven't any notes on, and that is Show's contacts with the Food and Agriculture Organization. 277 ADDENDUM I Interview with Ruth Show Kotok (Mrs. Edward I. Kotok) Recorded August 14, 1963 Life With a Forester Fry: I have for the first topic "marriage and forestry." You married Mr. Kotok after he'd already entered the field of forestry; was that when he was in California? RSK: Yes, on Shasta National Forest. Fry: So right from the beginning, then, you lived in the national forest. RSK: Yes. Fry: Could you describe, first of all, your physical living conditions? You came from Nebraska? RSK: No, I came from Palo Alto. I was less than a year old when we lived in Nebraska. So, excepting as a visitor, I don't know anything about back around there. Fry: But you were used to a relatively high degree of civilization, in a professor's family in Palo Alto, right? RSK: Oh yes. We were married almost fifty years ago, and living in a small town, something like three hundred or five hundred population, in which the largest cohesive group was forest officers and their families. There were around a dozen of us there. It wasn't like living out in a ranger station. I've visited a good many ranger stations, guard stations, look-outs, during my life, but living in a small town, then called Sisson, now Mt. Shasta City, was not the crude and often very uncom fortable living that you found out on the actual job in the woods. We had modern improvements in our little houses, and for the most part a very congenial group of people. They FROM ED KOTOK'S PERSONAL SNAPSHOT COLLECTION EVIER HOUSE " 12, 1781, INDIANS G RONDOUT VALLEY HOUSE OF CORNELIUS UT FLAMES WERE PUT 'y NEGRO WOMAN SLAVE. Ruth Bevler Show at site of old family home of Cornelius Bevier, Sullivan County, New York. Ed Kotok (far left) and S. Bevier Show (center), prepared for winter cruising and mapping on the Shasta National Forest in 1912. Other rangers are unidentified. 278 RSK: ranged in background from Harvard graduates to one man who had been a provincial governor in the Philippine Islands, and then the usual cross-section of technically trained men and untrained men who composed the Forest Service unit there. The only thing that I would say has become different through the years is the fact of the automobile, which didn't happen right away. It was after the First World War that they began utilizing motors for forestry work. Up until that time, you had horses. We_ had horses. Life there was rigorous physically in the winter because it's a country of heavy snowfall, and also for the reason that most of the men, large groups of the men, went out for three months in the dead of winter, leaving the Forest Service group chiefly female. And if we had heavy winters, which we had the second winter we were there, it wasn't too comfortable. It wasn't tragic in any sense, but I think in some ways, an in definable way, it leaves a mark on someone who has had to weather inexperience, bad weather, isolation to some degree — because, believe me, literally that second winter, the snowfall was so heavy that I didn't get out of my house from Thanks giving to Easter. My food and mail were brought in by the men on sleds or skiis, and we had a local phone arrangement — which was a lifesaver. We'd just hang ourselves on a high stool and sit and talk, three or four people at a time, like an intercom system, and I think that probably helped us all weather the really uncomfortable weather conditions. Largely due to the fact that California architecture at that time, even in a small town, did not provide central heating, you had to depend on very much more crude forms of heating — in other words, burning wood. We had a woodshed a third as big as the house, stacked to the eaves every fall. I was there only two years; my husband had been there several years before. Then, when we moved to much more livable conditions, in Placerville, it offered other problems. One was the utiliza tion of people during the First World War, which had its own complications. A great many men went off to the armed services, and again you had groups of women that are always the stay-at- homes in wartime. However, the Forest Service group there was very much smaller — a much smaller forest and a much smaller staff than that on the Shasta, and I found a great deal of personal pleasure in handling a Girl Scout group, for instance, which I knew nothing about and which was hung around my neck. I enjoyed that; I enjoyed living in a very pleasant climate. I didn't get out into the forest very much, but it was a nice little town in which to live. Fry: You stayed there how long? 279 RSK: We were there from 1916 to the beginning of 1920 — January, 1920. I had my two infants — the little girl was born while we were on the Shasta, the boy was born while we were on the El Dorado. But I don't think there's any question but that the place of a Forest Service wife is very well defined when it comes to the lower echelons and the higher echelons. In those days, a typical ranger's wife in a typical ranger station had a definite responsibility to man the telephone lines, particularly during fire season, which is a rather immeasurable period of calendar time. You can't quite define it, excepting as the scientific approach began to analyze what fire weather consisted of, and so on. Well, in that picture, the ranger's or the guard's wife has a definite responsibility that she is expected to fulfill, and that is to be there. She has to be on the telephone and be able to communicate fire news and orders and even attend to getting food. I've known many Forest Service wives who have had to make four hundred sandwiches for firefighters or some pre posterous thing like that, when the supply trains were not organized the way they are today. They didn't have dispatchers which is now one man's job and his official job is to attend to all these things. The women were expected to do that sort of work. They didn't go out and man a shovel and pickax perhaps, but they were there, stand-bys, and I want to pay a tribute to the thousands of Forest Service women who have helped save part of the country, as far as fire goes. The same thing goes, of course, for catastrophe. I can think of times when women have pitched in in a somewhat similar fasion when there was somebody lost in the mountains, and a whole sheriff's posse will start out to look for them, child or adult, or when an accident happens in a remote place and they have to get a patient out. The women have often contribu ted their skill and knowledge of how to do these things in what would be a strictly masculine activity. Also I've known some — and this was up to rather recent times, where there are ranger stations so isolated that they don't have electricity, except the telephone lines, and where it's impossible to market oftener than once every two weeks or so, and they have to become vege tarians, other than just using canned meat and foods. And I've known that up to within the past ten years. I think it's a remarkable tribute to American women's adaptability that these girls who come from sophisticated and quite comfortable back grounds are able to go out and live on a mountain peak somewhere and cope. Now, the girl who can't do that — and I've seen this happen too — her marriage usually ends in tragedy and a breakup, 280 RSK: a young woman who can't recognize her unsung but very definite place in a forest officer's performance. Fry: I gather then from this picture of their role that the forester's wife did not go out to teach school or work in the local insurance office. She definitely was needed as a part of this job. RSK: Well, as a rule. There have been both angles. Perhaps part of this job was — I can think of one forest in California where their Indian problem was quite serious, and it required trained or partially-trained people to cope with that in the schools. I know of cases where they have had to take an outside job of that kind, but ordinarily, I don't know of very many women who have held independent jobs while their husbands were functioning as forest officers. As a matter of fact, I was offered a very good job when we lived in Placerville, and I checked up on it, and I didn't feel competent to take the job, had one baby. My salary would have been more than my husband's salary, and I turned it down for that reason — psychological reasons purely — though it was a job I would have enjoyed. But for the most part, even with the high cost of bringing up families, the usual forest officer's wife does not take a remunerative job. Fry: Because of this feeling — that she belongs in forestry. RSK: That's right. At the higher echelons this is very definitely true. The esprit of any unit, whether it's a research station or a forest station or a region, very definitely is one that the woman is in more or less a static position, until called upon for one of these emergencies. Fry: When you were the regional forester's wife — RSK: I wasn't. I'm his sister. [Laughter] Fry: Oh, he went to — RSK: He was in research. My brother was a regional forester. Fry: So that you're speaking primarily of the head forester in a forest, in a national forest. RSK: The supervisor. Yes, both the supervisor and the wives of the rangers, the wives of the guards, who are really tied down as if they had a job. I don't know what the arrangement on pay has ever been, but for the most part, it's been completely voluntary and not paid. I don't believe the congressional 281 RSK: setup allows very much, if anything, for women's salaries other than clerical and that sort of thing. There have been very few women in the Forest Service officially, although there's no reason for it. In some ways they would make, in certain categories, I think, extremely good research people, because they are in other sciences. But it's somewhat the same as the military services. There aren't many wives in those who go out and take unrelated jobs. If it's a job that's related, it might get by. It's a psychologically rather close- knit and interdependent arrangement all the time. Fry: A sort of traditional preacher 's-wife type of role. RSK: Yes. The unsung heroine. Fry: And she's definitely supposed to be there to do part of his job. RSK: Yes, and it's a good comparison. I'd never thought of it quite in that way. But that illustrates it. Fry: I want to ask you about whatever you might be able to describe as second-hand knowledge of what your sister-in-law, Mrs. Show, what her role was, as the wife of a regional forester. In other words, how does this role change as you progress up to the higher echelons? RSK: Well, I can put it this way. The present regional forester's wife in the California region has a very well-paid job. I don't know what it is. Fry: Which is unrelated to forestry? RSK: That's right. Nothing could have ever been further from my sister-in-law's thoughts. She was a very loyal and cooperative wife, and I feel that that is the pattern. Of those that I've known, even those who've gone to Washington or stayed on in a region for a long, long time, I would say most of the women were completely cooperative. You get a sense of competition now which has been very slow in rising — this is just socially, and has nothing to do with the husbands at any great depth — between the research wives and the administrative wives. Now, this is something my husband knows nothing of, because this is something I've absorbed through the pores in the seven or eight years we've been back here, and I have been a member of what they call the Forest Service Ladies Club. Fry: You mean, you didn't notice this so much when he was head of the experiment station? 282 RSK: No. There we had definitely a social unit of our own, and there was very little competition. It was almost entirely research, just very few exceptions. That was very close, and that is another angle. There are two dangers to these very close-knit groups. One is that you'll have what we used to term, very obliquely, the "lady supervisors," which applied to some of the wives. Not very many, but some. And what you would best call teacher's pet. It's very, very difficult for the chief's wife to maintain almost identical relationships with all sorts of personalities, and the bigger your unit gets the more variation you're coping with. I ran into it because there were a few very engaging girls whose sole object in life was to become teacher's pet. And you have to fend it off. If you're adept at that sort of fencing, why, you can handle it all right. You also can get suckered in, which can happen to the best of us. It's a matter that only comes to you through your pores, or by really malicious scuttlebutt, that so-and-so thinks the director's wife is playing favorites with so-and-so and so-and-so. "Did you see, she was out with her twice last week?" And they go over to each other's houses and play cards at night when the men are away, and all that sort of thing. Well, one can make something of it or one can ignore it, and I found that the best thing to do was to ignore it. Fry: But at the same time, you tried definitely not to be with one more than another? RSK: Oh, yes. Certainly. Well, if you're a supervisor Fry: Well, if you're a supervisor's wife, then, with whom do you associate on just a relaxed level, then? Who can you see as often as you'd like to? Or is it a pretty lonely business? RSK: Well, there again to some extent it's an expression of similarity in tastes. I think probably most supervisors' wives, only having been one supervisor's wife, and on a very small staff, where the only close people we had were a couple of rangers and their wives, and this was — living in a small town, and they left the ranger station during the winter and were there in the summer, lived in the town in winter, that sort of thing. You never do become very intimate. But living in the Berkeley unit there, as it grew and grew and grew, I found the best technique was to remain fairly formal with most of them. Now the groups seem to be friendly, as far as anyone can judge. I don't hear very much gossip, except one or two once in a while. I have been able to separate myself from it. After all, my husband's retired; he has no active place. There's no maneuvering for position with a retiree or a retiree's wife, for which I'm devoutly thankful. 283 Fry: You were about to tell me about this feeling between the research foresters' wives that you find now in your wives group, and the other wives — RSK: There's a little feeling there, yes. There 's a little competitive feeling. It's not unwholesome; personally I think it's all right. But they're very meticulous — over- meticulous about — you see, there are four major living areas: Mar in County, San Francisco proper, down the Peninsula, and East Bay, where your residence to some extent depends on where the husband's office is, whether it's East Bay or whether it's San Francisco. All right. The entertainment of the ladies is divided now equally between the four groups. That is, we have eight meetings a year, two in each area. When the Forest Service ladies' groups started, it was just shortly after we came to the San Francisco office, and a gal who wasn't a Calif ornian at all, never been in California before, and I and a couple of others thought up the idea of having the women meet every month and yak-yak together, and without question (this was about 1922 or '23) we met in San Francisco for lunch, or oc casionally for tea and occasionally for cards, or a regular afternoon party. But always in San Francisco. Always this same gal, this one from the Southwest, was president, elected year after year. Finally, after, oh golly, fifteen years, I guess, we decided that we would give her a beautiful silver tea service, and we would supplant her as head of the thing. And we did. But she didn't resign; so she went on being head of it [laughter] until after we had left to go to Washington in 1941. And then there was a rebellion. I don't know whether my presence here had kept this thing stalled off a bit or not, because we'd had risings and fallings. But this was a real rebellion, in which the station gals — there were enough of them then — announced they were going to have their own ladies' club. Well, how that was ever resolved I don't know because I was not here, but at any rate it is not separate — separate but equal. They all meet together, and as I say, meticulously assigned to the four living areas. Oh, it's an enormous associ ation, club! You'd be just horrified to see how many people belong to it and what an enormous layout there are. (I have the test here someplace. I'll hunt it up and let you see it.) They're much more formal in their arrangements. They have these committees in each area who take care of sending flowers to the ill and so forth and so on, and each year there's a promotion from the — and come up the steps, up the chairs. I don't even know the gal who's now head of it. And it has almost nothing to do with your husband's relative 284 RSK: prominence. Before it did. But almost no consideration of where your husband stands in the echelon. Fry: Do the wives feel that their relative position in this club might have anything to do with their husbands' promotion? RSK: Oh, no. I'm sure of that. I have never yet met a Forest Service wife who — [telephone interruption] But you see, it's a large and flourishing aggregation that these women are married to. The retirees are members; they don't hold office. Fry: [Consulting document] Eleven pages of women! [Laughter] RSK: Well, you can see how it has become more formalized in one way, and probably most women who belong to that and go to these meetings do it really because they enjoy seeing the other women. I do, of course, because my husband's position has nothing what ever to do with this. He has his own forestry retirees club; this, you might say, is mine, which has more active women, of course. But there has undoubtedly been maneuvering for position or promotion or so on; I'll say this honestly, I have yet to see it work. I've seen it tried, but I have yet to see it work. In other words, among the women, teacher's pet thing can come and go, but I have yet to see the women effectively stir a finger in any of that, really. Fry: Foresters are pretty independent cusses. RSK: Also there's, you might say, a precedent for it, particularly the early days; as I say, before the day of the motorcar, you had to get along. If there were four women out on a ranger station — a guard's wife, two rangers, and perhaps the supervisor's wife part of the year, you had to get along. Men have given short shrift to internal squabbling and so on. They do their best to prevent that. I will say that conscientiously to the men — they work at trying to make their wives and children happy. Fry: I'd like to pick up one thing that we talked about before and dropped, and that's on the role of forester's wife as a mother. To begin with, what do you do when you're up on the Shasta and you realize that in the following month you're supposed to give birth to a baby? RSK: You do one of two things. In the old days almost entirely, the women "went below," which is the proper expression. Have you 285 Fry: [Laughing] I wish you'd tell about Kelley [Evan] and his attitude about women, even related to the Forest Service. RSK: He's a very lovable person. [Interruption for coffee] He really is. But I think, due to his background — and one never knows what may have happened in his own family or with his mother or any relationship like that — he really had convinced himself that a man's world, such as the Forest Service is, had no place for women, and that forest officers had no right to marry. That was of course a very extreme idea, and not a very sound one, because in that conviction he didn't allow for contentment or for the normal growing up of young men, and whether he ever influenced anyone to follow that idea I very much doubt. At least I know no one who was ever influenced by it. And he did make some enemies by it; the opposite happened. Fry: This forester who worked for him, who planned to leave his office when his wife had her baby in San Francisco, and go to her, he he threatened to — RSK: He told him that he'd take his resignation. Fry: Did he? RSK: No, because the young man — who afterwards died in the line of duty — just said okay, he'd fight it to the highest court. And I don't think Evan felt quite sure enough of his position to pursue that any further. [Laughing] At any rate, the young man was not under him almost from that time on. [To Kotok] Where did George go? Kotok: George Lyons? He became supervisor up on the Modoc, and a lamp exploded in a camp — one of these Coleman lamps — and he got serious wounds and passed away. He was a classmate of mine at Michigan. RSK: Of course, I always did say — George was a lovable creature — I always did say that Evan had used that maternity angle as a weapon. Evan is that subtle. Fry: As a weapon to get rid of the people he didn't like? Kotok: Well, the wife played another part, if I can interfere here, which Ruth didn't mention. In our first year of marriage, of course we spent that on the Shasta, where I was forest ex aminer. I started the first fire studies, and instead of taking off vacation, Ruth helped me and spent that whole two weeks that we had in preparing my first treatise on fire. She helped me abstract from the fire reports — two weeks annual 286 Kotok: leave. So we spent it together writing our report. So there is another part that women do perform in helping actually their husbands in such tasks as I have mentioned. Fry: Was that typical dedication at that time? Kotok: Yes. There were other women that I knew that were particu larly — Mrs. Flynn, that we mentioned, was very helpful; she was a school teacher here. Normally forest officers married school teachers because they were the only educated group in the territory. So it's not unusual to find forest officers' wives were school teachers. RSK: Particularly that generation. Not so much now; they marry coeds now. The college love affair is the dominant picture, I would say, in the younger group — Fry: As in everything else. RSK: Yes, and particularly since the war. Kotok: But at that time, the forest officer who was trained met the school teacher, and boy meets girl, and generally the marriages were with the school teacher within the territory. And they were very helpful; as we spoke of the Flynns ; she was a school teacher and she helped him to write his things. So there was that other function that women did perform in helping their help-mates in — Fry: In direct action. RSK: And to an extent, in technical things. Kotok: Particularly in the technical fields. So Ruth was invaluable to me at that time, and later, in preparing most of my speeches during my whole career in Washington and as director of the station, I used to dictate to her directly the speeches and technical papers that I would write. RSK: He even brought in some of his staff who couldn't write for sour apples and made me give them a sweating working over. Fry: As a school teacher, you mean? RSK: I was never a school teacher, dear. Fry: I mean in your relation to the staff. RSK: Well, they were very amenable about it; they all wanted to write. 287 RSK: And that was before we had an editor assigned to the stations; then the editor had to do all that and I didn't have to do it anymore. Fry: We ought to back up right here and get what you did in and out of college before you married Mr. Kotok. RSK: I married him before I got my degree. I got my degree in September of 1914, and we were married in August. Kotok: She got her degree as a Mrs. Kotok. Fry: That was pretty radical in those days. RSK: It was, very definitely. My family almost disowned me for doing it. But they had a bad fire on the Shasta and my husband — my fiance then — wanted to get married to counteract the effects of the fire, I think, emotionally. [Laughter] So we got married. I was nothing, if not accommodating. Fry: But then you couldn't join him until after your graduation? RSK: Oh no, no. I joined him, and how! Joined him and went out in the woods . The degrees at Stanford in those days were either in June or September, but they didn't have any commence ment in September; you had to appear the following June. I was eight and a half months pregnant at that time, so I did not appear. [Laughter] So that's that. Well, let's see — where are we? Fry: You hadn't done any teaching? RSK: Just practice teaching. I expected to teach feeble-minded children, but I got married instead. Had a couple that I've often wondered about. [Laughter] Fry: I'd say from their current records, that somehow you never got to put your training to use. What about the education of your children in the forest stations' schooling? Did you have schools, or did some of the wives — RSK: He can answer that better than I can. Kotok: There's one thing the Forest Service did do remarkably well; recognizing that instruction was very important, it premedi- tatedly changed assignments for many men so that their children could be in qualified schools within the general territory. That was a premeditated — 288 RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok; That was a policy, a definite policy. A policy from the very beginning, and this is where — Ruth mentioned the untrained men, the Hedleys and the Kellys, were not sympathetic to that. But the overhead — the men who really were responsible for the ultimate policy — promoted it and encouraged it. The right for a transfer — it almost be came a right — was immediately recognized, and men were trans ferred to an area where their children could have schooling. There's a sidelight on that. It's the fact that the salary level never was one that you could send your children away to boarding school, even if you wanted to, which is not the American pattern, of course. But it's not comparable to India — sending your child away at eight to get educated and never see ing him again. As a family, our policy has always been to keep the family together. This is a deep American pattern, and the Forest Service, from the very earliest days, encouraged that — almost taken for granted, especially when your children got to high school age. But now high schools are closer and closer proximity. But in those early days, it was really a difficult thing. Take, for example, those that were situated on the Klamath River — an impossible thing, when you only have Indian schools. Or the ones on the Sierra, where many — Where Benedict was on. So, there were definite ones. Then transfers would be made to give an opportunity for the schooling of their children. To that degree, then, it could be called a fringe benefit — a minor one but an important one, in satisfying the family needs. We moved men, then, in close proximity to schools if their family required that kind of a change. There's an interesting sidelight of that. A forest officer — a federal officer — is not supposed to partake of local politics , or any other kind of politics, but they finally did get it just bulled through, you might say, that he could be on a school board. That first happened in this region; it happened on the Sierra forest. And Show [RSK's brother] was the one that promoted it. That promoted that and got it through, because that had to have practically congressional action to allow — Well, it had to [have] acquiescence so it wouldn't come under the Hatch Act. So we were permitted to participate in such 289 Kotok: RSK: Kotok: Fry: RSK: Kotok: RSK: public activities where elective office wasn't involved, except school boards. All other elective offices were ex cluded; we couldn't participate. Yes, that had to be fought through. You see, this just con tributes to the concept that I'm sure you have by now, and that is the very amazing versatility of most forest officers. You occasionally get a man who only knows how to count tree rings — metaphorically speaking. But you have an amazing versatility, and they tend to marry the same kind of girls, who can do everything from bake a good loaf of bread out in the mountains to patching up a broken leg. Or public relations. Some of the rangers' wives, and some of the supervisors' wives, are indispensable in carrying forward the Forest Service policy so that there would be public under standing of it — sympathetic understanding of it. It was beautifully illustrated, and we had it when we were on the Shasta. One of the first attacks of influenza struck in the West. We stopped everything; the women participated in making bandages and so on — whatever was necessary, and the men left their work and on snowshoes — it was in the winter, and we carried food; the women prepared the food and we carried food to the outskirts where no food was available to the people that were isolated off from the main lines of travel. So, there was a participation. An outstanding job was done on the Modoc, a severe climate, and it hit it very badly, the whole force became nurses, including the rangers' wives and the supervisors' wives, became nurses in the community. So, this participating in the public activities for the welfare of the community started from the very beginning of the Forest Service. We attempted to be public servants in the widest sense. Without the women, those jobs could not have been completed. Did the women take part individually in civic organizations? Oh, yes, like Red Cross and local betterment clubs. Talk about what you did with the girls in Placerville there. This was during the First World War. All the young men, of course, had gone off to war and there was a whole townful of adolescent girls, and somebody — I don't remember who; I think it was the garageman's wife, who was a trained nurse — called a committee together in the hotel one night to see what could be done about organizing the girls. There wasn't even a junior Red Cross then; the Red Cross chapter in Placerville was quite active, but there wasn't any junior Red Cross, as 290 RSK: I recall, that was organized. They asked me to come. I'm not sure that this is correct, but at the time I was told I was the only college graduate in El Dorado County — a woman graduate — except the three college graduate girls on the high school teaching staff. They were all away. The one that was asked to head it up took a transfer; she went somewhere else to teach, so the thing kind of fell on my shoulders unwittingly. We got a gal to come over — the District Attorney's wife — from Auburn to help us set up a Girl Scout troop. She was head of the first one in California, so far as I know; so mine was the second. I had over forty girls! What to do with them? Well, they wanted them to do war work one day a week. That didn't satisfy the girls, so we had — the war work we did was home nursing and care of the sick, everything from making a hospital corner on your sheets to all the first aid — the regular standard first aid book we followed and so on, and we gave a day to that. They wanted to swim, so we gave a day to swimming. What in thunder was the other one? Oh, handicrafts and stuff of that kind; the usual Scout approach. To this day, I every once in a while meet a gal that was one of my Girl Scouts then. I took them camping. I got everybody that had a truck in town to carry their bedrolls, and we camped right out in the open, up in the forest. Ed found a campground for us, and we had quite a time. That went on until the close of the war, and then we moved away. But that is the sort of thing that a Forest Service wife is expected to do. I wouldn't have thought of saying I couldn't do it because I'd practically never heard of the Girl Scouts before. But it worked out very well. They had a couple of gay summers there while we were Girl Scouting. Kotok: In most of the places that we were, the churches didn't play a very important part. Strange as it may seem in these rela tively small communities that we lived in, like Sisson, or even Placerville which had a population of 1500, there was conflict between churches. Instead of having one community church to service a small community, in little Sisson we had three denominations in conflict going at the same time — a Methodist, a Catholic church, and a Baptist perhaps (I don't remember what the other denomination was). The churches had no great influence at that time; the whole attitude of those early California days in the small communities with the church — they were tolerated. Now, unfortunately the churches themselves are in part to blame. In most of these smaller communities it was the broken-down church man who was given the assignment to carry on the mission that he had. So, I would say the 291 Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: ministers were below par. Perhaps they could conduct their services, but entering into the community life, they fell far short. To illustrate, however, the one probably in Sisson, the Catholic Church, Father Carr was a lovable old man who had been given this assignment because he was a drunkard. The first alcoholic we ever knew. He would try to perform his mission until he'd break down on a liquor binge. Some of us in the Forest Service felt it was our responsibility to save him against himself, and we would bring him back to the parish house. He was very fond of Ruth and myself, and visited us for Sunday dinners often, and he spoke of the enormous task to be done by the church. His parish reached from Dunsmuir to the Oregon border, and he only got around to conduct his service and hear confession about once a month in each inhabited area. He had a very rig orous life physically; much of this he had to do on horseback or driving. But the Protestant ones fell far short of really carrying on a mission, under very trying conditions. For example, the little town of Sisson, two, three hundred people, and it would build up to about seven hundred in the winter when the lumber jacks would come there (which is now Mt. Shasta City) — about seven hundred. There were thirteen saloons and a red light district of three blocks, which is more city blocks than any other part of the town had. [Laughter] The lumberjacks would come to winter and to lose their money. To bring a certain kind of, well, public responsibility in a community of that kind was difficult. Ruth didn't touch upon that. The Forest Service women were highly respected in that little community — highly respected. But she might have mentioned too, they never put on the dog, or being the holy ones. They mixed with ex-madams that were married. [Laughter] Some of our friends were ex-madams who had married saloon keepers who were important actors in the town. Bob Cassalto, one of the saloon keepers, the druggist's wife, who was an ex-madam — Nice woman. They accepted them as human beings, to live with. They did there, but there are lots of women in the Forest 292 RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: Service who never were able to adapt themselves to rather bizarre environments. Of a wild western town. Those women's husbands never made the grade. The husbands neither did. Well, I say. I don't know how the husbands felt about it, but I know how the women did, and their husbands never made the grade. For instance, I'm thinking of one who started in as a clerk, who had an excellent background. His wife was so bigoted about all these things that he just never got any where; he just remained in time being a clerk, a man of greater capacity than that, simply because they couldn't face up to the environment. Then when we lived in Placerville and I was quite prominent among the group, participating in all of the activities, as I've related, Ruth, of course, had to adjust herself to the questionable ethics of that community, which wasn't holy at all. The churches were a little stronger. There was one factor that did play an important part in my own life and in the community. Like all western towns, of course, lodges were important, but an important lodge that really performed in those days a function that no other group could do, were the Masons. The Masons undertook to bring some sense of responsibility within the community. It was my good fortune to join there in Sisson. I became master of the lodge there, and we had funds available to us as the officers to help out the delinquents, and there were many delinquents who could be saved. One of the interesting cases we had, where a man was carrying on an affair with another married woman, and we thought it might break up two homes and the Masons undertook to send the man out of town to another job so as to prevent the breaking down of the family. We did that without anyone knowing it. We had another case where a very capable doctor — there were only three doctors in the town, in that whole general community — who was a drug addict. We brought him before, on false charges, a kangaroo court before the superior judge, who was also a Mason, and put him in the hospital for a month in order to cure him. We did that without anyone knowing it. The same powerful function was performed in Placerville when I came later there, the Lodge. The Lodge performed a lot of jobs. 293 RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: The interesting thing is that there was never any organized group opposing this sort of welfare work. You might say each community, in and of itself, lapped it up. They were glad to pass the buck to outsiders. None of these were natives of the area or the community; most of them were eastern men in one way or another. There were also natives, too. A few, yes, but the ones who were in authority had, you might say, a wider experience, wider background, and contrary to what usually happens in the western story, the insiders didn't throw out the outsiders. They let them take on that load. This is rather interesting because it's a definite variation of the usual western pattern, which I think I know because I'm a westerner. But the Masons, then, not only performed these extracurricular functions of a community, but raised the general tone of the community. It raised money when it was needed. For example, there was a fire in Sisson that burned up two square blocks — half of the town burned up in one fire. The Masons organized the policing of it so there wouldn't be robberies of the burned areas; the Masons passed the hat. Now, with all the evil forces that were in the community — the saloon keeper, the bawdy house — the places that we went to raise money were the places of iniquity [laughing], and they were very generous. We raised enormous sums of money that way to carry on the public welfare work. We never left anyone in desperation. If a family needed help, they were given help. But what we were particularly interested in were the young potential delinquents, to see that they get schooling and to give them an opportunity to get ahead. Were there other organized efforts besides Masons? There were the lodges too. There were the Elks and the Odd fellows and so on. The Masons generally drew the top leaders in the community. And we had Catholics in it as well as Protestants, although the Catholics were not permitted officially to join us. I think there is a story to be written of these groups that formed historically in California to protect the community. Vigilante groups. Actually they were the vigilante groups. The lodges then performed in those early days what the vigilantes had done in the '49 period; they were the leaders. Now, to me, it meant an awful lot in my own official work. For example, 294 Kotok: I was able to go about and meet the big leaders in the lumber industry on a first name basis. That all startled my immedi ate boss who wasn't a Mason. We tried to get him to be, but he joined the wrong lodge; he joined another lodge. But he would say, "How do they know you so well?" And I would tell him I had met them in the Masons. For example, on one of the trips, meeting with the main leaders of the Weed Lumber Company, the McCloud [River] Lumber Company, Lamoine Lumber Company, and I entered into the meeting on next year's work — what they were going to buy in lumber, and the head of the organization would call me by first name, I'd call him by first name. My boss then, who was Hammatt, he'd say, "Mr. Hammatt" — he'd call the other one by his last name, and he wondered about it. So it gave us an entre on a very familiar basis. Now, there's another thing that the Masons did do that is quite important. They tried to build up the churches, and they made an effort through their various denominations to get improved ministers and to raise funds for supporting — after you got a minister, you had to support him. So they did a number of those things . Fry: You mean the Masons tried to raise funds for all — Kotok: Probably the other lodges did too, but I'm speaking of the Masons because I was active with them. Fry: You mean they raised funds for all the churches? Kotok: Regardless of denomination. That was one of the things that left a very deep impression upon me, that it rose above the prejudices of denominations. So the story, as I say — the part that Masons played in the California history — the Masons themselves could probably write it up — is an important one, just what function they performed. I hope somebody will sometime try to gather that together as a story of the influences that operated in the community towards the aspirations of the community. And they performed a very important part. Fry: This role was necessary during that period. Kotok: The pioneer days. Fry: Yes. Then later on, I suppose it was taken over, then, by the civil officers. 295 Kotok: In later days, many other outlets for public participation were available. For one thing, the public officers themselves assumed greater responsibility; they didn't have to have a group that would support them in one direction or another. But the community could easily succumb to the vices and viciousness within the community unless there were protective forces in it; that's what I'm trying to get across. Fry: Do you think this led to a change in the power structure so that the local elected officers didn't have to rely on the madams and the barkeepers to keep them in office? Kotok: Well, yes. I wouldn't draw too clear a definition about it. I would say this. The early communities of the West, where gambling and vice were open, easily could buy over the po litical forces. The counteracting forces, then, were the vigilantes in one case. But then came these lodges, particu larly the Masonic Lodge, which had a clear, defined objective, [which] were very helpful in stabilizing, then, the community and bringing iniquity under control. That's a function that it performed in many places. I can merely relate of the two communities in which I was active. And I think that's the story that — Ruth was in the — she didn't take too much activity; they were too polished. I got her to join, of course, the Eastern Stars, which is the woman's what-do-you-call-it. Fry: Sister organization. Kotok: Sister organization. But actually, they ran more to pose, wasn't it, than actually any great activities? You weren't very active in it. [To RSK] RSK: I should say I wasn't! Fry: They didn't relate themselves as closely, then, to community problems as the men's group did? RSK: I don't know; I wasn't active enough to know. Kotok: I want to relate another thing that she won't relate with reference to Ruth. She wrote and sold some things, but the most important thing she wrote, and she never did get through for publication — I still think it's a good novel — she wrote a novel based on the main characters in Placerville — the intermarriage, their attitude towards one family — how's that? Fry: You mean Catholic and Protestant? 296 Kotok: Fry: RSK: Fry: RSK: Fry: Kotok: No, no. I mean in the family consanguinity — cousins marrying cousins and so on. The Forty-niners were inbred, and she wrote a novel of that inbreeding and the effect on that commu nity, which is a very accurate description, actually, of the conditions that existed there, and I still hope that she can revive it. It's rather a sad story about what happened to some of these Forty-niner families ; one is this marrying among them selves, but furthermore, their sense of values changed. One, for example: All families suffer from somebody that is de mented; that's a common thing. One of the big families had their share of those that weren't all there mentally, and I remember one of the men that we used to have help us around our place. It was still common to have the town fools, so our town of Placerville had its three town fools. And where did they come from? From the best families there. It's a sad story, but there it was. So, one accepted the town fool as a necessary concomitant of the environment. Placerville had its town fools . [To RSK] You had the woman come in to help you wash whose husband was the town fool. So each little community — the way we treat it, you see — the mentally diseased- Then the other sad place, of course, in both communities — one was placed in Yreka;and the other one right near Placer ville — was the poorhouse. It was a sad commentary on the way we treated the indigents. So those were present. Now, it was in those directions where the Masons and a few of the other lodges probably tried to help, because there were no public agencies that could undertake that. And the womenfolks of the forestry profession could be helpful, or not. Most of them were. Okay — I'm sorry to have brought it in. Well, that's fine, because you have to tell the things that wo would be unbecoming if Ruth told them. [Laughter] Ruth, we need a bibliography for you if you've written something. Let's just ignore that part of it. Oh, well no, this is standard procedure. Are they books or articles? They're short stories. Pulp — let's just call it that. Pulp? She went from serious novels to detective stories; she's written a number of detective stories. 297 RSK: Love stories — young love stories for pulp magazines. And that is absolutely all I'm going to say about it. [Laughter] Fry: I think there's someone down at UCLA making a serious study of pulp magazines. RSK: Well, it deserves it. It's an amazing thing. Fry: It's sort of a folk art, perhaps. RSK: It is almost. It's an amazing thing because it has an un limited audience. The only thing I can compare it to in modern times, in the current thing, is the serials on the television or radio. Kotok: It's like the soap operas. RSK: Very much the same techniques and definitely has a technique all its own. It's always been an open door for aspiring authors — always has been and still is. They aren't as pro lific as they were back in the Twenties and Thirties — oh gods, almost everything on the magazine stands was Modern Romances or Young Love or whatever you want to call it — because the television has taken its place to a great degree. No, I just play around with it and have fun. The only thing that came out of it was that I did have — oh, a scheme, a technique, or what ever you call it (that's kind of a dignified name for it), so that by the sheerest accident I got into teaching writing. Fry: Oh. Where? RSK: It was the American Association of University Women group in Virginia — Arlington. I started there and I kept it up while we were there. Then we transferred to Chile. It wasn't part of my job, believe me, but I was expected to join the American Women's Association there, which was very large and functions very effectively, if you consider that they're aliens in a foreign land. They had study groups and so on, and one of the gals who came from Washington, her husband knew me in Berkeley, and she wangled me into teaching it there. I'm very proud to say that some of my pupils have made the grade pro fessionally. A couple of them did in Arlington too, particu larly in juvenile writing — very successful. But that has been a completely closed book since I left Chile. Fry: Well, it wasn't too long ago when you left Chile. Maybe Walnut Creek could use some lessons in this too. RSK: Well, they don't know this about me. So we'll keep it a 298 RSK: secret. [Laughter] I'm not that versatile that I can run a family home and attend to my relatives and so on, in the style to which they're accustomed, and have a private life. I will say, when I first came here, I almost immediately joined an Extension division writing group in Oakland at the then — you know where it was, near the Leamington Hotel center; I don't know where it is now. I had a definite idea of what I wanted to write, and I thought I needed to get brushed up, and the first things I brought in were about Chile because it was the newest thing; it was still gestating very vigo rously within me. The woman who was in charge of the course took one reading and said, "No editor wants this stuff." And that finished me with the Extension division on writing. I can't think of her name; she was a woman older than I, and as far as I could find out, had not published at all. She wasn't a good teacher, so I just quit that and closed the door on something. I find that not hard to do — to close the door. So, that was that. Fry: This brings us to your life in Chile, and I wondered if we could just cover here what the wife on a government mission in a foreign country ideally should do and what you found were some of the major adjustments in the mission in Chile? RSK: The major adjustment was learning very quickly how to think in terms of a culture that is not your own. The Chilean culture is a combination of Hispanic and modern continental Europe, coupled with a suspicion and instinctive almost dis like or fear of anyone from the United States, because we represent to them, whether we want to or not, whether it's intentional or not, we represent power. The difference be tween my husband's mission and you spoke of a government mission, which would not be quite accurate because he wasn't there on a government mission. Fry: That's true; it was United Nations. RSK: That's right. Consequently, it had the complexity of being international from its outset. The fact that there were more Americans than any other single group on it is completely beside the point. I think to learn to think as they do, you have to more than keep your ears and eyes open; you have to participate to some degree in some way with them in some mutual activity or mutual interest, in the native community. You have to be very chary of projecting your own cultural background. Of course, you have to look at theirs through your eyes, so this is a very difficult balance to achieve, in my opinion. The chief fault of any of these areas that you 299 RSK: go into, particularly when it's an international approach, I would say, is the fact that there is an instinctive feeling that the North American is putting something over on a whole continent or a whole country or a whole community, and it's very difficult to break down. I don't think it always can be. The other thing is that you have North Americans of very widely differing backgrounds, experience, and skills — not to speak of the people, the technicians, from other cultures and countries. You can't truly say, "We Americans all feel sim- patico with the Latin culture," and so on, because you know darn well they don't. But the unfortunate thing is when you find such a tightly organized and tightly knit group of North American women in a community that — many of them never even get on the fringe of the local culture. They're quite satis fied — and heaven knows they're busy enough, socially and every other way, either in business or their husbands' business or on their own. I'm thinking of one elderly woman who lived for years and years and years-in Chile and still doesn't speak a word of Spanish but has a thriving second-hand clothing business, which is a large business in these poor countries, as you must realize. Fry: What was your first step to get into the Chilean community when you got there? RSK: It wasn't difficult at all, because the particular Chileans who welcomed us were extremely anxious to make us knowledge able and feel at home. Fry: And they also were the Chileans who were kind of on top of the power heaps there, I imagine. RSK: Yes, to some extent. So far as the women went, my schedule of living was a kind of a cross-section or a mezcla of their schedules. Of course, you have to because you're dependent on the daily living with your own household. I couldn't possibly have lived, and kept happy and occupied, on a Chilean woman's schedule — a Chilean woman of my same social and economic group; I couldn't possibly. For one thing, I had no children with me. I was more free in many ways than they were. The freedom of the Chilean woman is dependent en tirely on her servants. This I also could not possibly — you can mask it; you don't have to tell them. [Laughter] Fry: That you were freer than they are, you mean? RSK: That's right, that's right. In many ways. Now, the American wives of men on the mission, several of them had children, 300 RSK: young children or adolescent, and I think they found it a little confusing at first. For instance, they were used to going out for a 12:30 lunch; instead it's a 1:30 lunch, all the stores are closed. This bothered them at first, I think. It's one that I had very little difficulty in adapting to because, physically or however it may be — psychologically — I found it didn't bother me to have a different schedule of performance hours, and so on. Fry: Ruth, I believe you also got acquainted with the women in what you might call the lower social classes there. How did you do that? RSK: No, not very much. Kotok: You did on your travels. RSK: Well, yes, you meet them, but you don't get to know them. I think probably I got to understand the home service angle perhaps a little better than some of the women did because we had the same maids. There are a lot of them who do this changing stuff — unsatisfied or dishonesty or whatever may be their excuse, they do a good deal of shifting about with their servants. But we were lucky enough to have "built-in" servants who had been at work in the same — we had one for the first apartment we had, which we lived in not quite a year, and all the rest of the time we lived in one that had two that came right with the apartment. That is, they had been there for years with the families that occupied the apartment. So that was a little easier for me, perhaps, than some of the gals. By and large you find a very great diversity in the American woman's approach to servants. This was interesting to me because they created images of the North American house wife that ran everywhere from the extremely formal treatment and continually "keeping them in their place" to the almost ribald rleationship of older [?] intimacy, and that I saw in the American colony. There was a very large American colony. The figure varies, but it averages around 2500 men in business in Santiago, with their attendant wives and families. The American Women's association there is a colossal affair; I mean it has hundreds and hundreds of women in it. Fry: Was there much social intercourse between this community of Americans and the Chilean community? RSK: No, by and large. They had their complete life transplanted from the United States to Santiago. The women that were in terested in good works (and there were plenty of things you 301 RSK: could do in that way) and who did have their eyes open and did expect to benefit and broaden their view were very re markable women, the best that America could offer — honestly. But I wouldn't say it was that way with all of them. There are all kinds of angles on the exploitation of a country you're visiting. Fry: Following up this exploitation angle, in the mission itself, and the wives who were on the mission, and the staff members there, did you feel that they were able to enter into the community? RSK: Some did, some didn't. As I say, it varied all the way from completely ignoring the fact that they were in a foreign country, except to be exasperated by the things they couldn't control or couldn't handle, to being wholehearted participants in things like settlement houses and so on. There were a lot of American women who did consistent and very fine work. Kotok: Ruth, you might touch on — we had about ten or twelve national ities represented in the mission, and each one tied up with its own embassy group, unfortunately; that we tried to break down. RSK: Yes. We didn't succeed in doing it. Particularly those who have come from a colonial experience, there is inevitably a close interrelationship with their formal representatives, meaning at the ambassadorial level. A most interesting thing to me, and this I've only been able to analyze since I've been away from there, is the rela tive lack of briefing for American women whose husbands are going overseas, compared to older countries of Europe, whose colonial enterprises have been part and parcel of their government structure. Ours haven't been until just yesterday, you might say. I never met an American woman who didn't have to be told to call on the ambassador's wife — Kotok: The protocol. RSK: The protocols, the acceptable protocols that are taken so for granted among all the people. I have yet to meet one that had been what I call properly briefed, including myself. Fry: How did they find out about these things? RSK: Some of them never do. And some of them don't care. As for going to other embassies, so help me, of all the — let's see if I can remember now — the Italian, the Mexican, the French, the British, the Canadian, the American, of course — 302 Kotok: RSK: Fry: RSK: Kotok: And the others had consuls and we met with them. Yes; Finland, Norway, Denmark — what have you. I very seldom if ever saw any other North American women at these things — very seldom. And if so, it was the wife of somebody — really quite high echelon. We are not briefed properly for accom panying our husbands overseas. I wasn't briefed and neither was anyone else that I know of, unless they came directly from the State Department, and in that case it was a promo tional briefing. Those girls were very well briefed, believe me. And I don't know what went on with the other embassies because I wasn't intimate enough with any of them — I mean, from the other countries. But the amazing thing, the German, the French, and the British women called on me before I had my hat off. You mean, you as the wife of the head of the mission. As the wife of the chief. Literally, they'd get in in the morning on a ship or a plane, and they'd call in the afternoon, and leave their cards — just a protocol call. Every single one of the American wives that came on our mission, I had to tell them to call on the ambassador — or else I left it to one of the attaches to do it if I couldn't — and none of them called on me before I called on them. It never dawned on them; they hadn't been briefed! They came from all kinds of organizational back grounds, most of them from universities or the Department of Agriculture in Washington. By, by golly, they did not know enough to come and call on the wife of — so I'd call on them. I'd give them a few days and then Ed and I would drop in for the evening. I always made him go with me. On my first meeting for the Pan-American Union and also for the Food and Agriculture in Chile, in 1950, I met the foresters, of course, and one of the forestry group introduced me to Carmen Queves McKenna, of one of the old and important families of Chile. Carmen Queves was completely international in her point of view. We were invited particularly to her place so as to hear some of her guitarists that she was training in their music, and, of course, to the whole group that came from the Pan-American Union, made up of not only the few Americans that were in there, but Canadians and other Latin American countries, that it was very entertaining. When I was there at the home of Carmen Queves, her son had been almost fatally injured in army maneuvers — he was in the military school — and he was down on his back, completely strapped up from top to bottom, trying to prevent his vertebrae from disintegrating. I visited with him. Most Chilean 303 Kotok: RSK: Kotok: Fry: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: officers are trained in languages, and he could speak a little English, and he rather was happy that he had an opportunity, then, to talk with someone in English. I visited him at his bedside, and half meaning it and half jokingly, I said, "When I come back again" — not knowing that I'd ever come back — "I'm sure you will be well and riding a horse again." So the year passed and I came back, and sure enough, he had improved. When Ruth came to join me in the mission, about six months later, Carmen Queves and the Chileans — a custom that they have there — are formally always meeting people that come on the plane. So a group of Chileans were there to meet my wife, to greet her, plus others. She advanced to Ruth, Ruth shook her hand, and the first words that Ruth said — "And how is your son?" "How is your son?" And that, of course, touched her, as a woman would be, that here a stranger, a total stranger, would remember that her son had been ill and that he was improving. From that little incident, a closeness started, and Ruth sort of complemented Carmen Queves in many other ways. Ruth complemented Carmen Queves in many ways. Carmen Queves could be very loquacious, could be very silent. My wife has the same disease — could be loquacious at times, but very silent. So the two of them found a common language by which they could communicate or keep silent. [To RSK] You became close friends? Oh, yes. Of course we invited all Chileans that we owed official recog nition to dinners, we had open house, we had guests at our place practically — Well, one thing that — really, this was very fortunate, talk about starting off on the right foot. And in the first place, apparently I had done personally between — interpersonal. But this was perhaps two or three months after I got there. We gave a very large and very formal cocktail party at one of the hotels, the old Chilean-style hotel — We had all the ministers and high officials including the president. — had about 250 people or something of this sort, and Ed and I — which had not happened before — we had the bright idea of 304 RSK: having Carmen's concert group give background music. Of course, we expected to have it part of our party. Oh, she was tickled to death to do it, and so they came and played during the cocktail party — several groups. The Chileans have a very happy faculty of not being stiff-necked about losing your dignity. They are a very dignified and very reserved people; they're almost dour. But they also know when to break down, which is an art. It happened that we had Dr. Reed's wife there; she was in her eighties. Fry: Dr. Reed was who? RSK: He's a famous doctor, a Chilean of English ancestry. The ex- prime minister was there, and the two of them — these two old people, in their eighties, asked Carmen to play a cueca, which is the national dance. Now, the cueca is a very beautiful dance, and also a very vulgar one if done that way. It is the dance of the rooster pursuing the hen. And the two old people — Carmen and her group rattled up a cueca quick like nothing, and the two of them began dancing. Now, if you can imagine this — this was a very staid hotel, a very formal cocktail party, but this is Chile. There was nothing undignified about these two old — I mean, they were in their eighties! And everybody else, of course, then began. They cleared part of the floor. The waiters and the headwaiter and the maitre d' came beaming on high, just absolutely beam ing. They opened champagne, on the house because we, as North Americans, had fostered this, to their eyes. Well, it was a very gay and happy party. It went on from 6:30 until 2:30 or 3:00 in the morning, dancing the cueca. With these Chileans — and this was chiefly a Chilean party — this made all the difference. It's a very subtle thing. But we had automatically accepted their culture — their national dance, their music, their players. There were no North Americans in this concert troupe. That was one thing. Kotok: Then Ruth did another thing. Of course, they have also a custom there that all the better families must have a country place; they call it a "fonda." It may be a big farm and it may be a small farm, but they must have a country place. They go there, then, during the summer, and it's open house; their guests come from here and there. Ruth, having made these ties with Carmen Queves, was invited — we were invited always to open house, to Carmen Queves' fonda. 305 Kotok: Fry: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Now, going to this fonda, Carmen Queves then was sick and she had to take care of herself, and she begged of me that Ruth would come up there to stay with her, and Ruth could do her writing or whatever she wanted. I spoke of their meeting of minds — when to keep quiet and when to talk — and they fitted in very well, and Ruth stayed there with her for a couple of weeks at a time. I'd come up there to join them at the end of the week sometimes. There, Ruth not only learned Carmen Queves as a person, but all her guests, and there were innumerable guests. So there again, Ruth was living with Chileans, with all that entails. But even more so, Ruth then got acquainted and an intimacy with the workers on the fonda, on the farm; she got acquainted with the code of ethics that they have, and their code of ethics is a different code of ethics from ours. Can you tell us something about that, Ruth? Code of ethics. I don't quite know what — Their code of ethics — for example, their taking marriage very lightly, in spite of being Catholics. Or asking about the relationship that the son might have intercourse with someone to prevent them — not to harm the — The girl he might marry. This is an established custom in all Latin countries I presume. As a boy matures, he's taken to a woman, in her forties. It may have been his ex-nurse, it may be a woman of his mother's and father's class. But he is initiated into sex with a completely mature and experienced woman — invariably. This doesn't happen some of the time — this is a_ pattern. This is one reason why intermarriages between North Americans and Chileans are quite often not very successful because the American woman and her girl is brought up to frown on this sort of thing; she definitely does not take it for granted, unless she's had a European papa or some thing of the kind. For instance, Lucho, this boy who had been injured — boy, he was going to age [?], and what could you do, but his mother's best friend, who had been married to a North American and whose marriage hadn't worked out. A very charming woman, a very talented woman. She was Lucho 's joy and comfort for all the time he was invalided. They make no bones about it. It's just an accepted pattern; you have to give a little gulp. Another accepted pattern which I found very interesting and which always got under the skin of all the other North American women for some reason or other, was the fact that, 306 RSK: oh, I'd say seventy percent of the marriages of the young Chilean women were with men who had already arrived; that means he's in his late thirties, middle thirties or early forties. You'd see dozens of them at cocktail time in the hotels — the middle-aged man with a beautiful young wife, and I mean young — fifteen, sixteen, seventeen. Fry: Is this just the upper classes? RSK: Yes, definitely. Fry: So the upper class young men, then, have to do what? Remain unmarried? RSK: They remain unmarried until they reach the older age, unless the family can support them in a marriage while they're learn ing a profession or a business or what have you. I got acquainted with these farm workers — what we call in any other country the peasants. Kotok: Sharecroppers. RSK: They call them campesinos there; they're sharecroppers. A very enlightened family, like Carmen's family, sets them up, you might say; they buy a cow and present it at Christmas. One funny one : There were five separate campesino families on the McKenna fonda — Carmen's fonda — and Carmen, for Easter one year, had linoleum laid in the big family bedroom of the farm house. Fry: You mean the campesino house. RSK: Her head campesino, Palo [?]. This was expensive because there was no linoleum made; it was imported, you know, in Chile, and this was quite an expensive gift to give to a family. Well, shortly afterwards the senora of the family gave birth to the fifth child and Carmen and I went over to take a few gifts. The mother was up and around, of course, as usual. We went in the bedroom to look at the baby, and Carmen said, "My God, Ruth! Where is the linoleum?" Oh! Fry: The linoleum was gone?! RSK: The linoleum was gone, and the senora was very embarrassed. Oh, she was overcome. Carmen just went out and asked the papa — he was out in the field, out in the trees — "What became of the linoleum I had put down?" "It was too cold on the feet. My 307 RSK: wife didn't like it; she liked the dirt floor better." [Laughter] Fry: So they went back to dirt. RSK: Which is warmer. It holds warmth all night; she had to get up with the new baby and so on, so she made him pull the linoleum out. They had it carefully rolled up in a storeroom somewhere. Fry: Even some of the Chileans, then, have a tough time understanding their fellows. RSK: Oh, yes! Carmen was just amazed. "It's cold on the feet. She has no bedroom slippers." I said, "Well, Carmen, you can knit her some" — Carmen knitted beautifully — "knit her some bed room slippers." "Oh," she said, "She'd never put them on. She's backward. She's holding [her husband] back." Right away, this was her reaction as a Chilean to a servant class, or even lower than a servant class, woman: she's holding her husband back because she has the linoleum pulled out. This is just one of those things. I'm not quite sure what this illustrates, but it illustrates something in the chasm within a country of its classes, and when you have a class system as identifiable as the one in Chile, you know right away this woman belongs in a certain class. Fry: I'm assuming that the middle class there is pretty small. RSK: Yes — poquito. Fry: Was it when you were living there that you took a walk down through the campesino and saw the little chairs out on the front porch? Could you tell about that? RSK: This is one of the things you learn the hard way. I walked down past the mud-and -wattle houses, the cabins, down this beautiful avenue. They're built of wattle and mud, and then calcimined it on the outside. Each had a little portico perhaps half the size of this room. I noticed by the door a little tiny woven chair, with a rush weaving seat in back, and when I came back I said, "They have lots of babies here, Carmen." She said, "Oh, they come and go." I said, "What is your birth rate," or something I tried to ask. Her English was not fluent, but good enough. She said, "We've had five babies here this last year." "Are they healthy?" "Those that are still alive are healthy." She said, "Why do you ask about babies?" I said, "I see on each portico down the 308 RSK: alley a baby chair." "Do you know what that baby chair is?" I said, "Well, for the baby." She said, "Yes, but only the dead baby ever sits in that chair." You see, a baby dies and the mother is not allowed to see it or touch it. The grandmother bathes it and dresses it, and then the grandmother gets in a cart, which the father brings, and by the grandmother is put the little chair, with the baby tied in it, and if they have enough money they have a horse, if not so much, maybe they can borrow an oxen, and if they have no money at all and no way of getting an animal, the men of the family pull the cart. They start out and they go to every relative's home (that means all these other cam- pesinos) or in the little village, which was about four miles from there. At the end, the neighbors join on — the men; no women; only the grandmother is the only woman — and they play their guitars and they sing. I said, "What do they sing and where is the priest?" The priest would come by maybe next week, maybe next year. I thought, "My God — in a Catholic country, this?!" She said, "But the men sing songs dedicated to the baby." I said, "For instance, what songs?" She said, "Do you want to hear some?" I said, "Yes." She said, "Tonight Telal [?] will come and bring his guitar and play you some of his songs." Between her explaining to me, and Telal [?] didn't know one word of English, and he brought a friend and the two of them played guitars and sang. They have these long epic songs; I can't call them anything but that. They're folk songs that go on ad infinitum, and the more men that join this procession, the more verses they can sing because somebody already knows the new verses. Fry: Are they adapted to the particular baby, or — RSK: No, they have nothing to do with the baby. When it came down to it, the song that they had sung the last time they made this (it was not Telal 's family but he had gone to head the singing because he played very well — and mind you, this man was, complete ly illiterate, one hundred percent. But he played the guitar beautifully. Beautiful voice.) And he knew [? name] — was almost the identical story of Saint Elizabeth who goes out to take bread to the poor, and her husband has her trailed and forbids her to do it. So then she goes out again to take bread to the poor. This, of course, rings very close to the primitive person's heart; this is the sainted woman — she's a saint for doing this. 309 RSK: And then they catch up with her and she has the bread under her cloak, the cloak covers the horse and she's riding on the horse. They throw back the cloak for her husband to see, and she was holding a whole armful of roses. The bread has been turned by a miracle into an armful of roses. What could he say? She says, "I'm going to the cemetery with the flowers." This is Saint Elizabeth; this is a recognized sanctifi- cation. This is the song, virtually, only it was in Chilean terms — the lady from the big casa who was out taking things to all of them. They identify with this; they're the poor that are being served. And this is the baby's burial service. Fry: I see. And this is the song they sing on the way to the burial ground . RSK: That's right. And making the circuit — they go through every place that they can pull a cart. Fry: And what part do the chairs play? RSK: The baby is tied in the chair. Fry: Oh. And then they leave this chair on the front porch, for some reason. RSK: Right. They keep it there, because there always is apt to be a baby, and the baby is likely to die. This is a standard housekeeping article. I have never heard this in any other country; I've read folklore and Itve never heard of anything quite like it. The thing that appalls you, of course, and that you have to be very careful to hide, is their acceptance of the inevitability of the baby's death. That's very hard for us with our asepsis point of view to understand and it's very hard to sympathize with. Your instinctive actions — "My God, instead of all this palaver and a trip that takes all night, why don't you send for the doctor in time?" Baby comes and baby dies. When you read about the African changes in the keeping alive of children and change of the birthrate and so on, you can apply it just as well to all of South America. They have identically the fatalistic attitude every place that I've ever been. The other thing is their absolute lack of the concept of— Within a mile, or less than a mile, of where we lived in Santiago were some of the worst slums that God ever permitted to exist, in which there are three or four story buildings, 310 RSK: Fry: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Fry: RSK: Fry: RSK: built with a U, so that you're looking into the U. Down the middle of this U, not more than six inches wide, is a stone trough (of course the whole courtyard is paved with stone; this has little edges on it) — that is the bathroom disposall. Children playing in it. My husband never saw this section of Santiago. I did. I prowled much more than he did; I am a prowler. I came back that way by myself one day from going to the thieves' market. I thought I might as well walk back; it was about a couple of miles. I got on this back side — not so side either; what orginally was a major part of the city, which has moved a bit — I couldn't believe my eyes, so I got one of the other American women who was in our mission — her husband was — and was an anthropologist in point of view and some training. We walked up there together. She had lived for years in China, and she said, "I never saw anything dirtier in all of China than that." That was a few years ago. I wouldn't have dared mention it to a Chilean. You felt this was not accepted, then, I gather. It's ignored — it's accepted insofar as it's completely ignored. They know they can't cope with it. Ruth, you might finish up by giving one thing — to what degree you were pressed, say, to defend American positions. I don't quite get what you — For example, were you ever asked questions about American action in the political field? Oh, yes — historically. Oh, my goodness, they bring up Admiral Cochran. [Laughter] Who? Oh, he's an American who made some awful mistakes. There were quite a few Americans that did in Chile. The young people almost entirely — I never had my own contemporaries ask me what I thought, excepting they always want to know if you're a pacifist. Why? I don't know. You can guess as well as I can. I don't know why. There is an undercurrent I think that goes through all classes, of suspicion that when we talk peace we do it with 311 RSK: Fry: RSK: Fry: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: one hand tied behind our back, or however you put it — we do it out of the side of our mouth. I really believe — and this is in all sincerity and sympathy — I really believe that Chileans by and large believe that we are warmongers. I see. So they were asking hopefully, then. They're asking with a little malice of forethought. They're very clever people. I think if the thing were important enough, or if it were an important woman enough, they would make headlines over a point of view. Peace is one that — it permeates the whole structure, all classes. They're perfectly blind to the fact that they can take money with one hand and throw a bomb at us with the other, or would like to. At America. North America, that's right. It's almost a dichotomy of basic concepts or basic ethics. They don't condemn us for it; they would do the same thing if they had a bomb to throw. I don't think it's condemnation. I think it's fear and a certain contemptuousness that we rely on our size and our wealth to get our way, instead of wanting to do it somebody else's way. There's a contemptuousness in it. We cultivated the young Chileans to come to business of our own. We found those Chileans — the young ones that were in college, most of them — were carried away by the kind of history they'd been learning: that the flag followed commerce, and that our entrance into South America and Latin America was for commercial purposes only. And in fact we couldn't deny it. Ruth would be asked those questions. Our long stay in Haiti, our long stay in Nicaragua, they would call up the Panama incident. They'd go way back to the earliest historic incident. Apparently they're taught in their colleges the full exploitations of American policy be ginning from 1812 on. They fail to see, or are not taught, how we supported the freedom of the Latin American countries in the early history of our nation, from 1800 on. We were the first ones to recognize Latin American countries. That they're not taught. They're taught of the incidents in which — In which we exhibited some form of aggression. Of aggression. They bring up the theft of Mexican land in California and Texas; they know that in full detail. So you cannot blame them for the position they take, but the kind of teaching they get. Now, I believe — and Ruth and I have spoken 312 Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: KotoK: RSK: about that often — it would be very valuable if proper Spanish texts could be written of that historical period, which are not now available to them, excepting our own texts, which — a good many who can read English can find it; they are not searched. So they start with some blind spots, and Americans in any kind of a position like we were, are subjected to these questions . Now, the important thing that Ruth did exhibit (and I want to say that for her), she never appeared irritated when they asked these violent questions. Why get irritated? That's the only chance at communication, is not to get irritated. Americans that do get irritated, and the battle is lost before you've even started. She would listen attentively; she would give them reference for further reading; she would never go [into] a blind defense of our country, but would try to explain in context the general historic situation in which the event occurred. And they were thankful for it. I don't think I ever changed anybody's opinion. [Laughter] It wasn't a question of changing their minds, but at least we eased the situations. We ran into a few that were extreme communists; Ruth met more of them than I did. With them, she carried on, and never questioned their right to be communist, nor tried to defend why we were so violently opposed to com munism. I took one point of view to exhibit on that, and I really believe it to a great extent, and that is that each culture or each nation, or however it may be identified, has a right to its own indigenous pattern of politics, as well as living, and if you want to maintain a civilization based on a hole in the ground with some twigs for your fire, or if you want a punch-button stove, that's your own business. It isn't up to the United States or any other country — and my only point was that if you're going to maintain the right to an indigenous political form or structure, then you have no right to try to adopt communism as against democracy. You're not working toward either pattern necessarily; you may be working on something in the middle ground, which is infinitely more valuable to you because it's indigenous. Don't blindly adopt something from either democracy or communism, which are at the opposite ends. You may fit in in the middle somewhere. They would grant that perhaps that was right, excepting that communism had more appeal. What are you going to do? If it's got more appeal, then you shut up. 313 Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: Ruth also helped among some of our group to answer this question. The mission that we were working on had brought out in some of our studies very clearly that the tax structure needed revision, and while we didn't have any experts in that direction, they ought to get some experts. The tax base there was very faulty; the rich could escape without any danger of penalties or prision or anything else; they didn't pay their fair share. The owning of fondas and so on was a method of escaping taxes. Of course I couldn't say much about that my self because that was a device we were using in American when the rich man ran race horses in order to take losses on it, or some other device in order to lose losses [sic] by reduction of taxes. But nevertheless, Ruth suggested to me, and I brought it out — I brought out my own tax returns. This was one of these visitations from a bunch of college kids, one of whom we knew awfully well, two of his counsins — one of whom was an avowed, card-carrying communist, and the other boy I've forgotten — he was just a cousin or a friend or some thing or other. Anyway, they started in, the four of them, all up in our apartment, yakking about American imperialism and so on. Finally, it got under Ed's skin before it did mine; he said, "You're willing to accept this imperialistic money down here. You want loans, you want loans from us. You're afraid of the International Bank so you don't want loans from them, but you'll take them from the National City Bank or something." They said, "Well, you can afford it. Why shouldn't you give us money? You can afford it. You're the wealthiest country the world has ever seen." You know, they gave him the good communist party line — all four of them. I said to Ed — he had just happened to have made out his income tax and hadn't sent it yet. I said, "Get out your income tax." I had a big capital returns on my house that I sold at a profit. It was the highest tax that I'd ever paid; it was enormous . It was very impressive anyway. So, we were in the little study and they got on down and put it on the floor so they could all see it — spread it out, the whole works, got down and they knealt around and going around and look and look and finally the bright est of the four looked up and said, "I would desert a country that asked me to pay this kind of money into their government." I said, "Oh, yes? Well, Americans don't desert that easily, perhaps." They were absolutely appalled. And do you know, we still hear ramifications of that Exhibition A that we put down on the floor of an American tax return. On my salary, which wasn't very large, at that time I paid 314 Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: about seven thousand dollars in taxes, they just — They curled up. When they saw that, They curled up. I had to pay twenty-five percent of my income on selling the house. If more people could take the time to do that sort of thing — now, it just happened that that was a coincidence that we still had the darn papers in the house and that these boys were asking questions about money — my money. "It's my money that you're spending,"! said to them. "That you want us to send. Now," we said, "what do you want us to do — deprive ourselves of a decent income? Then do you think you could get money out of us? If all Americans were as poor as you say you all are, where do you expect to get this money?" There's an unrealism about this whole economic structure in South America that really gets under my skin; it's so unrealistic. They want you to lend them money or give them money, and yet they want to make you so poor that you couldn't give that money they want you to give them. It's just weird. Then there was another answer that Ruth and I used. We dug up the history, so we knew what we were talking about, how the big companies became established in nitrate, in copper and the utilities, and the English sheep industry — Telephone business. — and so forth, and how it got established. Most of them had a tie with some politician who got an enormous cut, and were now a rich family in Chile that weren't before rich. So many of them were land poor, Chita. God, the way they live, you'd think they were multimillionaires. But they're land poor, and they are so determined to keep that land untaxed that they will allow it to deteriorate. They don't keep up their waterways and water privileges, which are prodigal in Chile, if they're properly controlled. No, but I was getting back to the other point, that they were participants; their own government had committed themselves, and there were people that are now the ultra-rich that made their stake by selling out, if they sold out. 315 Fry: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Fry: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: Fry: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Had allowed the exploitation. And so, the five biggest families that we knew — the millionaires, the Edwards, which was a partly English family — The Rosses, and what's her name Brown down in southern Chile — — most of them are English extraction. You notice that? Yes. It doesn't sound very Chilean. They're more Chilean than the Chileans. They're the most sensitive ones. For instance, this McKenna name that is attached to Carmen's name, that was her mother's maiden name. Her mother was the daughter of the famous Doctor McKenna who was an Irish doctor who came to Chile and set up the first child clinic. He was the first pediatrician back in the — oh, gosh, just after the Napoleonic wars, something like that; middle of the century, anyway. There's a statue to him in the big park there as the man who established the hospital and the clinic for babies, for children. So you see, in her bloodstream runs something that's not very Spanish. Carmen has gone to Europe three times — Never to Spain. Never to Spain. France is her mother country, as it is the mother country of all the upper class Chileans — ideologically, emotionally. Their ties with France are very close, excepting those that were trained in the United States after the First World War; there was a whole group of them, and those were loyal to America mostly. You mean a number of them go to France for their education? Oh, yes! For their trousseaus [?]. Excepting now, they go to the United States. It's an amazing thing. Emotionally and intellectually they are children of France. Fry: This is just Chile. You didn't find it true in other countries? 316 RSK: Kotok: Fry: RSK: Fry: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Fry: RSK: Kotok: Fry: RSK: No. Yes, you'll find that same thing. Excepting the Germanic enclave, you'll find that in Argentina. They'll go to Italy because there's a big Italian colony; they'll either go to Italy or they'll go to France. Most of the foresters, for example, were trained — the Argentines — in Sorbonne and in Nancy. I see. Ruth, did you ever have to defend any of our more em barrassing domestic problems, such as our treatment of mino rities and things like that? That didn't come up. They really don't ask about it? It didn't come up, no. At that time it wasn't pointed. The only thing I ever had to defend — and this is going to give you a laugh — was divorce. I think I told you that when Carmen gave us, for our fortieth wedding anniversary, wasn't it? Fortieth. Yes, fortieth or forty-second, or whatever it was — wedding anniversary, gave a big party for us, on our anniversary, we were the only undivorced people there, including Carmen. Were you with Americans or Chileans? No, entirely Chileans; we were the only North Americans there. See, we encouraged everyone of our mission to move with Chileans, not with Americans. Do you mean the Chileans do divorce a great deal? This is how they do it. It's very simple, and you can do it apparently an indefinite number of times. You appear before two agencies — one is the church and the other is the civil, where you have a civil marriage, if you've had both marriages. In the curch, you bring an affidavit or you bring the persons of either parent — any one of four parents. If the parents aren't living, then it's a first uncle or an aunt or some thing — a very close relative, but somebody who has been at your wedding. And they come in and make an affidavit to the 317 RSK: Fry: RSK: Fry: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: RSK: Fry: RSK: Fry: Kotok; effect that this was not a legal marriage — that they're bringing an objection on the part of perhaps a deceased great grandmother or something of the kind. [Laughter] It's fantastic. And that is credited as an annulment. So you've never been married! You may have had two wives or two husbands, but you've never been married. This is registered in the civil register and is also registered in the church register that this is an annulment, within the power of the church to bestow, don't forget. And then they can re-marry. They can't re-marry, but they do. Some of them go out of the country and re-marry. One of our very, very closest friends — intimate friends — went to Montevideo to get married; another went to Mexico to get married. What do the lower classes do that can't afford all this? They can't afford it. They probably never had a priest in the first place. First they weren't married. It costs money to get married — ten dollars. We told you of that one incident that Ruth and I attended where there was a marriage going on — Of three generations. — and we were interested in it, of course, and Ruth asked questions. She found out that the grandmother, the mother and the child were being married at the same time; the church hadn't reached them yet. This is very true. But they were disturbed about our legalizing divorce here, is that it? That's right. They asked questions. What grounds? Of course, adultery as a ground is absolutely nothing to them, because that's all there is; it's an absolutely commonplace institution. Yes. It's more acceptable than divorce. They use the French acceptance — the wife closes her eyes. If 318 Kotok: she kicks about it, then, of course, that breaks up the family. If she will accept that kind of relationship, the marriage can go on. RSK: One day I went to — this was through the wife of the British ambassador that I was invited first to go to the girls' school there, which is American — Santiago College. It's sup ported and founded by the Methodist Church. They had a very good drama teacher and the graduating class was putting on some scenes from Shakespeare — young girls of fifteen, sixteen and seventeen — and I was invited to go to it. This other friend, a Chilean friend, picked me up in her car and we went off together — her daughter was the leading character in this performance. We were sitting in the second row — the British ambassador and his wife and Cecilia and I and her mother. Now, her mother, Mrs. Sierra, had lived for years in Washing ton when her oldest son was ambassador from Chile, so we'd always had a lot in common; we were very fond of each other. We were sitting right smack in front on the aisle. All of a sudden Cecilia grabs my elbow and says, "Come, we'll move down here." I said, "Why are we getting away from the center aisle for?" Sh e said, "My father's mistress has just come in and she's sitting right behind the British ambassador." Her father had been dead for years. But they would not sit in the same — even for the daughter, who was the star — I mean, we went way off; we're practically in the wings — rotten seats, just lousy! "My father's mistress just came in and she's sitting right in back of the ambassador." Now, what are you going to do with a mixed-up social pattern like that, my dear? Fry: It's not a pattern that's totally accepted, then, apparently. RSK: Well, they still resented the fact that the father had spent his all on this woman. But you see, the point is, this was a very exclusive affair, sponsored by the British ambassador, and here this woman has not only a ticket but she has a prize seat. She was from their same class, you see. And that's why they wouldn't recognize her. If she'd been some little serving maid, she'd have had to sit back in the back corner. But they don't pick their mistresses from that class. 319 ADDENDUM II Biographical Information on Stuart Bevier Show; His Contributions to the Food and Agriculture Organization. (Recorded January 9, 1964) Kotok: As I recall, Show retired in 1945 or '46 (you can get that date). Fry: He entered FAO in 1946, to '52 and '53. Kotok: When FAO was established and a forestry division was provided for, one problem the American delegation had to decide upon was who they would recommend to head up the forestry division in FAO. After considerable deliberation, and recognizing that many of the top positions were already filled by Americans, we thought it would be well if we could get a European to head up the forestry division in FAO. Of the then available candidates none appeared more ad justed for such a job, well trained for such a job, as Marcel LeLoup — the Wolf. Marcel LeLoup was a veteran of the First World War who had lost his arm. He had been active and a leader in the tropical forestry sections of the Department of Forestry in France, and later had become its chief. Political ly he was in the right party at that time too in France — the liberal side. The only objection to him that one could have was that he only spoke one language. He did know a little German, no English. However, we didn't feel that was a handicap. His stature in forestry in France itself, his ex perience — a group of us worked on him and urged him, if the offer was made, that he accept it. We worked through the normal channels in securing such an offer and an acceptance by the French government. As I've stated before, all candidates for Food and Agriculture offices must be affirmed by the country of their origin; that was to prevent one who might not be acceptable to the country for one reason or another. So we secured from the French government the approval that [allowed] LeLoup to accept the job. 320 Kotok: Once LeLoup accepted the job, we felt it would be important in order to get good balance, to get an American of some distinction to accept the job as deputy. One of the men that was in the Food and Agriculture Organization, who was early assigned to it, was Egon Glasinger, a man of rather interesting background, an extraordinary linguist who could speak fluently five languages. He was actually probably originally a Pole, he was a Czech, because as the countries changed — so he called himself a Czech. He knew Russian, Czech, German, French, English perfectly, some Italian. He had been in the League of Nations, in the forestry division, but also as a translator; his capacity to translate was so great that he would use that. Of course, with all these talents he was quite valuable. We wanted a counterforce to Egon Glasinger, because he leaned heavily in a few directions — both as to his contacts in Europe and as to his outlook as to the development of forestry — which leaned toward the views of the pulp-and-paper men of Sweden and Norway. He had been associated, after the League of Nations, with the pulp-and-paper group, and he was more or less a spokesman for them. So we wanted a counter- force. But he had a lot of quality. His wife was a Swedish girl, so he spoke Swedish. RSK: He had a long struggle to establish whether he was Austrian nationality or Czech nationality. Kotok: Or Polish. RSK: Or Polish. One parent was one, one parent was another, he'd been born in a third country, and according to the Eastern European pattern — Kotok: And he was a Jew, so that whole thing was a complicated matter. Anyway, we talked it over in the Forest Service and we decided to see if we could get Show to accept it. The proposals were made to Show and he accepted it, and he went in then as deputy director to Marcel LeLoup. The headquarters then was in Washington. Fry: Excuse me. Show had just retired when this came up, is that right? Kotok: He tried purposely, to take this position. Fry: He did? So at the time he was still an active state regional forester here. 321 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: RSK: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: He was regional forester. Then we got him to retire. The two steps were in one, you see. Was it very hard to convince him? Yes, it was. Show normally was not — He was not international-minded. Was not internationally-minded. And he was not exposed to these things. But nevertheless, as a good public servant, he accepted the job and entered into it with vim, as he ordinarily did do in most things. I spoke of Egon Glasinger. Because of his linguistic capacity, and his ability to speak French as fluently as any other language that he knew, LeLoup leaned on Glasinger more than Show as his deputy liked, so there were little tensions in that task — nothing serious, but still there were some strains. It was very unfortunate that Show didn't know French and LeLoup didn't know English. There was this language barrier between them which they never overcame. Therefore it was always necessary to have Glasinger there to translate, which made him then an intermediary where the contact should have been without any intermediary. Nevertheless, Show used one device to overcome this difficulty, this language barrier. LeLoup had learned to read English fairly well and could have it translated, so Show's transactions with LeLoup were on paper. Show, being very facile with his pen, was able to convey whatever he wanted to convey by writing with ease. So this barrier in a way was overcome by the use of pen and paper. What country are we in now? We're in Washington; the headquarters was in Washington. Of course, I had very close contacts then with Show during that period. You were doing what during then? I was then in research; I was chief of research in Washington, and as being a delegate to FAO, I would meet the FAO group frequently. 322 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok; Show was given a number of responsibilities; one of the important jobs that he did, while he was with FAO he handled one international meeting that dealt with forest products and forestry at Lake Success under the auspices of the United Nations. He did a remarkably fine job. It was divided into many sections, this task, and he kept them all going, and the report was a very important report that Show personally completed. Perhaps the most difficult task that Show had, to which LeLoup entrusted him, FAO in a general way at that period was under the guidance of Britishers — Sir John Qrr was director- general, Sir Herbert was his deputy (also a Britisher, a very remarkable man) , and an Australian Britisher — Commonwealth — MacDougal, was perhaps the chief adviser, particularly in the relationship with the State Department and with the United States. Show was able to make himself at home and had an easy appraoch with all the hierarchy in FAO that were of English origin. You're referring particularly to language? To MacDougal and to — Because of the language? Not only of the language, not because only of the language, because most of the Britishers there knew French very well and so on, but that wasn't it. The point of view, the Anglo-Saxon point of view, if one can call it an Anglo-Saxon as against a Latin point of view, was one of the reasons for the tie. But there were a lot of other little things that I might mention. Both the British and the American members of the FAO team had a code of ethics as to the use of funds, as to the use of travel time, expenditures — rather strict accountability. Some of the members of the FAO that came from other countries, par ticularly from a Latin country, particularly from South America, had a rather loose code of ethics as to what was to be considered a personal trip or an official trip, a personal expenditure or an official expenditure. Show made some enemies even among his colleagues in FAO who had looser conceptions as to the use of public funds, by making them adhere to the stricter concepts that the British and the Americans tried to inject into this international organization. It's well for us in America to recognize that the Euro peans, and some members of the other countries, consider that those that are in the public service have special privileges and can freely use the public funds that are available, to 323 Kotok: entertain their friends for business reasons, that they could use their time to enjoy themselves on official trips without regard that they were using public funds. It's beautifully illustrated, of course, in recent controversies that our State Department has had with Congress — particularly with Congress man Rooney who conceives that our State Department officials, when they have funds, he calls it a "whisky fund." So this problem of the European conception of entertainment and the American and British conception varies considerably. But anyway, that was one problem that Show was confronted with. Fry: Their budget was pretty limited, really. Kotok: It was a limited budget, but nevertheless, limited as it might be, yet every penny had to be accounted for. There was one case Show had-^-without naming names — where one man high up in the forestry division had taken a trip, presumably an official trip, but actually he had taken himself and his wife and had used FAO money to go on a ski trip in Switzerland. It was almost scandalous. Show did a thing in agreement with LeLoup, or rather the upper echelon (Sir Herbert I think he worked with then), that the FAO asked the Forest Service to send one of their accountants to go over the accounts of FAO and to make checks of expenditures and so on, and this what we would consider a scandalous use of money was discovered in this book keeping analysis, and the man who was guilty of that was given three days to return the full sum of money or to resign. He returned the full sum of money of the expenditures that were made. That didn't make Show too popular, then, but he never theless had tried to bring greater accountability into it. He also was very helpful — for which he wasn't given enough credit by LeLoup and the others — in making a fight for a fair share of appropriations from funds that were allotted to FAO in toto, as between divisions in FAO. Show had an unusually fine skill in presenting a case dealing with fiscal matters and a justification — as we would call it — justification state ment for proposed activities. He did his homework well; not only did he have a full knowledge of the potential capacities of the organization but also of the tasks that they ought to embark on. In that job he saved the forestry division from many heartaches that it is doubtful whether LeLoup, who wasn't particularly skilled in that, and Glasinger, who didn't have the full confidence of the Britishers — whether they could have secured as much money as Show did. Show did another thing that was quite important. He was able to speak for FAO among the American delegation and the State Department with conviction, and had the confidence of 324 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: table to those that he conferred with. So, in those early trying days, his contribution, I consider, to Food and Agriculture has never been fully acknowledged, but I place it rather high. Show terminated his work in FAO perhaps on two scores. One, his wife wasn't well, they were having difficulties, and he wanted to get home. And I don't believe that Show would have accepted a transfer to Rome when the offices were moved to Rome. Now, for those two reasons (family problems that he had to solve and the fact that there was impending a move to Rome) were reasons why he probably terminated his services there. I thought Rome was considered the very best place to live in Europe. Well, but he didn't want to leave the United States, you see; he wanted to be close to his family and so on. So, it was for personal reasons that a move to Rome would not have been accep table to him. A good many of his friends were disappointed that he didn't continue on; the British contingent in FAO were par ticularly disappointed on his leaving. There was another reason why we were worried about Show leaving; we wanted a strong American in the position. On his leaving, Glasinger was made deputy. A strong American was not put on the job, although Show had added to his staff one American, Walter Huber. There was another thing that Show did do. He was a great believer that if you had something well to say, it warranted that it ought to be put down in black and white, on paper. He followed his experience of his career in the Forest Service by introducing into the forestry section in FAO that all meetings be fully reported in writing, all trips that members of FAO made be recorded in writing. He later also influenced LeLoup to establish Unisilva, the monthly publication that they now issue, and I think he had a lot to do with establish ing its format, which included invited articles by foresters from all over the world. When he left he was also offered the job to continue as a contributor to Unisilva, covering the notes of forestry on the American continent, and he continued to contribute that until his very passing away; he had a section there. He re ceived a small stipend for it. This job gave him an oppor tunity to review all the printed literature that was issued in Canadian and American forestry, and he did a splendid job in excerpting the telling things. He covered both the field of administration and research. 325 Fry: There were a few other things that went on. I just wanted to ask you if he had anything to do with them. There was a study of use for forest waste products in Yugoslavia, and there was some pulp and paper work done in Thailand. Did he help decide these things? Kotok: He took one trip to the Belgian Congo. I don't know what happened with the report, but it was a very interesting one that he had. Probably it's in Food and Agriculture now. He related when he returned the conditions he found, not only in forestry, but the conditions he found as to the relation ship between black and white in the Congo. I'm recalling now that he indicated that the country was in for chaos and was in for trouble, and it proved true. He was very much impressed with that trip in the Congo. Fry: Was this for setting up forestry reserves? Kotok: No. You see, Food and Agriculture generally would make a trip in a country to determine whether there were any activ ities in which it might participate if the country asked. The Belgian government had asked that a review be made of the Congo in order to determine whether any studies could be undertaken by FAO that would be helpful to advance the manu facture and the export of Congo forest products. I don't know what other specific jobs he did; I know he did a number of them. His interest was primarily, in contrast to Egon Glasinger's, in three directions: one, that particu larly for the underdeveloped countries, that a forestry system be established; second, that there would be a forestry school to graduate foresters able to handle the forests that might be established under a national forest system; and third, that the major problem that first should be attacked is to improve the silvacultural treatment of forests, and to attain that, a reasonable degree of forestry research be initiated at the earliest possible time dealing with silviculture and manage ment. If you examine that, it really reflects his own experience in American forestry. So these are the directions in which he went. LeLoup supported him strongly in that position. [Knock at door] Pardon me. [Pause] Now, you had a question. Fry: Yes. I was asking you if you could describe how far someone in Show's position could go in influencing a country to estab lish better forestry practices. Kotok: Well, of course, all of the international organizations were dealing with aid or assistance, and have certain limitations. 326 Kotok: Normally, the process is something like this: The regular organization of FAO, covering the various fields of forestry, through meetings with foresters in the international field, generally discussed problems within their countries. Then these specialists of FAO visit a country to look it over, to consult apparently with the foresters or those that are in terested in that field of endeavor. Then at an appropriate time the forestry division, through channels, can indicate to that country, "These are problems that confront you." Later when the technical assistance funds became available, besides the regular funds, then there was a direct problem that each country could ask requests for tech nical assistance in various fields of endeavor. Now, the en deavors would be agriculture, nutrition, and among them would be forestry. Now, the forestry division in FAO could help the foresters in the country, or those interested in forestry, how best they could put up a proposition in their own country to be sure that they would ask for some item in forestry. So, by indirection — Fry: It was sort of political maneuvering. Kotok: Well, no, it isn't maneuvering. In view of the fact that a country has problems in various areas that FAO is interested in, and foresters being on the lower end of the totem pole frequently, therefore FAO felt it incumbent, through its forestry division, to give those foresters that are interested a full cognizance of their own responsibility to ask their country to help themselves. So, nothing can be done until the country asks either through the technical assistance or otherwise. The divisions in FAO — fishery, forestry — each has its own problem to promote an interest in that field of work. So within those limitations, it isn't manipulation; it's merely how active is that division. It so happened that LeLoup and Egon Glasinger and Show were extraordinary in stimulating an interest in those countries to see that forestry was included in the programs that they were asking for aid. Fry: And Show had had good experience in California. Kotok: Yes. But it goes another direction. When I, as an American delegate, go to a conference (like I went to Chile) , wherever I go, I was interested merely in promoting forestry there, and therefore I got in touch with the foresters, some of them who had happened to have been trained at my own institution at Michigan, and I gave them the wherewithal by which they could, through their own country, make sure that forestry was included in the program for FAO. 327 Fry: I should think it would be awfully important to Show that it is crucial to get this established through the government, that if someone like Show didn't go ahead and explain or demonstrate to these men in the other countries that they had to do their own beating of the drums, that nothing would happen. Kotok: Let me put it this way. The international organization, in whatever field it is, has a responsibility to indicate to the countries that form the organization in toto, the activities of that particular department and have them examine whether those facilities would be helpful for them to solve a problem. But it has even a more important problem. Each group, of course, is selling its own wares, and it may not be in good balance. Therefore it is important for forestry par ticularly because it's one of the — as I say, on the lower end of the totem pole, and normally it's an area in which abuses are common (overcutting, destructive forest practices) — many, many reasons, that these foresters, these international foresters, indicate their problems to the countries wherever they may be to awaken them to a sense of their own responsi bility. i Now, once there was that recognition, then when what they call the "seven wise men" meet to determine which areas the technical assistance will be of help, that the foresters have put up a sufficient case that they are protected to get a fair share of the help that's available internationally. It's true, then, that Show, with his own experience, and LeLoup with his experience, were very skilled in stimulating interest in countries in the forestry problem. It is no dif ferent than those that dealt with food and health to stimulate an interest in nutrition or to stimulate [interest] in the development of fisheries or to stimulate whatever it might be. So, the early stages then of the work of an international organization is not first to offer help, but first to secure recognition by the country of the problems that are confronting them in the area of interest of that specialized agency. Fry: What do you think, besides this particular talent of Show's to stimulate interest, and a talent that he used a great deal in California to set up forestry here, what else do you think he might have contributed from California to the international scene? 328 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Well, this is where Show could do. He started at a zero point in American forestry in California, and by slow proces ses he recognized the steps that have to be taken — the logical steps — you have to crawl before you walk, and you have to walk before you run. Then he conveyed that the job of getting or ganized forestry was not an easy task to be done with one shovel-full of dirt. So he conveyed that if you are going into forestry, be adjusted that you've got a long time job before you'll get on top of 'it. Perhaps his most important influence was his strong feeling that we would have gotten nowhere in California forestry, or elsewhere in the United States, unless the national govern ment itself took a prominent part in promoting it, in safe guarding it, and setting up national forest systems. So he threw his weight then to get established a national forest system in the other countries. Rather than having local — No, rather than either local or — it's got to be national. More important, you cannot trust and leave it that private interest itself will take care of forestry. It's never happened any where else without that stimulation. It can never come, that private forestry, unless it's corporate in its structure and it has a long, long time. An ordinary private owner is not concerned how the forest lands will look after he passes out of the picture. So he brought that in as public ownership, well-trained foresters; there was other things, but even more important is perhaps to counteract the avariciousness of lumber exploiters (that's the one, for example, that he went there to the Congo, to see whether they would go private or public, you see — how they would handle it; that was one of the jobs), private exploiters who make a quick buck and really increase the income temporarily, may leave in their wake destruction, waste, and irreparable damage. Now, he had to be careful in selling that as an international agency because American opinion particularly on fighting private enterprise is involved. You have another one that's even more serious: the exploiters are frequently foreign capital, and therefore you're interfering with the logical development of the busines ses. So there were a lot of delicate areas in which he could skillfully suggest ways out of that dilemma without appearing to be an exponent of socialism or other kinds of isms — that it was a logical way in which forestry can be developed in the interest not only of the nation itself but of those that are in the enterprise of exploiting forests for permanent use. Did he have any great success in doing this with colonial — 329 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Well, it's pretty hard to say. He wasn't long enough there. You see, you start off with this preachment that it's a long time job. We were at it fifty years before we got minimum regulations and rules in California, and much inadequate. So many of the governments handled by FAO were unstable at that time. By unstable, I mean some were changing from a colonial dependency into — There were the early stages when he was there; there weren't very many that were in that category that we were helping at that time. They were the Latin American countries that had had their freedom a long while; there was that whole group of Latin American countries. And then we were dealing directly with the colonies, as colonies, so it didn't matter (like in Belgium, he was still dealing with the colonies). You see, this is an important point we mustn't lose sight of. For example, if you had good forestry started in the country, under a colonial system, it will carry over after it becomes nationalized. The best illustration is in India. The British Indian forest service was one of the best public servants that ever worked in forestry. Not only did they set up a form and a character and give it a basis, but they did more than that; they trained also Indians to carry on on the lower steps and then to the upper steps. So when the British left there, they left a corps and a code. What Show was concerned with was whether Belgium in the Congo was doing the same thing; that why he was there — whether they were really training — not looking ahead with they'll change, but the necessity for rounding out all the potential of use. So that's the thing he was considering. I don't think he at that time was seeing through, if they become free, what happens when the Congo becomes free. What I meant was that this would interrupt the future continuity of this project. Where it's been well established — and if it wasn't well es tablished it wouldn't work under one system or the other system. You see, what I'm driving at is this: because the Indian Forest Service was a good forest service, regardless what the ownership, it would go on. The Congo was poor and it'll continue poor because it wouldn't have mattered if it had remained in that. 330 Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Now, the French, on the other hand, also established. For example, on the French Congo he found much better. So it depends what country it was. The Dutch in some places did very good; other places they didn't. In the main, however, at that period, this freedom from colonialism, excepting for India and Pakistan, wasn't a common disease then. Algeria hadn't come in yet, and all of the African countries were — so, those early stages weren't very much. [Telephone inter ruption] One more question about Show and forest fire control. Was he able to do any particular work on that internationally? Fire control studies or anything? I don't recall. That one I don't recall. The only thing I found about it in reading the literature was that there was an FAO survey made of fire control problems in the United States. That's right. Of course, as I say, he continued his writing, and he covered very closely the research reports on fire, which he recorded in Unisilva. So, in that regard, he brought to the attention of readers of Unisilva the literature. One other thing I'm not quite clear about is how he personally directed this. Did he have to do a great deal of travel, or did he do this largely by sending out his own deputies? Which way? I don't quite follow you. Well, with his offices in Washington, he went to the East Coast personally? Well, first of all, this is it. He made that trip to the Congo, which was a special trip, and covered some other countries probably with it; I don't know which other countries. Actually, the traveling member of the team — he liked it and he liked being a V.I. P. and he liked to live on the fat of the land — was LeLoup; Show really kept the store. I see. And he preferred it this way, I'm sure. He kept the store. And they were very trying times. During the first few years, LeLoup did the traveling around. It suited him. He wasn't much of a man to go out just to be entertained and so on, Show wasn't. He liked to tackle specific things. Just merely to take a trip to say that he had been there or observed it — unless he had studied it, he didn't get much out of it. 331 Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Fry: Kotok: Did he take any men with him from his staff in California? No, none whatever. The only one he pulled was Huber ; the only American that he took was Huber. He asked us about him and we told him that he'd make a pretty good man. You were head of research in the national office at this time and then head of forest products, is that right? No, forest products was under me, in research. Oh, it was? Yes. Madison Laboratory was under me. Did you in your research, and being Show's brother-in-law, then, were you able to help him any with any of Show's problems in setting up or urging research in these other countries? Well, of course, Show and I, with other members of FAO, we con ferred frequently; we were in Washington and we had opportunities to meet often. And then, as I say, these meetings that we had with the Organization of the American States (at which FAO was always present), and the annual meetings of FAO; our contacts were continuing. So, there was open channels of communication there. Now, Show and I, co-authors of so many things, were also considering (which we never did fulfill)aa review of forestry in various fields internationally, on the assumption that he would have the facilities of getting it and I could help out in organizing and so forth. Well, the time wasn't either available, and so many other things happened that we never did get very far except exploring the idea and hoping somebody would do that some day. FAO has actually done that; done it very remarkably well and has reported it in Unisilva. They take one area and cover it completely, and they pay for copy, and they'll get some specialist and pay him for copy to pre pare a report. Then they use their own staff members fre quently. So they have covered, for example, eucalyptus — everything that's known about eucalyptus — with a bibliography. A splendid job they did on that eucalyptus. In connection with that, they also had a trip to Australia and New Zealand. I sent Wyckoff; I could have gone there but I sent Wyckoff to it. Then they had the arid areas; they had a section on that and got a specialist, a Frenchman and an Italian who did a very fine job. So they have that continuing job of summarizing one area of investigation. 332 Kotok: Then they had one on genetics — forest genetics. Fry: This is a survey in all member nations, then. Kotok: Well, they get one specialist to cover the field, either covering specialization in one area that's advanced, or the overall. Normally it's some specialist who has made some great advances. So, for example, on this genetics, they had Larsen from Denmark who wrote the article. On the Amazon they had a Frenchman who has been working there for six or seven years to cover what the possibilities [are]. That job they do remarkably well, and it adds considerably to the information and to the literature. Fry: In summary, would you say that Show felt that this was an important undertaking — the entire field forestry project? Kotok: Yes. He became internationally-minded as a result of that work, that he never had before. He approached it rather as a professional man that had something to offer to the world, rather than as a tool for American policy-making. He had no great interest that the United States had to save a nation for its own good, or for its own motives. He approached it as a professional man who said, "We as a profession owe something professionally," and let the chips fall wherever they may be. It shouldn't have any ulterior motives of states trying to secure a better image or trying to win friends; that part didn't interest him at all. Fry: You mean he came around a little bit more to this — Kotok: Well, he came — as professional, but the aim wasn't for an American policy. Fry: And it never was. Kotok: Never was. He said, "You're either a forester or you're not. If you want to write international policy, get into the State Department." [Laughter] Tape auditor: Gwen Logan Final typists: Jeanne Shizuru Lee Steinback 333 ADDITIONAL MATERIALS LIST The following articles and speeches by Edward I. Kotok have been deposited in The Bancroft Library and in the library of the History Unit, Forest Service, Room 4115 South Agriculture Building, Washington, D.C. Researchers may inquire there for photocopies of these materials : Talk presented before meeting of Land Grant College on the proper training of foresters, April 12, 1945 The Objectives of Research in Forestry, February 26, 1946 Management Problems in Organized Research, December 9, 1946 Article by Horace M. Albright (Sierra Club Bulletin, April-May, 1960) entitled "More Park or All Forest: Highest Use vs. Multiple Use," in which former National Park Service Director Horace Albright insists there be an end to the activities of the Forest Service directed against new parks and extensions of old ones. Unpublished Rebuttal by Edward I. Kotok in which he shows where the Forest Service has promoted the estab lishment of national parks and indicates the efforts of the Forest Service to encourage recreational objec tives within the framework of the Forest Service's multiple-use guidelines. ilk Presented Before Meeting of Land Grant College- spartment Committee on Training for Govern- ment Service, April 12, 1945, Room 211 ^ministration Building.) ' T) RoughT)r , EIKotok:AI€) \ April 12, 1945 If I may be pardoned, I shall use- the Forestry profession and Forest Schools, which are usually part of Agricultural Colleges, as my media in present- ing my discussion of the subject. I want to refer to some figures of Forestry School graduates from 1900- 1944. By the end of 1944, American Forestry Schools had graduated 12,223 with the Bachelor's Degree, 2,112 with thr your recommendation and file action as indicated _ and forward to >r your attention >r your information »r file To check >r your approval MEETING LAND GRANT COLLEGE - DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ON TRAINING FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE April 11-12-, 19 U£ Room 211 Administration Building, U» S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. T.'ednesday, April 11 10:00 A. H. -T« Roy Beid, Chairman 1. Introductory Remarks - Purpose of Meeting 10:30 A. M. 2. Developments among Colleges which should be of concern to the Department of Agriculture Dr. Charles E. Friley, President, Iowa State College Dr. C. E. Lawall, President, University of ¥est Virginia Dr. F. M. Hunter, Chancellor, Oregon State College Dean Fred C. Smith, University of Tennessee 12; 00 Lunch 1QO P. I!. Dr. Charles E. Friley, Chairman 3. Progress Made in Farm T.ork Simplification - Dean Fred C. Smith, Leader Y.r-.at colleges have done in research and teaching - Dr. James T. Jardine, Director, Office of Experiment Stations Plans of the Department of Agriculture for getting farm work simplification principles into use - Keredith C. v/ilson, Deputy Director, Farm Labor, Extension Service Status of the National Farm t'ork Simplification Laboratory at Purdue University - Dr. A. R. Harm, Vice President and Director, General Education Board It was in September 19U2 that the Department of Agriculture began the present effort to actively promote on a material basis the use of farm work simplification. A few states and private farming interests have already applied scientific management principles to increase the efficiency of farm labor and reduce much of the drudgery on the farm. In December 19U2 the National Farm Tfork Simplification Laboratory at Purdue was made possible through grants from the General ^iucation Board. This Committee had its first report on the research and promotional activities from Dr. E. C, Young, Director of the Laboratory at its spring meeting in 19U3- The Association of Land-Grant Colleges and ,: ' '. w 2 - Universities also heard from Dr. Young in October 19ii3« M. C. Wilson, Extension Service, led a discXission on "Halving Better Use of Farm Labor Through Training," which included f ana work simplification, before this Committee at its 19 hk .April meeting. The Report on Farm Work Simplification published and distributed by the Extension Service in December 19UU resulted from the recommendation made by this Committal at its 19UU April meeting. a. VJhat use has been made of this Report for: . ,'. :: (1) Doing additional research and investigations? (2) Making applications of methods so • developed' on farms? . (3) Including farm work simplification principles, in .courses and curricula of colleges'? b. What social problems may arise as a result of farm w.ork simplification : (1) Surplus production? . • (2) Population problems? (3) Farm finance: price policies — "parity"?:- Land values? 2;U5 P. M. . . U» Opportunities for Collaboration with Foreign Countries - Dr. Leslie Whec Director, Office of Foreign' Agricultural Relations, Leader Scholarships available to foreign students Exchange of students and professional people with foreign countries Agricultural research The need and opportunity for collaboration with foreign countries was never greater than at present. The Land-Grant Colleges and the •Department have definite leadership responsibilities in providing and promoting sound plans for closer, collaboration with other countries in fields of agriculture and rural living. The training requirements for our people goin~ into foreign service and for those of other countries who seek aid in this country were discussed at our April 19UU meeting. This discussion is expected to explore the areas of cooperative effort between colleges and -one Department which will permit the .most effective collaboration with-. other countries. a. In That way are scholarships or fellowships available to people 4 . fron foreign countries or governments? b. ">iat system is usually; used in selection of those to 'receive scholarships? c. In what ways could this country profitably cooperate in a plan of exchange of students or scientists? d. Vfhat types of research could be carried on better through cooperation with other countries? P. M. 5>. Progress Report on Sducation and Training in the Armed Services - Dr. F. M. Hunter, Leader Y/hat has been accomplished through cooperation between the Colleges, U. S,. Armed Forces Institute, and the : Department of Agriculture? - Major ".". !'/. ""aite, Armed 'Forces Institute Both the Land-Grant Colleges and the Department of Agriculture have been vitally concerned that those men and women in the armed services v;ho are interested in agriculture and rural living get the -best possible training during the period they spend with the armed "Services. All such training brings the individual nearer that goal of wise selection of kind and location of occupation and a satisfying and profitable citizenship. a. To v:hat extent will this type of training aid in preparing for •employment in the Department and related agencies? • b. Do colleges need to adjust their curricula and courses to give the returning veteran maximum credit towards a degree? • • ' c. Are there any changes in this type of training which could or should be made to meet the individual's needs? d. V.'hat can the colleges learn from the Arrncd Forces Institute • - .. '. regarding improved 'curricula arid educational methods? . . * • 5; 15 P» M» Adjournment Thursday, April 12 9: 30 A. M. Dr. Charles E, Friley, Chairman 6. Training Veterans - Mr. Philip V. Garden, Research Administrator, Leader For Farming and Rural Employment - Charles F. Brannan, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture • • • ••: For -Government Service V Earle M. Sawyer, Vocational Advisor, Medical Division, Civil Service Commission There are -now more than -600,000 men and' women on military leave from . government agencies.. In addition, 310,000 l/orld Yi'ar II veterans have • been 'employed by Government and this number is increasing at the rate .. _ k- - of about .,15>j.625> per month. It is a certa-inty 'that veterans will in the future occupy a large proportion of our 'government positions. It will mean much to our country and to the veteran that he successfully carry out- the duties of his job. Everyone is anxious to aid' the veteran to use his rights and privileges under the present' legislation to fully prepare himself for the career of his choice. Those who will in any way have a responsibility which effects the readjustment of 'any veteran, should be prepared to fulfill that duty. The Land-Grant Colleges and the Department also'-have a -close 'relation ship in training or helping veterans to get established on farms or in a rural occupation. • Ihis mutual 'responsibility is increased by the delegation of authority by the Veterans Administration to the 'Sx.tension Service, Farm Secxirity Administration, and Farm Credit Administration for advising with veterans on selection and purchase of farms and the , certification of loans for such purposes. a. How many veterans can be expected to find satisfactory opportuni ties in farming? b. T.Tiat are the training and experience requirements for veterans expecting to secure a guaranteed loan under the' GI Bill of Rights . . . • • c. Under what conditions should an employee returning from military furlough be encouraged to take additional training provided for by Public Law 16 or d. How can the Federal employee be assured of reemploynent if his college training period extends beyond 90 days? 11:00 A. M. 7. Educational Requirements for Positions in the Department of Agriculture Dr. C. E. La wall, Leader The Starnes-Scrugham Act - Arthur S. Flemming, Civil Service Commissioner Providing Information to Colleges on Requirements of Jobs in the Department - T. Roy Reid, Director of Personnel a. To be used by college faculties -! ' 4 , .. • I • b. To be used by college students As recommended by the Committee at its '1.9 hh April meeting the Office of Personnel prepared a "Preliminary Report on the Qualification Requirements of Some Professional, Scientific and Technical Positions in the Department of Agriculture,11 presented to the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities in October, which was presented to the Executive Committee of the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities at its October 19uU meeting. This 'Report was expected .to be used -by college faculties as 'a basis for guiding courses and curricula to more directly meet the needs of potential employees of the Department* Requests have been received from colleges for a student edition properly written and illustrated. a. Does the Starnes-Scrughan Act change the job of the colleges in training students for Government positions? b. How can colleges be supplied with information about require ments which would guide them in providing the needed training? c. "Miat use has been made of the "Preliminary Report on the Qualification Requirements of Some Professional, Scientific and Technical Positions in the Department of Agriculture"? d. ".".'hat distribution should such a report have in the colleges in order to be of most value? Who should have copies and what use could be made of them? e. T.~hat type of publication on qualifications necessary for jobs in the Department should be prepared for use by students? f . Wiat distribution would be made of such a publication? How would it be used? 5 A. M. Luncheon meeting of Bureau and Department Personnel Officers. Dr. Charles E. Friley to discuss the subject of training which the colleges might do to improve the basic qualification of those who may be employed by the Department of Agriculture. All members of the Committee are invited to attend. 5 P.M. 8. Continue discussion of educational requirements for positions in the U, S. Department of Agriculture T. Roy Reid, Chairman 2QO P. M. < 9. Can the Department through, its in-service training relieve the colleges of the need for giving some practical subjects so that more of the students 'time might be devoted to basic sciences and cultural subjects? - Lyle F. Yjatts, Forest Service, Leader The need to have students devote more time to basic sciences and cultural subjects is being continually emphasized. The colleges are faced with the problem of how to get everything in. It has been suggested that for those students who are potential government employees some of the specialized practical training might be left to the agency. a. Yihat general basic knowledge is.. most -needed by employees of the Department? b. Are agencies repeating in the in-s'ervice training some of the same types of training given in .colleges? c. Could agencies afford to undertake to give' more of the practical knowledges and skills if the employee was better grounded in the more basic and general knowledge? 3QO P. H. 10. Summary 'and Recommendations U;3Q P. >[. Adjournment THS OPJaOTIYaS OF WMBCH IH TORiPTRY The subject originally asaicned to as was The Research Objectives of the Porast Service,*1 but this seemed too narrow in Its conception. After all, the Forest Service research activities are but a part of a met organic whole and our objective* are merely modified by the faot that we are a public agency and da have certain responsibilities laid upon us by that faot. I think it would be more productive, perhaps, if I would try to examine with you the general nature of the forest problems and the broad aim of a research program sbaed at their solution* It can well be said that a raajor motivating influence in the dictation of necessity for forestry research is the worldwide inadequacy ef weed supply. This statement needs a little amplification. Here Is a lot of wood in various forms but it is not present in quality, specie*, nor location to meet the de- Bands being put upon it. If we were still living in an aboriginal or nomdio etenosy, this would be of no importance whatever, but the tremendous needs ef an expanding industrial aoonoaiy put demands upon the forest that cannot be aet by merely depending upon the unregulated forces that created the virgin forest. This is just as true of forestry as of f arising. The pioneer fai III lo dTjaq * twtf tf«rt *drf vf teltl&wt t^riMr »i« tvrltMtde we bo ** tol:'* I .**! t«i& ttf •» «>qtf 6i*X •tMUTMlMOQWrs nl«H*o *»r«i 06 1* erf* net <^^r tmimm* * tea mtlrfotq ol fxXMT %• ^•npSbMdl •ftJHAJhMMT MV tl tol » «l ««R ^sojtfMmiq e^AooI i«« cMl«*>t Ml under standing of these laws can we be in a position to control the composition and growth of the forest and such control Is a fundamental of •s.iMg.SMntL I do not conceive that we shall, within a foreseeable time, casuist* this task for the level of such research In forestry can never rise abort 1fce l«rel of the fundamantal sciences that contribute to lt« For eauople, the dlsoorery of plant honaones and an understanding of their role, has opened broad vistas that could not have been risible twenty years ago. Such new funasgeental know- * ledge raises the level of all knowledge and broadens the opportunities of forest mnagenaat. I havs been speaking of the fundamental biological knowledge en which our future forestry will be based and oust intorjeot here a notion that is triftstiO our research oust always be far out in advance of the need for its application* The ideal silviculture is one that can be aside flexible to neet the avar* changing needs of civilisation but, because the response of tree growth to various si Ivl cultural treatments Is slow. Management wast plan far ahead of * • Alf ^ f AJM Ml (**-x*> «H»io r» d*3*»£ ^eo%^X * nuns «• «* •« UltM^in These are examples of wsntgsasnt oholoes that MM are •rtrtng now X believe it Is certain that suoh oholoes will Increase greatly as th* usefulness of wood expands and greater denands are placed on the productive capacity of forest land* The growing number of available options In wanagensnt and the dosand for wood will bring inteosive •anagonent Just a* similar factors in older countries have already brought intensive land management for all fonss of use. The present critical shortage of wood cannot fail to ivpress upon us th* idea that the need for intensive manageaent way be already with us, •1th Intensive management we shall need not only fundamental silviculture! knowledgei we *hall n**d to know the oo*t* and return* of th* fore*try business, whatever options in management are oho«en. The cost of growing Usher must bo measured in terns of yield and land values and all the oo*t* of doing business. The growth rates and yield of different combination* of specie* on different •Itee oust be determined, and the influence of suoh thing* as stand density determined. We shall need to determine growth rate* accurately in order to know when eoonoraio maturity has cone. Unless we know these things we shall be in no position to manage forest Industries profitably, Th* oosts of Intensive management will be higher than the costs of the kind of management we have had. This form of management will require and hr • iftlfcUt M*t«t ««< vlMitvi fBfvrf lll» teftr i»1 ln«Mit trtf tai Q£ JtaMMI Itttit <*» t%"j&*^ •I a »w ti » *?•• higher protection costs whieh aust in torn bo ascertained* So there develops tho need for research In fir* protection techniques and policies that will go far beyond the sort of fire protection we now consider adequate. These are all eoonoaio rceuroh problsM but they have corollary social aipact* that ar« «r«n nor* oon««qu«nti»l and will b«ooa« vor* «o» After all, the ao»t laportant product of the f oreet la a raw Material from which oan flow perraanent job* and etable ooenunitU*. The stability of the flow of wood f met the forest detemlne* the etabillty of tho foreet oovjamity, tho town or city dependent upon the foreet industry for its continued exietenoo. Thus stable eilviouituro and stable smnagonsnt, both wall ffnuisiii upon well deterained facts and natural laws, oan bring about stability la the whole social fabric that depends upon the forest. This is and Must continue to be a primary and general objective of research in forestry* Hood is a peculiar crop in that the method of its harvest aeteroines in Urge Measure the character of the succeeding crop* If we high grade and out only •elect spooles, the next crop is likely to be of lower quality and of less choice species* The nost nearly ideal silviculture will probably harvest the crop as natural f cross grow It9 but this will rarely ooour. More often there nl ilm . lo ^ aii I* ol ol it* Bust be conscious effort to so balance cutting, and therefore utilisation, M to bring About the aost beneficial effects on th* residual stand* Sow, tree* do not grow M we would like the*, nor are our utilisation industries generally geared to the way they grow, Uoetly w» out a forest for * tingle special use, and diversify our utilisation only haphazardly. Ideally, our utillsatian •hould be diTer»ifled »o a» to take the whole wood orop, turn it into useful goods at a profit, and thus actually mite the produttivity of too forwit itself« Here we hare a broad basis for resmrsh in forest produots, aiaed at derel oping new and iaprorod uses for wood, at the use of speoiee not now used for wood or pulp products or for any purpose), and the utilisation of the tops and llvbs end broken wood that we now leave in the forest, Suoh researoh in wood utilisation i«plngeo Juat as mmh on forest wmageaent M it doec en •arkets and Interacrts with wsnuf ssjtiMl even nor* oloiely. To havo produotivo forest* w» saist hanrost wood ragularly, intelllsently and oloaulyt in ord«r - to so harvasfc, industry wuat use the hunrest in the manufacture of a bug* diversity of goods that oan b* narketoa. This intorplay of utiliiution and !«nsnt» to wy mind, is one of the noet iisportant aepaots of forestry and the it argument for the closest possible integration of these two s< JMf&ttHtttt tn**!**' W» .»tM*i» ••Mtotf «* «T oft m M!» «abK» of M fll c to at oi iifitfdt M r? Mff not of forestry reeaaroh. It would be a grave osdaslon to laaveout those benefit* fit* the forest that oona to us by virtue of the wery existence of th» format, control of •trwuBflow and •roalon, and th« furnishing of » habitat for wlUllf* and othwr opportunltiw for r«creation. A «wpr«h«Mdv« r«§. Herriok «ill explore this field* 3. Professional ^ork* I hope you will be patient with us if we introduee our subject with a few obvious observations to indicate the aental attitudes of tha researeh worker, the nan who ultimately raust use the tools of imnarenent. Hhat is the end product of research? a« It attempts to diseoTer the laws of nature, b. It tries to derelop techniques or Inpleneate whereby knowledge of the natural laws oan be applied by nan for his purposes. .. _ _ ..... _ ; ..... __ V (9MI « .1 . . j aw JjftnolaMileir*! (8) in* phov Ij yt^etoS Jt io . "i,f*Bd fti'sjol sd xXI/notift ru>» en . • '-••>* • . , • w 11 *0 4*lir 4u* . ^?>»cT' Io «»fcwf Jhtrfa £**MMi w& «d*c&u* «T *i»^wn*»rfc wiolvo'o w»l * 4Uv ioet& _. . .. , . ,, ^ ,,r,, .. . ^. ... . ;.,. . . .. _ _ ... ; - ' ~ .:.'.:. • ' - r I /;:,—->-•- . . ..-:--: -.-•• research financed by public funds although what w« talk of «ay apply to aay other organisation thus engaged. Lot us take as an illustration the processes mi so through in setting up a research prognm for any Bureau in the Departassnt of Acrlculture, The process start* with the initial request made for funds to finanoe the undertaking, la ardor to eonvlaoe the Secretary's Office, the Budget, •ui the Congress lt*ilf, a plan i« prepared which «nbraoea a detailed dotieriptlon of field* of work to bo oovorod, work parojoota, and Ofooifio problem that aro to bo tackled. Thece financial hurdlo* in thenaelYeo «orre tho purpoao of prinary liadtaticau M to the work to bo undertaken* Thit if tho first atop in ntnagomont control imrolTing the a-vol lability and disposition of non, funds, and tiao* This is on tho WJushington lerol, the second step takes pi toe in tho field. It consists of an annual report of tho *ef1onal MoU Otalt Homd in wblofcj 1. A general plan is discussed, 2, Projooto— -specific in nature— are doocribed, 8, A financial prog ran is given* And, after Washington approval, wo get to the next stop, tho third •top consists of the primry controls exercised by tho field Director. Lot's lllustr&to by an exanple whor* initial work is to bo undsrtaksn* Itader tho field Director fs guidance, a program leader prepares | !• A problem analysis, Out of this 3. A field project analysis follows, •' .,.- -.:., . V. <-.,. . .." •( Usaaut n* W *' ' 'j .»9«j£> •I * r«xx» , :-•• . It include** a. 3ro*d definition of tits problem, b. liaviarw of literature, o» Surveys, soope, aspect* and variation of problem. d. Refined definition of the problem and its eoaponents. e. detailed project objestiTes. f . Discussion of alternate methods of »olutien« g« Reaearoh plans (general)* h. List of studies and study assignment*. The next step touches the ulttnato unit in roeearoh, the study* This is finally expressed In a working plan, Its purpose isi To require the investigator to define his problem, state his objective, and plan his study. Outline of Study ,'orkin;; Plan, 1, The problem, olearly, precisely, and specif ioally stated* 2. Literature and current studies—how they bear on problem* 5, Objectives and scope. State imediat* objectives and questions to be answered. Probable values in correlated fields* 4, Hethods. Description of experiment. Field-office methods. Design of experiment* Proposed analysis showing basis of test of hypotheses. ; tft-..- . o* oe t • " . ?;i*ws •^jurmdlft le OftlMiNMtia . r«i«>rr 3) •n».: qecr PI ia o ao •nr»n« t,T!«- " : •' ».i ,! fi« B oi lo ; • Consideration of variables. Sensitiveness of experiment—sice, number ef replications, refinement of Measurements* Plan of recording— plan of analysis. 6. Presentation of tapested Results. 6. Personnel Assignments—time of completion, oooperation, costs. 7. Appendix, Detailed instructions. Hfeen working plan Is approved field research Is ready to begin. The fourth step* 1. Office Reports. Intermediate and progress reports- • manuscript** 2. Publications and plan for publication* Sow, all these are steps in the overall nmntigsmsnt control. Research will still fall short of the mark unless the skilled creative worker is available, an incentive for creative nork maintained, and managerial •kills applied In every operation— to use Sconoraist cash register t arms— to mudmiie returns. Science Is noving rapidly* Hew tools, new methods arc available. Arc we usinr th*t? That question most be asked constantly, to insure better results, better analysis, better reports*? of results. Research work can well afford to examine itself if managerial skills are really b«inr applied. Ho matter how skillfully we may plan to proceed OR * resaareh job we still have the manar erial problem of how to insure execution with skill and with minimum effort. In the last analysis this involves training wan in good habits of work performance, how to organise their day's work, how B*&»KV -4«K3 «* ^M»t *i jf9**M»Y ' "' • iUEt ^JXMHKJ tJ UM^I «thow» ot imoll* IX*« J»£q t*» •• •.»**» o« J»JIrr c* vorf 1* *P >*.•?•«» erf* r *« «w d»t itoM»ll - • -- : • to aviid the pitfalls of diversions, how to use to the best advantage facilities such as a library, librarian, editor, clerical help. This mean*, without trans gressing on the individual's free play to think and work out his problems to his own best advantage, or to curb the idiosyncrasies of a creative mind, to encourage by training, seed habits, and the use of the best methodologies. I want to touch on on* •ere subject—the worker in research. flic nost important tool we have in organised research is the scientific worker, through whose effort* the end result must b« attained. Se start with an individual who has had formal training and seem) experience. We hire him for a specific purpose to work on a definite problem. In sons orderly fashion we nuet nmk« certain that this individual is really trained for the Job sad if not we aust provide a schedule of training. In seme respects this is msrs difficult than training a man for a craft Job. One needn't belabor the point. but in raaktng certain that a research worker studies the literature of his discipline, is posted and read cm the important works within his field, past and current, nay be nor* difficult than teaching a asm how to operate an in* volved waoh1.no. The research worker aust also be trained in the methodology of his field. This training can be slipshod, accidental, or can be carefully designed and carried out* It is in this field of training where organised research can readily fall short of its responsibilities, and where the penalty for failure to do so is not only found in poor work -accomplished, but in perpetuating a poor tool upon whom further research is dependent. We in the Dapartaent have recognised this. The Graduate School, conferences, and other devices, have been used but I would venture to that the possibilities for rood training can profitably be re> examined. I feel , :». • '"'(•: :~ '• f. ' : a" "... M Loejhwl& n'setfUb* ^jtwJhuvttfil ^purvil f •nvJifotq «Jb< sUmfr ^nnr b£v» afc.1 .41^ ftws'i t*l/iul; 8. *« v 93rx loe* alii wlrf- •«' -deiw>mp» «•«• *«• 5«J«i*^ ij*a-r«rt Sarf »j^ o* l- no ahcw «* aMsm t o? . , . ^ elfcwt* -r«atKw rf«a*wn « ^ ••» *P . .'!',- * Jbi na «#i*c-o v HMe « pitf* ft t». escra *•>« ^s^ i d«u» MI ji«e g.'. •«* te W*-- ' ai «2 *J «*,s» A* *.ii So dhwm* ftel ^Ifteite tt ai -*iK? 6»if«iIiBW>a#-3ht«*' ico «1 bmiel ^Ino ^c« -/• oi »*?• -I, »ii sure, too, that we will find that it needs to be strengthened considerably* What deters us from doing this fully My be the urge to oonplet* ft Job in a hurry to BOO* •ossd.tsNBtn. We err frequently on the assunptian that the formal training that our aorkof has had suffices and lastly a be lief that the mere fact of doing a Job in itself my be all the training a •an needs* Research workers in general fighting for technical integrity and scientific freedow— things that need to be fought for— confuse this with controls that any be inposcd to prevent diversion, lost notion, end other consequences that follow undisciplined action* They will argue that creative work mat not be hampered; mist seek its own methodology* There is partial truth in these objections, but ordinarily, snrtala frequently put up this strawoan to rationalise their own shortooadngs* :?e do need controls in organized research. Hi 4s need to know good aetbods and poor methods* -7- Htm ml ««• * »**IcpN>£> a* »yu? «* *rf <$K xHirt «J^r ^aoli mnl m/ •*»*»& d«fir f i til <•>•» MH MB ^I^anjMtl T» eK »»tf mm >!«••« <>»•<• od- irswri * «I 4to nl dot * ^r *•»* «« «wtt #^ , te*0 nt »& ^jgrtJto^o^jorfa JJB* nieri^ •alljme^irt e4 nWHnrt^ te»n o* •# .4»ut»t»^ i*si MANAGEMENT PROBLHMS IN ORGANIZED RESEARCH We will treat the subject, for convenience, in three parts, although all are closely inter-related. These ares (l) General housekeeping; (2) Sub-professional work; and (3) Professional work. 1. General Housekeeping in a Research Organization, This includes such items as: Bookkeeping; clerical; quarters; space allotment; budgetary matters; transportation; library facilities; and a variety of other facilitating aids. We assume your group has fully explored this field, because it parallels the same needs in any operating unit. Your findings should, of course, be applicable to any research organization. We believe a skilfully operated research organization will seek to segregate the housekeeping functions, relieving the investigator from these tasks. We want to give the investigator maximum time to research and secondly others can generally be found better adapted and trained for the outright housekeeping jobs. . 2. Sub-Professional Work, Mr. Herrick will explore this field, 3. Professional Work, I hope you will be patient with us if we introduce our subject with a few obvious observations to indicate the mental attitudes of the research worker. u*t ttu 5* f— Q What is the end product of research! a/ It attempts to discover the laws of nature. b/ It tries to develop techniques or implements whereby knowledge of the natural laws can be applied by man for his purposes. c/ It attempts to reduce the waste of human effort in trying to understand the natural laws by methodology which eliminates the wasteful efforts of trial-and-error systems* d/ It attempts to subject its findings to objective tests so as to eliminate error and reduce the consequences of application of partial truths. Research is creative work whose value depends on creative minds being given an opportunity to work under favorable conditions. It is obvious that no competent research can be done without creative work. Otherwise, we would have nothing but humdrum experimentation. The mere fact that research is a creative job, involving the use of creative minds, necessitates very special controls and disciplines. There is a horn^to this dilemma. Rigid discipline or unsympathetic controls may react unfavorably to creative work. We are, therefore, faced with the double task in organized research, of inducing the possibilities for creative work, and controlling or disciplining it so that it keeps within bounds. Men from time immemorial have worked independently and by groups in bringing together knowledge in some systematic form. Men have Studied and tried to understand nature about them, and have attempted to determine whether or not such knowledge can or cannot be systematized I And men will continue to do this, without regard for good or bad techniques and without regard to the rules of conduct that management experts might set up. -2- What we want to discuss, however, is premeditated research, organized for a purpose and with some set goals. We will discuss primarily organized research financed by public funds although what we talk of may apply to any other organization thus engaged. Let us take as an illustration the pro cesses ws go through in setting up a research program for any Bureau in the Department of Agriculture, The process starts with the initial request made for funds to finance the undertaking. In order to convince the Secretary's Office, the Budget, and the Congress itself, a plan is prepared which embraces a detailed description of fields of work to be covered, work projects, and specific problems that are to be tackled. These financial hurdles in themselves serve the purpose of primary limita tions as to the work to be undertaken. This is the first step in management control involving the availability and disposition of men, funds, and time. This is on the Washington level* The second step takes place in the field. It consists of an annual report of the Regional Field Unit Head in which; I 1, A general plan is discussed. 2. Projects — specific in nature— are described. 5. A financial program is given, ' The third step consists of the primary controls exercised by the field Director, Let's illustrate by an example where initial -work is to be undertaken. -3- A program leader prepares; a* A problem analysis, Out of this b. Field Projects are selected, c, A field project analysis follows. It includes: f 1, Broad definition of the problem, 2, Review of literature, 3, Surveys, scope, aspects and variation of problem, 4, Refined definition of the problem and its components. 5, Detailed project objectives, 6, Discussion of alternate methods of solution, 7, Research plans (general). List of studies and study assignments. V** ^ The ultimate unit in research ire the individual study, 4 This is finally expressed in a working plan, Its purpose is: To require the investigator to define his problem, state his objective, and plan his study. Outline of Study Working Plan. 1, The problem, clearly, precisely, and specifically stated, 2, Literature and current studies— how they bear on problem, 3, Objectives and scope. State immediate objectives and questions to be answered. Probable values in correlated fields. -4- 4. Methods* Description of experiment, Field-office methods. Design of experiment. Proposed analysis showing basis of test of hypotheses. Consideration of variables. Sensitiveness of experiment — size, number of replications, refinement of measurements. Plan of recording— plan of analysis. 5. Presentation of Expected Results, 6. Personnel Assignments— time of completion, cooperation, costs, 7. Appendix. Detailed instructions, When working plan is approved field research is ready to begin. The fourth step. 1, Office Reports. Intermediate and progress reports— manuscripts. 2. Publications and plan for publication, Now, all these steps in the over-all management control, A Research will still fall short of the mark unless the skilled creative worker is available, an incentive for creative work maintained, and managerial skills applied in every operation— to use Economist cash register terms — to maximize returns. -5- No matter how skillfully we may plan to proceed on a research job we still have the managerial problem of how to insure execution with skill and with minimum effort. In the last analysis this involves training men in good habits of work performance, how to organize their day's work, how to avoid the pitfalls of diversions, how to use to the best advantage facilities such as a library, librarian, editor, clerical help, This means, without transgressing on the individual's free play to think and work out his problems to his own best advantage, or to curb the idiosyncrasies of a creative mind, to encourage by training, good habits, and the use of the best methodologies. Science is moving rapidly. Nervr tools, new methods are available, Are we using them? That question must be asked constantly, to insure i better results, better analysis, better reporting of results, Research work can well afford to examine itself if managerial skills are really being applied, I want to touch on one more subject — the worker in research. The most important tool we have in organized research is the scientific worker, through whose efforts the end result must be attained, TTe start with an individual who has had formal training and some experience. We hire him for a specific purpose to work on a definite problem. In some orderly fashion we must make certain that this individual is really trained for the job and if not we must provide a schedule of training. In some respects this is more difficult than training a man for a craft job. One needn't belabor the point, but in making certain that a research worker studies the literature of his discipline, is posted and read on the important works within his field, past and current, may be more difficult than teaching a man how to operate an involved machine, The research worker must also be trained in the methodology of his field. This training can be slipshod, accidental, or can be carefully designed and carried out. It is in this field of training where organized research can readily fall short of its responsibilities, and where the penalty for failure to do so is not only found in poor work accomplished, but in perpetuating a poor tool upon whom further research » is dependent, -6- We in the Department have recognized this. The Graduate School, technical conferences, and other devices, have been used but I would venture to guess that the possibilities for good training can profit ably be re-examined, I feel sure, too, that we will find that it needs to be strengthened considerably. What deters us from doing this fully may be the urge to complete a job in a hurry to meet committments. We err frequently on the assump tion that the formal training that our vrorker has had suffices and lastly a belief that the mere fact of doing a job in itself may be all the training a man needs. Research workers in general fighting for technical integrity and scientific freedom — things that need to be fought for — confuse this with controls that may be imposed to prevent diversion, lost motion, and other consequences that follow undisciplined action. They will argue that creative work must not be hampered; must seek its own methodology. There is partial truth in these objections, but ordinarily, mortals frequently put up this strawman to rationalize their own shortcomings. We do need controls in organized research. We do need to know good methods and poor methods. -7- 1617 Carmel Road Walnut Creek, Calif Mr. David R. Brover, Executive Secretary Sierra Club 1050 Mills Tower, San Francisco k, Calif. Dear Mr. Brower: Horace M. Albright's article in the April -May 1960 issue of the Bulletin aliclted considerable interest auong foresters. As an old California forester, I have been an admirer of the fine work your organization has fostered in the protection of our scenic resources. In 1919 it was uy privilege to work with acne members of the Sierra Club in promoting the building of a trail fro* the north end of Lake Tahoe which ultimately was to Join the Mulr Trail. With the advice of this sane group we "dock- trailed" pas sages through Desolation Valley. I was then Supervisor of the H dorado Rational Forest. Bat, getting back to Albright's article; it gives only one side of the atory. I feel that the other side, namely, the point of view of the forester, should also be available to the readers of the Sierra Club Bulletin. I so therefore submitting an article "The Other Side: A Forester Dissents". My colleagues in forestry have indicated that they would greatly appreciate it if my article would be accepted for publication in your Bulletin. I want to assure you that I an in full support of th« efforts of your Club to joaintain a substantial part of our remaining natural areas free from exploitation for the continued enjoyment of the present and future generations, and to widen the public interest in the appreciation of Nature at work. Cordially E. I. KOTOK Mr. Bruce M. Kilgore, Manag ing Editor, Sierra Club Bulletin. Dear Mr. Kilgore, i-y article was prepared on the a»unption that readers of the Sierra Club Bulletin would be interested in knowing the views a forester regarding the very imoortant issues raised in Albright's article. 1 followed the format set by Albright's article and did not attempt to add notations, since these are not riven by Albright. If desired, I shall seek through the source data for further amplification of wy statements. In the meantime, I want to comment oi some of the questions you raise. 1. I did not intend to convey that cropping of trees under careful forest ry practice can prevent the destruction or chance the scenic grandeur of a virgin forest. The word scenic is a relative tern. It connote* * the picturesque and the pleasing as well as the marvelous and extra ordinary. Lt is for this reason that in my statement I assert that oar splendid natural scenic values in our National Parks should never be subjected to any use by cropping. However, I was trying to indicate that good forest practice, as you will note to my reference to forest ry in Central LXiropean countries, that high and valuable scenic worth can b« insured through good forest practice, and such soenic worth is now furnishing enjoyment as a recreational outlet. Some unusually interesting second-growth stands in California have at present such high scenic worth that they warrant Park status. 2. If you will note on ppc. 7 and 6 , dealing with the subject natter ef the Rocky Nt. National Parks, I quoted fron available records that Chiff Forester Graves objected to mining and other uses within any proposed Park. I an certain, too, that I can get verification of ny statement that during the First and Second World Wars the Forest Set-rice opposed proposals by industrial groups to invade the Parks for tinber resources. I checked with S.B. Shew, Regional Forester in California fro* 1926 te 191*6. Re informed ne that w th a special committee of the Sierra Club consideration was given te proposals nede bjr livesttsk men for grating such in the National Parks, and that Show personally opposed any use of then 3. The Forest Service, on its own initiative, supported the bill establish ing National Monunents, preserving the historic geographic, geologic, or botanical significant arears, and such areas were selected and later transferred to the Park Service. In California, Show inform* ne, that the following National Monuments were established: Devil's Pest ile, "Tie Lava-volcanic *rea, Captain Jack's Stronghold, the Pinnacles. In addition, the Research Organisation of the Forest Service, as tab- li, The question of origin Is of minor importance, but it is important to understand that within the Department of Agriculture there was a Bureau of Forestry establish!* before 19B>5, and Qtfford PLochot wa« its- Chief. Up to 190? the Forest fttsreYes were within the Interior Department. The 1905 Act merely transferred to an existing Forestry Bureau in th« Department of Agriculture, land areas JMO^// hotherto administered by Interior. TEt ODDER 8m — A FdURSTBt DXS80TB Bjy I. I. Kotok* In the Nay 1960 Issue of the Sierra Club Bulletin «y good and distin guished friend, Bormc* Albright, contribute* SGSM Interesting observations. He treats of "the Forests vs. Parks controversy," drawing fro* his rich half eentury of intixate participation in the Rational Park Boveaent. I want to cowoent, ae a forester who also, through a half century, has had the pleasure of knowing all of the Chiefs of the Forest Service including Clifford Plnohot and all the Directors of the Park Service limiting Director Mather. My contact a with ay o*n professional colleagues and innumerable key Ben in the Park Service make BC feel as a aember of both tee*s. Unfortunately a number of errors have crept into Albright's account. And he creates an iapresslon that foresters do not appreciate the oham and beauty of virgin forests and, in their practice of forestry, leave destruc tion and desolation in their wake. Perhaps foresters theaselves Bay have unintentionally helped create this luage that harvesting tlaber it a process of destruction. In the early days of proBOting forestry, foresters called attention to wasteful and des tructive tlaber cutting in every Important forest region. The practice of "out out and get out" was all too ooanon in those days. Pictures of devas tation and desert-like scenes were used by foresters to help arouse public concern and thua encourage a shift fron "non-forestry" to forest BeaageMnt, fros headlong exploitation to conservation. We foresters stressed the danger of creating a tlaber famine but failed to place sufficient sHphaais on other forest values that were being impaired. * Edward I. Kotok, Forester Breritue, U. 8. Ikpextaent of Agriculture Fifty years have pasted since that initial drive towards acceptance of good forest practice as a national objective. Public forests are nov under intensive nanagotent. Corporate timber companies hare likewise placed their holdings in the care of foresters and are giving forest management a primary place in the conduct of their business. The assumption that in forest practice scenic values are sacrificed is patently in error. Forestry means good husbandry. It means working vith nature in attaining ecological succession so that soil fertility must be maintained or enhanced; so that crops can be harvested and nev grovth augmented to its full potential. Our eyes and emotions react vith pleasure and Joy in seeing good husbandry in farmland and orchard. In America ve have not yet learned to appreciate the beauty and charm of well managed forests even though cropping of mature stands proceeds without detriment to the forest as a living, perpetual entity. The Europeans, vith a much longer history of sound forestry practice, have long been appreciative of good forestry husbandry. They seek spiritual Joys in visiting their managed forests. Through Svitzerland, Germany, Austria, and the Scandanavian countries, the managed forests are Important outlets for their recreational needs. They hike, they ride bicyclea to enjoy leisurely Nature in full operation. They do not dash through their forests at breakneck speeds on thruvays. It is to be hope that we too shall, in due course, make the most of the beauty and charm of v husbanded, managed forests. Albright's comments also give - impression that foresters are opposed to the National Park system. It is *••••• controversies have soaetime* arisen betveen members of the Forest Service smd the Park Service regarding the expan sion of National Parks by a shift of national forest areas to national Parks. -2- However, It is a ni stake to Imply that the authoritative leadership of the For«st Service, through th« half century, ha* not recognised and supported a lational Park 8yst«» based on the 1916 ehartar that created the lational Park Service. Foresters conceive national Parks as areas representing unusual natural beauty and significance. Foresters agree that such areas should be free frosa any pressure to crop vegetative product a or wildlife. A Park should not, even to take care of visitors, prcswte developments which Bay impair or Jeopardise the inherent natural values for which it has been set aside. In fact, the Forest Service has consistently supported the latioaal Park Service in its policy of preventing exploitation of timber or forage vlthln latioaal Parks even in the critical tines of war. To »any of us, Parks have sosevhat the save intellectual and eswtional ivpact as Forest (brines have to the Japanese. It is reliably told that during the formation of the lational Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, President Theodore Roosevelt offered to place the then Rational Parks, then run by the U. S. Any, under Forest Service jurisdiction. Clifford Pinchot felt that this would be a Mistake. la urged the President to keep the national Parks as a separate unified civilian service iasnme to any pressures for exploitation of natural resources in the Parks. Thus, froa the very beginning of the Forest Service, its leadership has strongly supported safeguards to Maintain the Integrity of non-ccsasercial exploitation in the Parks. Recreation in the Batlonal Forests is no new phenomena. Under the broad Organic Act establishing the national forests, the Secretary of Agriculture, through the power of regulation, can authorise aad prescribe rules for all fonts of occupancy and use of the national forests. Fran the very beginning, recreational use, neaping, hunting, and fishing were -3- encouraged uses of the national forests through Secretarial regulation. I can speak first hand about these UMS, goiag tack a half century. While I was supervisor of the £L dorado Rational Forest la 1915-1930, we developed a series of campgrounds on the naln high-way leading from Flaeerrllle to Lake Tmhoe. We encouraged the City of Sacramento, under special use, to establish a city camp for Its eitisens. We built a special trail Into Desolation Valley purely for hiker a. We built a trail free the north end of Lake Tahoe through to the Mokelvome River vhlch ve hoped would later be joined to the Mulr Trail. We took special efforts to place historical Markers along the route taken by coach and freighter from Pl&cerville to Tlrglnia City. Other national forests anbarked on the saae kind of activities. 3%e Forest Service has been in the recreation field since its creation. It fostered such use with •inlcutn disturbance of natural environmental condi tions. In the very early days the Forest Service took initial action in saving areas vlth unusual historic, geographic, geologic, or botanical significance. It formally supported Congressional action for the creation of Rational Monu ments. In the 30 's the Forest Service set forth a policy under Secretarial Regulation covering a series of Wilderness and Ratural Areas. Under the leadership of Robert Marshall, a member of the Forest Service, the Wilderness Area program vas given Impetus, and in the 30 's a special study group reviewed Forest Service policy on recreation and Issued Circular Thus the Forest Service, not in fear of Rational Park extension or competition, proceeded frost it a very beginning to plan for the development, step by step, of the recreational resources within the national forests. -U- The lav erecting the national forests enphasifted as its purpose, tiabcr production and watershed Banag event. Other uses nwe covered under broad regulatory authority rested in the Secretary of Agriculture. As early as 1926 the national Livestock Associations sought specific legislation to recognize forage production on an equal basis with tiaber production and water shed management. Later, after the second World War, recreation! at s and vild- life proponents likewise sought specific legislation to be included in the basic lav. Because of these demands, it IAS only a matter of tlae before a general legislative provision to cover more accurately the objectives of national forest •anagenent vas to be introduced before Congress. It vaa for these reasons that the so-called multiple-use bill ma enacted. It is hard to under stand the opposition to this measure vhen it actually is a legal codification of existing uses in the national forest*. I have noted that sosse errors exist in Albright's account, as published in the Sierra Club Bulletin. I oa»e to this conclusion by checking the 0. 8. Forest Service records dealing vlth its relationship to the Park Service. It is not my desire to be argumentative, but it is important to clarify Misunder standings. In doing this I shall briefly quote so»e of the erroneous state- Kent s froai Albright's article and ny consent, based on the record as it stand*. Statement - "Both originated in the Department of the Interior ..." Coanent - The Forest Service originated in the Departnent of Agriculture. The January 1, 1905, Act transferred Jurisdiction over land in the Forest Reserves to the Secretary of Agriculture. Responsibility for administration vas assigned to the Bureau of Forestry, vhich became the Forest Service, July 1, 1905. -S- Statement - "Th« Forest Service has, with minor exceptions, alv*yi resisted the release of any lands to the Park Serriee, even reluctantly yielding the (Jrand Canyon in 1919 after yeara of controversy." Comment - Files of 191? show the Forest Service cooperated willingly with then Congressman Bayden and others in getting boundary description and other information on Srand Canyon. As early as 1917, & cooanoBi boundary had been agreed upon. On February 16, 191?, the Department of Agriculture reported on S. 8250: "The Departreeut has always recog nized that the Grand Canyon of the Colorado is one of the most stupendous scenic wonders of the world and is of importance for consideration of Congress in the establishment of Batlonal Parks. This area should by all means b« administered in connection with the other Rational Parks and this Department heartily approves of its establishment." This state- Dent was repeated in a subsequent report on 8.390 vhlch became law February 26, 1919. By the fall of 1919, the Forest Supervisor of Kaibab Rational Forest was reporting that the Park Service was recommending that the national forest be included in the Park. This idea was alive in 1922. In 1927, after study by a coordinating committee, Park and national forest boundaries vare adjusted adding about 36 sections of land to the Park. The Department of Agriculture report approved this adjustment. The latest proposed adjustment was in 195&* The Forest Service concurred in an addition to the Park and proposed the transfer of certain Park land to national forest status. The Park Service refused to agree to the transfer. The Forest Service advised the Park Service there was no objection to legisla tion for a transfer from national forest to Park. A bill was introduced, but no action has been taken. -6- Statement - "With Pinchot out of office the Forest Service continued to resist the creation of n«v national parks and the establishment of a bureau to administer their affairs. A long fight with the Forest Service by Colorado conservationists finally brought the Rocky Moun tain National Park into existence in January 1915* but only the northern half of the area vhich was sought for a greater national park in the finest part of the Colorado Rockies. The other half, south of longs Peak is still national forest land." ent - In February 1912 Secretary Wilson vrote to the Coaaiittee on Public Land* that "In general, the establishment of a Bureau of national Parks meets with my approval." In February 1913, in reporting on a bill to establish the Rocky Mountain Rational Park, the Department of Agriculture stated: "This Departaent has in previous reports to you enphasized the fact that it favors creation of national parks out of areas chiefly valuable for scenic beauty and natural wonders . . " It stated that although the bill contained provisions that would be objectionable if the Secretary of Agriculture were going to administer the land, since authority would be in the Secretary of the Interior, amendments should be suggested by hlsi. The Department of Agriculture did not oppose the bill. In February 1913, Jace«i a. Rogers, President of Colorado Moun tain Club, vrote to Chief Forester Graves and asked his vlevs on a current bill to establish the Park. Grave 3 replied that he was in favor of the proposed Park but that there were provisions in the bill he could not endorse. Thei*e were provisions that vould have permitted mining, grazing, etc. In August 1?13, the Acting Secretary of -7- Agriculture vrote the Public Lands Committee on H.R. 163^ "I would favor a National Park in the Estes Park Region of Colorado provided it be made a real perk, subject to the same kind of park development and administration as Yosemite and other parka ..." The letter then detailed objections to mining, and other uses along the line of Graves' expressed objections. Later in 1913 Graves apparently met supporters of the Park in Colorado and helped draft legislation nore in accord with current national park management. However, a local organization, The Front-Ran^e Settlers League, objected to the park on grounds that it "wasn't necessary and would restrict use. Rogers, President of the Colorado Mountain Club, in an interviev with the Denver Post accused Forest Supervisor H. N. Wheeler and rangers of opposing the park and this was videly publicized by the Post. Rogers was challenged by the Regional Forester and eventually a partial acknowledgment of error was publicized. The record is that Graves and the Secretary of Agriculture both favored the park and actually helped prepare what they thought desirable legislation. Then in 1918 bills were introduced to create first a "Denver National Park" and later an "Addition to the Rocky Mountain Park". Both covered about the sane area, a part of the Pike national Forest around Mt. Evans, separated by about 35 miles from the previously established Rocky Mountain Park. The Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service agreed to a Joint study with Interior. Before the study was completed, Interior announced for a park. The Forest Service study indicated the numerous areas in Colorado vere Just as scenic and desirable. The Department of Agriculture refused to concur in the park proposal until basic policy on park vs. national forests •was vurked out, pointing out the large number of park proposals. The proposal died on that note. The Department of Agriculture did resist this addition. Statement - "Since 1915 .... action of Congress In establishing national parks and adjustment of park boundaries has resulted in the transfer of approximately 2,900,000 acres .... free national forests to national parks . . . . " Comment - From January 1, 1915 to date Transfers from national forests to national parks - £,837,000 acres Transfers of national monuments from Forest Service to Park Service, etc 769,000 acres Both 3,6c6,000 acres From national parks to national forests, sane period 10^,000 acres Statement - "The Chief Forester has declared that the National Park Service cannot make studies of the Glacier Peak -Northern Cascades region. This decision was based on the exemption of Department of Agriculture lands froc the study provisions of the Park, Parkway, and Recreation Act of 1936. However, it overlooks a later provision nhich states that the Secretary of the Interior 'is authorized and directed, through the Rational Park Service, to seek and accept the cooperation and assistance of other Fr-deral departments or agencies having lands belonging to the United States . . . ' The national foresto do belong to the United States. As a matter of fact, at least 160 Billion of their 183 million acres-were public donain landB transferred frons the Interior Department . " -9- Coroent - The 1936 Act gays: "The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the 'Secretary') is authorized and directed to cause the national Park Service to aake a comprehensive study, other than on lands under the Jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, of the public park, parkway, and recreational-area programs of the United States, and of the several States and political subdivisions thereof, and of the lands throughout the United States which are or Bay be chiefly valuable as such areas »**.** in staking the said study and in accomplishing any of the purposes of this Act, the Secretary is authorized and directed, through the national Park Service, to seek and accept the cooperation and assistance of Federal Departments or agencies having Jurisdiction of lands belonging to the United States * * »M The cooperation and assistance which the Sierra Club Bulletin paragraph refers to is in connection with the study fron vfalch Agriculture lands are exempted. Thus the record does not reveal foresters as continually opposing the idea of Parks or their administration by the Rational Park Service. For*start are disturbed, however, when periodic disagreenents betvean two important agencies of the Federal government obscure the real issue of the r»r possibilities these agencies are designed tc discharge. The Park Service, In developing a recreational program, cust give first concern to the preservation of th* inherent and unique qualities of a given area. The Forest B«rvlc« is con fronted by the necessity of developing recreation resources within the fx work of the nultiple-use program. -10- Proponents for porks and proponents for sultiple-uce have each sought through legislative devices to foster their ovn particular po nts of view. Mo one has yet recognized that in a national recreational progrea there is a very definite relationship in the developnent of recreation in the national parks and in the national forests. These publicly owned lands, generally in close proximity and vlth interlocking highways, Bust be considered as caaplenentary to each other rather than as exclusive entitles. Attempts have been made in the past to set up a coordinating coamittee frosi the two Services to carefully exanlne and study hov beat to naxlaize recreation and yet sustain the major objectives of the tvo services. If such a study we honestly carried out, both the executive and legislative branches of the government could intelligently consider the Federal responsibility for recreational requirements that federally owned lands should supply. -11- ">C Hay 20, 1942. J Talk before the ^ethosdu-Chevy Chase CMpter E« I. Kotok Jlasistant Chief U.S.Forest Service I have been asked to discuss before your group some aspects of the forestry situation in the United States* Before embarking on any fruoh venture, I nust frankly confess that I am going to take advantage of t)>e usual tolerance of an Izaak-ffalton audience and approach oy subject through your Achilles heel. I am going to speak first about some things touching on fish and game. In these troubled times when the national effort is all concentrated towta-d victory, when we are willing to give unstintedly of all JIG possess to preserve our way of life, sone of us have been asking ourselves "what are some of these things we are trying to preserve?*. Sonc arc very taacihle things and sow are very nebulous and un tangible. And eaong these uutangible things, I think of those that affect our outlook on life. I feel quite certain that if we took an inventors'- of these purely Aaorican institutions we would find that fishing and hunting have developed in America an opportunity for a particular enjoyment, springing from our pioneer days, available to all regardless of economic status, regardless of race, creed or color and that it will have hi^h rank in this intangible Croup. Sports as such have had an important part in the Anglo-saxon countries*- Yes, cricket and football in England, baseball and football in America. The American opportunities - the American formula - to provide fishing and hunting is quite different than that developed in any of the European countries. I have heard English farmers speak of idly standing by while dukes and lords followed tho fox through their crops. Yes, the farmer has a right to carry a gun but has no right to game. Hunting and fishing in Europe is the privilege of the rich. You hear so much about the plentiful game in all restaurants in Furope, while we have complete restrictions on that. But we lose sight of the fact that even these delicacies are reserved for the ultra— rich. Let's stop for a moment and examine just what fishing and hunting doos mean in American life* In the pioneer days it gave us a chance to live off tho country. I hold that fishing and hunting can not be measured by the total kill of game or the total catch in creels. The values come to the • individual in mi honest pursuit of these tilings} the joy that cooes of fishing or huatinc in the proper environment! the test that cooes of matching -2- man's skill against that of the animals in their natural state. I know tl;at the game hog, the killer, have often brought fishing and huntinf to ill repute but that i.: not what we are trying to preserve. I should like to treat these fellows in a humane way* I would have for the gano hog a big slaughter house something like we see in Chicago, with a procession 01' deer, elk, or any game he wus interested in proceeding silently down an isle and give him the opportunity to decapitate whatever animal he wanted at a fee. For the fish hog, I would have a public seine and permit him to take his limit. If I uia not mistaken, fish, end gone, without its proper, environment is not fishing and hunting at all* The zoological garden or park has its placa but in my long career in the forests, I associate a bear with a furtive Animal rarely seen even where it is plentiful but leaving his marks everywhere, When I Me a bear converted Into a hog-oatinc animal from bsin,; fed garbage, I always think of the poor bear chained and following a gypsy organ grinder in Europe. The trout lurking in a deep hole in running, living water is one thing; the trout in a rearing pond or against a glass pane is another. We have recently learned that our eaphaaij in BUM Management needs radical revision. We have placed too much emphasis oo nunb»T;: of fish and game and we have frequently ignored the fact that the basis for these if tilings is the creation of the proper habitat* We have found that/** destroy this habitat, or we don't manage* thi. habitat, our fish and may oven build up temporarily, but then all will be lost - habitat, fish and game* I hope you will pardon me if I reminisce a little on the development of fish and gaae in my own State - California* Burin,: the last thirty years. It look a long while for us to get across to the legislators, and even to those charged by law to manage fish and game, that the habitat was the first thing that had to be considered* For years we permitted special interests of one kind or another to capture the machinery of our fiah and game administration and we failed to see that proper legislators would seek appointments to those legislative conaittees dealing with the subject. There was a false theory of inexhaustability of the resource - we could go on endlessly fishing ;ind hunting, by getting rid of the poacher, by Betting rid of the market huntsrj perhaps establishing bag limits and seasons* That that was all that we / would find necessary. It was tragic. At the end of a 20-year period we wok j up to find trout streams bare* game ovorpopulatinj, some territories and damaging the habitat and game absent in other places* Some wuy or other we hod the idea that what we needed was more gamo wardens. So we appointed mar* game wardens and checked to see that everyone had paid his license fee and me we got more license fees we would get acre game wardens to check on more license fees. The few in the State Fish and Gaae Commission who were cognisant of the fact that we were dealing with a very complex • biological problem took the leavings in appropriations, iportsraen* s associa tions were more concerned with Juriadictional fights, were more concerned with manufactured issues set up as straw men by special interest >, than in trying to get a capable administration with sufficient responsibility and authority to carry through a program* In the little town where I lived a good many years stories were told about the fine trout stream there but I never saw a trout in it* Tho reason was simple* They permitted the effluent iron industry, from the town itself, to flow through this beautiful stream which we were trying to create into an open sewer and a sewer we had Tho.se opposed to ounci game management could always raise, in a f'tate like California where there was much public land, the Sta to-Federal iss • In spite of the fact that access to fishing end hunting on privute lands -5- and damaging the habitat and game passing on becoming »ore and more restricted and the only available public fishing and shooting grounds worthwhile ware on public land. Wrat the State really needed was more publicly owned lands regardless of whether ownership would have been in the State, in the county, or in the Federal government. legislative I have checked over recently the bi-annual/reports for the last 9 -thirty years in California, dealing with this subject and I find that each progressive stop had its setbacks and nothing really happened until the progressive conservation agencies drew full public attention to the problaiu And nothing happened until effective controls, with teeth in th«n, were in jected into th« game Management authority. Thirty years ago no one would or that have thought that it would have bean necessary *e teft*» such a law would ever have been accepted, that the State Fish and Game Cotmission, on the say^o of its chief administrator, could close a stream to all fishing until the habitat was built up and until fish lii> could again be reestablished. Now the State is confronted with overpopulations which ultimately will destroy both habitat and game. Our biologists tell us that there is a The population ou: t be reduced to the carrying capacity of its habitat. It will require the removal of males and females. We will have to know more about the carrying oppacity of the land, the present population , and the probable population that we ought to seek to hold* Bet me oil our emotional friends and the special interest,':, resort owners, etc., we have not aade nuch headway* Those of us in the public service who have suggested this possibility have been charged with beinr bureaucrats, seeking more power, seeking to meddle in the affairs of hunters and fishermen who know just exactly what ought to be done, or of a legislature aade up a&aost entirely of sen who, either by aptitude or for other reasons, are not ranch interested or syopathetic to a real sound conservation program. What I haw been striving to indicate to you is that in the handling of fish and game we must first consider the habitat, the land and strean which providas these values. Secondly we must consider , if we want to preserve, these, the methods by which we muat make sure that regardless of ownership of land, these things ought to be done. Third, ultimately by the democratic processes that we have available w« the majority must net up rules and regulations, nu.3t vest the responsibility in some one above -politics and pressures, to carry out such a program. Yes, and these public servants must first of all be responsible to their ultimate master- - the general public but they must be honest and darim enough to fight the -7- group interests when they run counter to the public interest. Our forest problem, in many raspocts, does not differ from what I have been telling you about fish and gaaia. The war has dramatically in dicated the need for having a nation self sufficient in raw materials to wace its battles. We have finally corae to recognize that we haven't an inexhaustible supply of forest products, I night briefly give you sow* indication of what our situation is regarding lumber and forest products. * It looks as tho we will br> eight billion feat shy of what we will need in lumber in spite of the fact that our normal house building has already been prohibited. Only a few day^ ago an order was placed to supply six billion feet needed by the Army, Navy and Maritime Commission. An order ii&s been written embargoing the sale of all construction lumber by producers until those needs are net* At the same time agricultural needs for bins and for other essential structures in the production of food is greater than ever and may not be met because of this embargo. We original ly thought of a standing army of three million men. It may reach a figure of ten million. Each soldier probably represents a use of from 2,000 to 2,500 board feet o. luaber for cantonments, ness halls, warehouses, hospitals, for the develop* Mat of 3 MIT ion square foot of vaoee*| 46 mil... ioc alftdc **vsto?lm& ™d ****** tat - roi^t that detonators, fuses, brass oases, shvamgl balls, explosives ;;nd projectiles *^f"* am Manufactured on a sub-contract basis and that these component parts are •rtiipped to final assenbly places in wooden or riber board containers* For e&unpic, i|e use 80 different types of wood ordnance shell boxes just for retraiispwrt. Even articles constructed of metal require wood for aliippl-i . * Horp railroad.;, aioro trucks, more ships, all call for wood. Even a battlo- sidp tfikas a lialf million board feet of lunbor. land-lease program ^ien put into full operation will require boxoa and orates. I want to illustrate howauch lumber it takes to ship tlio lond-leas* material. Here are just n f car random items* 7or fresh fruits,«Rd vogetables and melons, we will need 1-1/3 billion feet of luaber for box«« and «rates| 3 Mil ton wjuare feet of reoeerj 46 million slack staves} 90,CXX> tons of paper and fiber board, For dairy products, we willnneed 74. mil'; ion feet of lumberj 2/3 billion square feet of veneerj 60 million slack and tight barrel stavesj five million butter tubs| four hundred thousand tons of paper and fiber board. And I could go on, item for item. The shipment recently of 500 dump trucks to Russia took 400 carloads of lumber to box for shipment and 200 men -rorked on this job for ten days. As the war goes on, global in character, shipments of essential supplies will aake heavier and heavier drafts on our box and orate material. Prudence would suggest that stockpiles of this material will have to be rapidly accumulated. We are going to besshy in pulpwood requirenente even if we reduce the size of our daily papers. We will need wood to replace metal in over 100 different items. We need more veneer logs » for many purposes, plywood for airplane wings and fuselage, plywood «ven for ships. Yos, trainer, modium advanced and advanced trainer •Oanes in England and in Axaariea will be made satisfactorily of wood to conserve metals. And even the ehemi t* alchemy requires to make d;/namitet bladcapowdar and otiior chemical warfare Materials! - _ We will be using wood of necessity because metals will be ladd er we will have to gat along without things and we can not afford to do that for our essential war needs. Even the humble fuelwood will have to cone into use more than ever so as to conserve space now being taken by the carting of coal. We are even concerned with the problem of leaving our continent to get these essential vaw materials. We go to Alaska for our spruce that we badly need for airplanes and into South America for tannin and other materials* Zapoke of the habitat for fish and game* The habitat for these materials of the forest is the forest itself. No forest program is worth a tinker's darn unless it definitely provides for the protection, . the preservation, and the building up of this forest habitat* Just as in game we have to know what the population is and what the kill ought to be a&d that we therefore have to have bag limits, seasons, etc., we need these too Tor forests to be sure that the take has some relationship to the pro ductive capacity of the land and that the habitat i not destroyed in the taking* Two-thirdo of our best forest land Is in private ownership. I need not f* you the tad story o£ the progressive devastation that has taken place from coast to coast and is still L'oine on. We can't pfct our forest habitat in order if we leave it merely to the whim or fnncy of private ownpr- .,!iip - the public stake is }uat too great in forest lands. The educational process in trying to get a forest program through has been on its way for nor almost a half century and the results, frankly, have been rather limited* Yes, we have tightened up in fire control. Yes, there have been a few outstanding lunbormen who have put good practices into effect on their forest lands, but I wonder whether these few things themselves will be sufficient* And I a* certain that the conservationists who arc building the ease of the forests will meet the saae opposition that we heretofore met in trying to get good game management* Special interests will put up the nae scarecrows - will try to fiivide us among ourselves by raisinr the issue of Federal-State authority, the inherent right of property, the growing pains of democracy - all these things will be singled out to detract attention from the mala problem. I ftjar tliat we can not depend upon the? slow process of State by Stat-i, in ohoir own way, working out the solution of the particular State . First of all forests Have an Jitter-regional relationship* What * -12- is done in one State may seriously affect other States, both as to streams originating in one state and flowing into another, stream that ±bff depend upon proper treatment of i'orest cover, and as to the coanodities the iorest,- product* The whole United States has a vital interest in how Oregon and Washington treat the last remaining stands oi' virgin forests in private ownership. That is our stockpile, not Oregon1:; and Washington* s« 'It does little good to New England at present that suffering a dearth of lumber needed actually in defense to say that Oregon and Washington has it. We have to build up the supplies region by region for in case of war transportation is the most critical of bottleneck;:. laportant as forests are in our war effort, our forest wealth may be the most important contribution that we can make to rebuild a Europe that is acting under a •scorched earth policy" « -13- Ooforo tho Sooioty of Amorloan For « tors Mooting, frtday. January •» 1947. -— «• • . v D. 0*) _. By B. I. lotoki/ Tho aupro«» irayartanoo of ooionoo la waging wr ha* boon draaatitod end publioizod. It has oroatod fooonl public intoreot, and Ml night bo oxpoetod, CottcroftaionoJ. intoroat *« trail. Thl» intwrost in ait-wuiclxje r* fourth i* oxprooood in » nMbor of l«ei«latliro HMMKUTOC introduood in SongroM, and spooi&l appropriationa for tha Arry and Sairy for thi* pur- poso, fodoral agonolo* that prooontod rvquocta for raooarch work boforo tho last CoogroM found an tamauKlly »yapath«tlo lntor«»t. On* l«adlnf ioiootirfe rooontly atatod that tho mr slowed up tho of production of now koowlodgo in aany fioldfl. Ttd* Include* forestry, but ia nany ioctiorui it apoodod up tho utilisation of a backlog of icnowlodgo. Thl» !• particularly truo vhoro tho ultiaato prooooeod good* oondnf from foroat yra^MBti wom noodod dirootly ia tho tmr, a« woll illustrated in «orao aeeomplitlaMnta of our For oat Product* Laboratory* Our proriou* Inroctaont in roooaroh paid high dividond* whon wo noodod it w>at. Z shall not try to justify foroot roooaroh a* it my faavo a boariag on propojrodnoM for war. Th«ro aro aaattlo roaaona for oicpandinf. roaoaroh in tho ligh% of too foroot problomo roquiricg solution, loiioh have a boariag on our ororall poaoo oe^noaa/. I hopo that you will boar with no if I roriow of thoco problona. Thoro ia araaMMac diooonoortiag about tho word "roaoaroh", inquirioo into tho doop ayatorioa of aoioooo, chain r«aoticma by loa^-hairod, doublo-lanaod Roholara working ia ivory toworo* Perhaps it would bo bottor if wo uaod tho toraaj "invoatigatiflBi* and "oaporimsntatlon". Thoy don't ooaro us aa I/ Aaaiatant Chlof , U. f>. Foroat Sorvioo mart sar *a tew « oomta* to ottrarihtttpi* •••"lyiH «ifX ud *I Jb*aloJUWi*j fear -tel .-•*eei»i«l *|o a! **t. > to Hi to ft! *» Proa the very beginning of Asswtaaii forestry there has been tion and investigations, and •OHM ferine saeperiments iriiioh have proved «f -value in developing **e art of forestry itself. As long MI we have- who will grow, tend, and bar»o»t tress, th«r* will b* f»M%lti »•->•; w^—..^^— ^— ^ «t^ i f^r ^.*r t « -jutla Bob «w(^ • 4P'litekR MK«f»JlpMiir>o llr • eft* trtttf »«t»l»t. «ei-'r- «r.'- biology, ahfalolocy. •** «oll«, U aot>»alaty •»* Ma-iHMlaifr, if .«• woro ta bo of raal hal? to tho ftagtialag f orootor* That foroaaatf still aaplioa for tho dooadoa ahaad of m« u» ••••ling for a aaaaa*, foroatry raaairafi. in tho li?ht «f tfa« omlly and only in a qimlitaU^o my, w» my 11*% th« f)O|o«ia«f 1. PrMMHk ylolte «n* fituiM ftrwa oar tUhw «ad nmco Unto IUNI bolov par ond my »• «««a •tMdlly *^ll«Jnc. tt» HWt d*v«lop wid apply bott*r to otiild wf poi*<^0yo prodttotton bot^h I •!•(•, prmctlooo hwo p>.B<«1 tiio oxlMao b« lnt«n»lToly i«p*or«d If tmtional tiabor and forago aoote ar« to b« r«wonably 5* Wo nood ta know aaro about hoar foroot and rango ta favorably influonao vatorahoda* Oonditiona an aaflor orittoal 4« fla auat loam haw ta inoroaaa and 1 aurora tho utilisation of foroot into uaoful oaaaodittaa* Fharo ara athor «horto*tlMo probloaa that oall for attaatton but, la tho tho aara orlUool oan only bo honootly aat by longor-tom, planaod r*ao»rah with roaaonablo oontinulty. Aa with othor agricultural oroaa, ta iaproro tho vrodnation and uaa of fa»aa% oropa will lojrcoly aaaoai upon in stitutional i«od roooarah, booaaao of tho alia uaa tag of oauaranip and th* natura of tho probloaa to bo ool-vaa. It cannot rtipaai upon oaaora of foroot land or foroot induatrioa to carry forward tho biologioal raaoarah which aaat bo tho for aauan foroot praotioo. In tho fiold of utilisation and yyaattota . 4^k ltan»ni»ly feqr a ero^p «f iy^Uli«ta, nw» riiiil^g of r*»«*aroh «Mt bo to*t«A and teacmatratod If thoy aro to bo of vdluo to tho praotl- tlooor and tho oxtooaion foroator. nbrloosly tho prof •aaional f«»ro»tort if ho In to progfMaivaly iaprcr* hi» taohntym, mat <>yond up* asttonaiao fowwtar «uat havo thing* to oatoni, i*JLch oaa only La tho auroat, th* abl» and la tho Ions mat tho neat oo*••»• , i. , ' e . . ~ ... «, * A waft or toe aa to the orendl problona in tl»b*r grndnoiiojaj I* W* *till ha»* MM roaaant rirgia f»r«ata» largely located in the ftojt, «ad in HUaha. *« MWt bo MM that in the fleet outting of theae virgin area* the adetekea of the fMt ar« not r*p«t«A wnA e*t nature itoelf gar* ua la th* original (Area of virgin fereet*)* 2. The groat bulk of oar foroat landa in the Obi tod 9tatoa ar* raggat of oaoo produetiv* foreeta* Th« ataada p«r aero, the apeelee eoa- ond the at to qualittoa thea**lv*a ar* not what thooa land* oan «* hmre hero a difficult teak la rebuilding the fororta, alo&ag greater growth per aero, inoreaoo th* nor* doairabl» epoeiea, and S* The third jabagar/ of land aan b* olaaalfled aa th* "gutted* practically oaitldaai a* f ereata, whore eutrtdag and roneato| f irea hav* «lialmt*d praotlaall/ all valuoa* We have her* dot*rloratod aitea. la any Drogran of water and reoervoirey reduolag to ooak flood** Foroata of thta to the ttdtad State** They yroaoat aowo Tory difficult Lona of how to reeatabllah a forest atandf how to fix eoll* la plaeo* In the Prodaott fleldt how to got the waaiojai eat of law grade end Uttle-oood ao*ei*a tie* in dlr«otly with the firat atop In oaouriag real nationwide utlliaatioa problon. flaw to got bettor jiojfnaaMi of oonHodltlo* at «*****»* -* **** **? »ai*«fclA »1 *•* ' « 8 «c» »• ^- I ***** , ^ "it- t«. I^InT? «» «* i ..«««««« •* sort * ' ^ awlf £!•. «» la tho li«kt of tho fiat oat forootry oitttat-ioa w» pi'aaoutftfl fivo-yoar plan iflor tho dovolopawnt of ?odoral farootry ro» plaa fall* within th» froaowork of tho (Aid Plain* 3tato» aad Alftftkft) «t to OoogfOM, »9«Mur«ntly, vu tho •athfti of organising th* ro*«mroJi «tftar iMH«alili control »nd jot lajnRoly 4«o«nti»Ue«d» Thoy wwro partiouUrly iatoroitod la tho rtOirtoiaMnt of a •orioa of ••dor omoh rogionol oxporlflMot stati on, and th« dorolopMnt of foro«t« ojad NB^OO M fioll. lAbormtorv faoilitioc* iBavfe appoarod to b» a idoa mo roklly aa old oao folly proridod for uador tho Vo hftTO alvay* «*8*** '•» dooonkfrnliaod roa^Krah* Wo havo always rtioular avpoot ooojoM to ha-vo groat afyoul. Oar firo. yomr plan, tlitfof 01 u, divldoo «»« toultwy of oaoh ro^loaal ••^nrlaoal •tation into logioal ooapoaoat oartc, «tth ft tan* oontor* lath voric oontor prorinoo !• to haro oao or »oro «q»orUMRtal farooto to carry foramrd tho •poeifio ra*«aroh noodod within that territorial divitioa. A roaoarah would oomally ooror an arom of abovt 10 odllion aoroa of for«ot land* Za tho amia, oaoh would roprooavfe oloaoly alliod foroot typos* of thooo «oa>ort of work awalfl bo plaood at coao city logioally looatod i flold work wa« to b« oooduotftd in mtabli m fuolUlr naitoil land*, bat would aloo on or loaood for than ** te Bifl'rf br • *««t^^i. »a ;** ' - » •**& ,.tj« .'• *f; «ttf f - ' /- • •Mb territorial unit in an ojujafiaojit otatioa region is •ented by * work oenter. Oar irnirm9 therefore, for reeeareh in tlabor, forage^ MM WJfctOW prOoaowMBl ere incorporated IS tOO dorvolOfMHen 8* a •eriee of work eentere* Th« fJTO 'year plan seta up th» rate at whioh old cantor* would be activated and now eentara evtabliahed* (Tablo). In for MtpploMBfeal ^lot work and oromU invootlgatlano* At oaoh eontor of If Hio probiojw «d.rfe. all throo aajor fuwrttanal aotiTlti«o la ^ ^i _ ^. . ^^ I^kMk t*jf* ^^M^a^^*^ ja^a^ft A^h^fe «K^^^B^al ^hMi^^^HH^k j*^ ^k^adMAua^at^Avi^^ «^^^^^M*^a^^H «w« ra.' •*, ' MI > N •• O"OoBwww voaouro Iho valu« of ooatoiniag thooo throo lonal Jooa In on* oxporiwwomi foroot 1* to wtfco oaro that all of tho disolpllnoo aro cppllod to tho \atorrnlatod problom of land uoo laioajiioaoal, At tho rogioool oxporlMOt otatioM hoadquartor*» would bo looatod tao c*. • •Kk.^^B^r-' «« ^*.^^r« j^i^ ^^noV ^^k ^ ^B^K^t A #* ^H^%^h jfe4* jaaoth -4^M>4* ^a^k4vAt^aav A«%^h^k4 ^14 •o§4<> A ^iAkjadi^ ^^a^Ho4 ^a^a^i r OTonMHi OJMI a group MOJOOV «a»*or oiaixorso^ ww would bo availablo to all of tho rooomroh eontoroi oaoh »poeialioto ao ooil ooloBtiatt, plant phytioloj,-! rto. foroot oooaooloto, aDtoaologlsto, and In tho f lold of tirniiMioi, our ftvo-y«ar plan proridoo far a roaaoaaaly oonaiotont «tpan»ion of tho Jhatirio Laboratory, particularly «tr«nftJjoalng vork la oboMotry, in utilisation of waato, and pilot plant ozpanaioa to bring laboratory fladiaf* to oaoJ •nioiior«l>l and ooomoroial tooto* Our flvo- yamr plan prooonta tho Mtabliohnont of • uUllcation aonrioo mi to whoao min taoic would bo to brine tao finding of tho La«tralai| to tho flold and ortaf tho probloMt of tho fi*ld to tao t*boratory» Ihi* ovpandad procravj of our -7- ftfev jteM* 4* >*cr fttS* «jts i*««- *f t» ' -. — ,^. ^ «.«.• wff Jfew 'co wlWM w f awff VttMM nl a^^*^-r j. V-^rA An* iMt •sue «t ! th« •udaMi mluM eat «f th« flMli^s at fliMBtaiaX MPaCMB &BKlnAMI 'thf^* K*Jor !• IWoi Md BMOf • MMMMBt Flr» Control - U0000,000 authorisation - 7 X* ** _a A^*_ ^. • ^fc^^^A ^^^AA ^ «^ % 4 ^fc^J Xmm wW vPLOTUMM «»MP Jrt9VKLWv«»vnKJa4LWV In th» ror«it ^«nrie*. CAvieiudy it idll hav« to b« MVfWi in our sollagM «nd unir«r«lti«i. Thl« IB i*rtiaul»rly work *t ear fw«»try Mhoola. «• au*tt tmnipFM^ roifuUMi th»t at yroaut th« Mhools ar* ••rfurilti by tte vMtag pmbltMi cntAllaA in f th. h«avlwt *^«hlng load In hlatwy, a load that !• «trai»» . «&*S* '"' •>** "io ;.*ia.«f*3, • ; • ' . A f t v>-« . -.': ..-,-•• «i* &? .i .t*»l. .^ f oroatry prof scaora May auffor* Hw yoara wa alM a normal flaw of roaoaroh work within our f oroat aohaola, In dovolopinf tho roaoarah oau»afa and tho oxporiwantal foroata it haa boon our hop* that th«y will bo oaad to tho utaaH by f oroatry toathl^i that tho forawtry aohoola jawt havo a yro^gaui of roaoaroh if for ana alono, that thoy noat dorolop tho ferottara that Aiaarloan foroatry will bate a« roooarohara and praotltionora* In tho laat analyais tha praotltionor of linriM will bring with hl» to tho job tho toaehlnga and training that, in a largo •oaauro, aro baaod on toota fouadvd on paat roaoarah work* If MT ia to aoat tha noiotlm; roqulroaonta of flndlnn a« thoy aajr apply to hl« daily taak* ., .' findings, «id bar* tbo orltloal faculty of -^luattng aimh at thoy aay b« apr>li«d by praotition«ra. (Lo%tor fMM **t» to -%irloy Allon) 1km iHay bo talorortoi la kand^ Vm^ Profoaaor All^n^ tho of our Sooio^r, haa etroulariaod tho for«otry aohoola to thi*v a nor* rooont donrolopMnt in foroBtiy roooaroh. Thoao oxparlmantal foroata and tho work at tho work oontom ahould offor a fln« youngor ?rofoi«ora to loam flrathand tho problona of Itw oooplox in tho ttdtod ^|PwMMn AHMPvW •it.' / . :""-.-. , .."'.'• . . , • _ . , ,. . , • bring thoir prebloM bofor* tho toehnioistti f*r oon«14«r*tloa, tlais fontag til* MUM foMtlon that ho*pitals do for tho nodioal profosoloa, Wo mat our praotitiooor to b* alort to aov dsnr»las«oaU so that , „. . :."* ; * *. f*'}£i 3(1 .PC •* i •"'•w A w»rd or ton about f«r«ot y>B»M»i, A mrniDtt of th« i>»r««tiy aro to rocoarvh vlthin tho torrltwry, 8«t •*«& Mr* lajiortmt In tho long ran thoy should bo la a f«iitH« to dorolop o^portc la »p«olAli«o* utilisation fields, ^oth. industry ••! public agonoios will bo looking for that kind of la addition to what thoso oohools will do in forost that industry will oonttaue ani oalart* its offort* la utilisation bo soolgaod to aasvwr tfeo spoaifio probloa* of that o oufur experiments on isanared forests* Their r«*«aroh is tied in largely with the schools, bat in the main their schools are part of the Federal forestry servioo, Oar problem are a hundredfold nor* than theirs. X flight oven venture tho speeul&tton that the look of research in Burope yroiuood its own problems. Take, for osjaapla, the Oeraans' experience in conversion, of boooh forests to spruce on a wholesale soalo* This trial' anoV si'fOff experixaot required a Tihole rotation to find out that tho praotioo would lead to sit* deterleratlon. Adequate ecologies! research would havo given a bettor understanding of biotie relations and this costly error night not havo boon Bad*. To oowjparo our research with wootern ^uropoan countries Is sosMMhat rsllsfltmis booauoo our oosiparioon sHouljd bo Mado on the) wagnitttAo oi to tho rooearoh timt wo need, as ssoyortd to all of Europe and parts of Buraaia* On that baslSf wo have some ways to go to aeet our needs as eoaparod to roooaroh Anerloa really nsoiwj Hmsinois in forostiy, whore forest loads are to near thoir potontlalitleo, aad that a continuous now of forest a sound basis for their policy sad praotioo oisi research has the challenge to niraclo* -11- *** *1 ef ..• 1c jfMl -IMJJI ^Jbaftf ~> ii**. •# ««*- -^i.Ml *^M 7HBK - M fll fli ^ • 334 INDEX — EDWARD I. KOTOK adobe, as building material, 165 agricultural colleges, 58. See also forestry schools Agricultural Extension, 33 Agriculture, Department of, 9, 25, 32, 48, 57-60, 72-73, 107, 111, 224 AID programs, 27 Aiken, Senator, 70 Alaska, 49, 98 Allen, E.T. , 262 Alliance for Progress, 28 allied countries, 13 Alsberg, Carl, 119-120, 200 American Institute for Baking, 136 Americanization, 246, 253 American River, 35 Andersen, H. Carl, 42 Anderson, Arthur B. , 210 Anderson, Clinton P., 69 Appleby, Paul, 66 Army Engineers, U.S. Corps of, 50, 98, 239-241 Arnold, R. Keith, 201, 203, 210 Article Ten, 87, 262 Attorney General, 77 Australia, 132 Baked Apple Club, 80 Baker, Frederick S. , 178, 196-197, 207-208 Ballinger, Richard A., 49 Barr, Percy M. , 196 Belgian Congo, 325, 329 Berry, Swift, 81, 268 bilateral programs, 27 Biltmore School of Forestry, 180-181, 267-268 Bioletti, Professor [Davis], 108 biometrics, 193-196, 199 Black, Rex, 53-55, 218 Bodman, Geoffrey B. , 210 Bohemian Club, 90 Bonner, Frank E. , 232, 236, 239, 262 Borah, William E. , 70, 73-74 Brannan, Charles F. , 26, 69 335 bread baking, 136-137 Brown, Professor [Syracuse], 99 Bruce, Donald, 83, 178, 186-187, 190, 194 Bi\y@ner family, 32 Buck, C.J. , 163 Bureau of Plant Industry, 116 Bureau of Public Roads, 63 Bureau of Reclamation, 59-61 California, 82, passim California Forest Experiment Station. See U.C. School of Forestry California Redwood Association, 52-53, 175 Cameron, Roy, 6-7 Campbell, W.W. , 112, 221 Cannon, Clarence, 41, 46-47, 72 Carleton, Supervisor, 40 Carpenter, Jerry, 52, 59 Cassandra, Prime Minister [Finland], 272-273 Chamber of Commerce, State of California, 33-37, 51-54, 61, 168, 218-219 Chaney, Ralph Works, 222 Chase, William, 249 Chile, 26-27, 122, 160, 298-318 attitudes and customs, 127, 133, 139, 141, 147, 153-155, 159, 165, 298-318 copper, 149-150 Corporacion de Fomento, 137, 139, 142-143 economics and social conditions, 126-129, 135-143, 307-309 military, 151-153 politics, 144-151, 155-156 City College of New York, 247-256 Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) , 99, 161-173, 230, 260 civil service, 237-238 Clapp, Earle H. , 38, 93-94, 100-101, 163, 273 Clar, C. Raymond, 185 Clarke-McNary Act, 56 Clemens, F.E. , 192 colonialism, 12, 15, 23, 127, 152, 301, 328-330 Commonwealth Club , 89 communism, 12, 29, 150, 155-157, 313 Corns tock Lode, 48 conferences, Latin America, 17 conflicts of interest, 18, 53, 58, 238, 261, 264 Congress, U.S., 3, 10, 41-47, 49, 58, 73-76, 168, 323 Conner, Mary, 75-76 conservation, 35, 39-40, 48, 51-52, 57, 70-71, 75, 93, 98, 120 336 Conservation Department, 39, 111 Coolidge, Calvin, 98 Cornell University, 178-179 corporate ownership, 80-87 Cosmos Club, 39, 42, 106, 110 Cotta, Heinrich Von, 214 Coxey's army, 63-64 Crocheron, B.H. , 34 Czechoslovakia, 21-23 Dana, Samuel, 4, 17, 39 Danaher Lumber Company, 80-81, 226 Dayton, , 187 Del Campo, Carlos Ibanez, 145-146, 148-149, 156 Democrats, 42, 45-46, 48, 96, 257 dendrology, 186, 189 Depression, The, 84, 170-172, 175, 260 Deutsch, Monroe E. , 222 Diamond Match Company, 81 Dickinson, Fred E. , 210 Dies, Martin, 93-94 Dirksen, Everett M. , 42-43, 46 Downey, Sheridan, 44 Drew, Elmer, 223 Drury, Aubrey, 52 Drury, Newton, 51, 169 DuBois, Coert, 107, 188, 268, 285 Dudley, William R. , 184 Duke University, 206 Dumbarton Oaks Conference, 3 Dunn, Paul, 133-134 Dunwoody, Charles, 35-39, 48, 51-55, 68-69, 218-219 ecology, 192 Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) , 28-29 Eisenhower, Dwight D. , 118 Eldorado National Forest, 32, 61-62, 80 embassies, U.S., 17, 20-22, 25, 118, 130 European forestry, 1-2, 14, 104, 132, 266-276. See also inter-nation influences Engle, Clair, 71 Englebright, Harry, 34, 44-45, 63 espionage, 116-117 experimental forests, 161 Extension Service, 58 337 Fall, Albert B. , 49, 94 Farm Bureau, 33, 58, 77 Farmers' Union, 58 Federal Power Commission, 236, 239-240 Felstat, , 6, 8 Fernow, Bernard E., 181-182, 185, 200, 212-213, 216, 266 filibuster, 21, 119 fire control and protection, 36, 40-41, 44, 47, 71, 81-82, 85, 94, 175, 190, 203, 210-211, 219, 279, 285 Fish and Game Commission, 237-238 Fisher, Professor [London], 194-195 fishery, 8-9, 120, 138-140, 142-143, 238 flood control, 241 Flynn, Mrs. , 285 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) , 5-30, 122-161, 274-275, 302, 319-332 forest influences (torrent control), 198-199, 203, 209, 211, 275 forestry practices, 83-85, 87-91, 205, 327 forestry schools, 132-133, 178-231, 263-264 forestry training, 23-24, 30-32, 61, 93, 132-135, 155, 178-231, 316 Forty-niners , 296 Fresno Bee, 43 Fritz, Emanuel, 88, 91, 178, 187, 189, 203, 228-229, 263-264 Frottingham, , 182 genetics, 68, 332 Geological Survey, 50, 60 Georgia Pacific, 84 Giannini Foundation, 200-201, 223 Gill, Thomas, 4-7, 10-12, 226, 266, 274 Gilman, Herbert, 41 Glasinger, Egon, 2,6, 320-326 Good Neighbor Policy, 16 Grange, 77 Graves, Henry Solon, 7-9, 39, 181, 266, 274 grazing, 187 Greeley, William, 49, 98, 184, 188, 221, 262-263 Gridiron Club, 118 Guevara, Che, 29 Hammatt, Richard F. , 175-176, 294 Harding, Warren G. , 49, 98 Harding, Mrs. Warren G. , 49, 98 Hatch Act, 68, 288 338 Herz, James, 53 Heske, Franz, 270-272 Hetch-Hetchy, 78 highways, 33, 52 Hilgard, Eugene H. , 185 Hildebrand, Joel H., 207 Hill, Carey L. , 202 Hoagland, Dennis R. , 210, 222 Homestead Act, 49 Hoover, Herbert, 63, 98 Hosmer, Ralph W. , 179 Houston, David F. , 61-62, 69 Howe, Louie, 77 Huber, Walter L. , 232, 262, 324, 331 Huguenots, 47 Humboldt County, California, 65 Hunt, Thomas F. , 184 Hutchinson, W.I., 66, 174 Hutchison, Claude B., 90, 167, 192, 196, 200, 221-223, 228 Hyde, Arthur M. , 62-65, 69 Ickes, Harold L. , 36-38, 48, 51, 58-59, 100-101, 111 Illinois, 43 India, 12, 329-330 insects, 82 Institute of Agriculture, 26 Interior, Department of, 34, 36-39, 49-51, 58, 60, 72-73, 94 international agencies and congresses, 1-26 inter-nation influences and comparisons : Britain 2, 7-8, 20-25, 102, 127, 158, 302 Canada 7-8 Cuba 21 Denmark 127 Finland 127 France 2, 8-14, 127, 133, 226 Germany 128-134, 154, 266 India 12, 329-330 Latin America 12, 21, 23 Netherlands 23, 127 Norway 6, 8 Russia 12-14 Scandinavia 2, 11, 15, 144, 226 Izaak Walton League, 237 Italica University, 28 339 Jackson, Gardner, 111-112 Jackson Hole, Wyoming, 100 Jepson, Willis L. , 92-93, 184 Johnson, Hiram, 43, 73-75, 157, 256-257 Jordan, David S., 184 Josephson, Horace R. , 196, 201-202, 209, 224 Journal of Forestry, 90 Kahn, Florence P. , 63 Kelley, Evan, 285 Kent, William, 120-121 Kircher, Joseph, 271 Kittredge, Joseph, Jr., 178, 199-200, 209, 224 Kittredge, Mrs. Joseph, Jr., 200 Klineschmidt, , 53 Kotok, Edward I. : as chief of mission (FAO) , 27-30, 122-160 at University of California, 112-113, 178-231 early life, 244-257 European contacts, 266-276 field activities in USFS , 33, passim Kotok, Ruth, 144-147, 159, 257, 273-317 Kraebel, J.C. , 162, 198 Kraft, Edward, 202 Krueger, Myron, 197-198, 224 La Follette, Robert M. , 70, 73 La Follette, William L. , 73 labor, 73, 86, 105-106 Lamoine Lumber Company, 32, 294 land use, 36, 49-50, 59, 73, 81, 86, 201-205 Latin America, 12, 21-30. See also Chile League of Nations, 2-4, 11 legislation, 34, 47, 56 Le Hand, "Missy", 100 LeLoup, Marcel, 14, 131, 319-330 liberalism, 53, 73-74, 89, 96, 107, 145, 148 Lipman, Charles B., 193, 222 lobbying, 38, 54-57, 238 local governments , 295 Louderback, George D. , 222 Lowdermilk, Walter, 162, 198 Lubin, Isador [?] , 26 lumber camps, 31, 102-103, 291 lumber industry, 80-89, 93, 105, 197, 225, 240 Lyons, George, 285 340 MacArthur, General Douglas, 63-64 McAdoo, Senator, 43-44 McArdle, Richard, 204 McClatchy papers, 43, 173 McCloud Lumber Company, 32, 294 McCloy, John J. , 44 McGinnis, Henry, 56-57 McKeller, Senator, 260 McKenna, Carmen Queves , 302-318 McNary, Charles L. , 75 Madison Laboratory, 210, 331 Malmsten, Harry, 178, 182, 190, 203, 228 Mariposa County, California, 44 marketing, 2-3, 140, 142-143 Marshall Plan, 12, 14, 122, 274-275 Marshall, Robert, 111-112 Masaryk, Thomas G. , 22 Mason, David T. , 82-84, 88, 178, 186-187, 189 Masonic Lodge and Masons, 31, 152, 292-296 Masonite Company, 84, 86-88 Meinecke, E.P. , 218, 220 Mellon, Andrew W. , 63 Mendenhall, Walter C. , 174 Merrill, E.D. , 221, 223-224 Metcalf, Woodbridge, 186, 189, 196 Michigan, 215 Michigan Club, 16 milling, 197-198 mining, 243 Morris, Samuel, 41 Morse, Wayne, 102-104 Mt. Shasta City, California, 33, 277-278, 291-293 Mulford, Mrs. Walter, 215 Mulford, Walter, 90-91, 112-113, 178-231, 266 Munger, Thorton T., 163 Munns, Edward N. , 99-100, 111-112, 194 Murray, Senator, 70 National Park Service, 50-51, 58-59, 169 Nelson, Skipper, 57 Nevada, 33 New Deal, 94-95, 107, 111, 201, 222, 230 New England, 70, 269 New York State, 47, 185, 216 341 New York State, 47, 185, 216 Norris, Frank, 70, 73 nutrition, 5, 14, 102, 135-142 Olmsted, Frederick, 81-82, 107 Oregon, 162-163 Oregon Forestry School, 133 Organization of American States (OAS) , 15-18, 23, 28, 273-274, 302 Orr, John, 5-7, 13, 322 Pack Foundation, 5, 226 Pacific Lumber Company, 84 Pacific Northwest, 106, 109 Pan American Union (OAS), 15-18, 23, 28, 273-274, 302 Parran , Thomas , 14 Pearson, Drew, 259 Pearson, Lester Bowles, 6-7, 13 Pendergast machine, 74 Pennsylvania, 96-97 Peron, Juan, 145, 151 Philosophical Society of Philadelphia, 270 Pickering Lumber Company , 84 Pinchot, Amos, 78, 95 Pinchot, Mrs. Amos, 95 Pinchot, Gifford, 38-40, 49, 59, 74, 77-80, 94, 96-97, 101, 120, 181-185, 248, 268 Pinchot, Mrs. Gifford, 78-80 Pine Association, 52 Pittman, Key, 44, 48 Placer County, California, 33 Placerville, California, 33, 62, 165-166, 278, 289-291, 296 Point Four. See FAO Poley, , 202 politics, 34, 36-37, 45, 61, 76-77, 96-97, 260 Chile, 144-156 Czechoslovakia, 21-23 France , 15 Latin America, 16-17 pork-barreling, 60-61 Pratt, Merritt, 54-55, 169, 178, 188-189, 220 Price, Overton W. [?], 37 Proebish, , 28-29 Progressive party, 79, 121 protocol, 25, 35, 301-302 Puerto Rico, 109, 114 342 Quebec meeting, 14 Raker, George, 34, 45 Ratchford, Chris, 4 rationing, 102 Recknagel, A.B., 88 recreation, 51, 233, 237 Redington, Paul G. , 62, 173-174 Redwood Association, California, 52-53, 175 redwoods, 83-84, 88-89, 163 Region Four, 48 Region Five, 81 Republicans, 41-42, 45-46, 53, 73, 77-79, 95-96, 257 research, 3, 42-43, 68, 75, 161-162, 187, 223-224, 263-264, 275, 331 River and Harbor Development, 60 Rockefeller Foundation, 83 Roe, Percy, 162 Rolph, James, 53-54 Rome office (FAO) , 26, 131, 158 Roosevelt, Eleanor, 119 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 36-38, 66, 73, 76-79, 93, 95, 98, 100, 114, 119 Roosevelt, Theodore, 98, 257 Rosecrans, William, 41 Rosenman, Judge, 114 Roth, Filibert, 179, 182, 217, 267 Rural Electrification Administration, 235 Russell, Richard, 70 Russian-Finnish War, 272-273 Rut ledge, Richard,. 37 Ryerson, Knowles A., 116-117, 184 Saari, Eino, 272 Sacramento Bee, 43 Sacramento, California, 35 Sampson, Arthur W. , 178, 187, 189, 191-193, 209, 221, 224 San Dimas Experimental Forest, 41, 67 San Joaquin Range, 167-168, 234-235 Sauer, Carl, 193 Save-the-Redwoods League, 52, 83 Schlich, Sir William, 267-268 Schultz, Paul, 248, 250 Schumacher, Francis X., 178, 190, 195 343 Secretary of Agriculture, 19, 25, 37, 40 Secretary of State, 19, 25 Shasta National Forest, 31, 187 Shaw, Charles F. , 210 Shenk, Carl, 267-271 Shepherd, Harry W. , 166 Sheppard, Harry, 41-42, 45, 63 Sherman, E.A. [?], 59 Show, Stuart Bevier, 14, 37, 39, 162, 169, 182, 194, 218-220, 229, 236, 238-239, 288, 319-332 Show, Mrs. Stuart Bevier, 281 Sierra National Forest, 34 Silcox, Ferdinand A., 94, 99, 105-107, 260 silviculture, 82, 134, 179, 185-186, 212-213, 217, 325 Sinclair, Don, 199 Siskiyou County, California, 31, 44-45, 85 Sloan, Norman, 35-36, 51-52, 168, 218 Smith, C.A. Lumber Company, 80-81 Smith, Margaret, 70 Smith, Stole, 53 Society of American Foresters, 10, 54-55, 79-80, 133 Soil Conservation Service, 39, 50, 57-58 Southern California groups, 40-41 Southern Pacific Company, 57, 157, 256-257 Sponsler, Olenus L. , 211 Sproul, Robert G. , 53, 112, 118-119, 221, 230-231 Stanford University, 89, 108, 184, 204, 228, 264, 287 State Board of Forestry, 223 State Department, U.S., 9-10, 18-19, 24-27, 323 State Forester, 56, 103-104 Stennis, Senator, 70 Stephens, William D. , 32 Stevens, Carl M. , 83 Stockton, California, 35 Storer, Tracy I. , 92 Stuart, Robert Y. , 97 Sudetenland question, 22 Sudworth, George B. , 242 swamp and overflow lands, 241-243 Swanson, Louie, 29 344 Taber, John, 41, 47-48 Taft, William H. , 38-40 Tahoe National Forest , 62 Tammany Hall, 74 taxation, 87, 151, 313-314 Taylor Grazing Act, 59 Teapot Dome Scandal, 49 Tervier, Pierre, 8-9 Texas, 93-94 timber (markets), 2, 31, 70, 103, 240-242 Timber Resources Review, 202 Tolley, Howard, 200 trade, 3, 11 transfer of USFS to Department of Interior, 36-40, 48-49, 61, 79, 99-101, 111 Truman, Harry, 95 Tugwell, Rex, 57, 94, 105-115 Ugly American, The, 24 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) , 3-39, 122-161, 274-275, 302, 319-332 U.S. Forest Service, 10, passim and Congress, 45-46, 61, 70-72, 94, 239, 288 and federal administration, 40, 98-104 and power companies, 232-241, 262 and state government, 56-57, 97 appropriations, 41-46, 56, 60, 71, 75, 94 Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) , 99, 161-173 consulting foresters, 86-88 Department of Agriculture, 37 Department of Interior, 37, 50, 239, 243 division relations, 118 experiment stations, 161-163 Information and Education, 173-177 land, acquisition and transfer, 9 policy, 32, 287-288 political pressure, 258-260 private industry relations, 88, 260-262 public relations, 32, 173-177, 289 training, 33-35, 61, 87-89, 178-231 wives, 279-298 UNICEF, 138-139 Union League Club, 89-90 Unisilva. 324, 330-331 345 University of California, 91-92, 166 School of Forestry, 90, 112-113, 178-231, 263-264 University of Chile, 28, 132 University of Maryland, 26 University of Michigan, 17, 27, 217-218, 255-256 Utah, 48 Vanzant, Jean, 14 Vaux, Henry J. , 201 veterans, 63-64 Videla, Gabriel Gonzales, 144-145, 148-149, 156 Von Schrenk, Hermann, 267 Walker, W.H. , 33 Wallace, Henry A., 4-5, 38, 51, 66-69, 94, 101, 110-111 War Production Board, 102-104 Washington State, 162 watersheds management, 40-41, 162 Watts, Lyle, 5-7, 94, 100-101, 260, 266, 273-274 Weed Lumber Company, 32, 85, 294 Weeks, David, 201-202 Weeks Law, 56-57 Wheeler, Senator, 70, 73 Wickard, Claude R. , 69, 93 Wickson, Edward J., 185 Wieslander, A. Everett, 92, 161, 184, 223 Wilbur, Ray Lyman, 63, 228 Wilms, Harold G. , 199 Wilson, Woodrow, 98, 257 wine-tasting, 108 Wirth, Conrad, 51 Witten, Senator, 42 Wolf, Henry, 248 women, 153, 160, 167, 278-318 Woods, Baldwin, 222 Works Project Administration (WPA) , 230 World Health Organization, 138-139 World War I, 86, 98, 105, 269, 278, 289-290 World War II, 12-13, 17, 102-104, 116, 174-175, 196, 229, 271-272 Wyckoff, Stephen N. , 331 Wyoming, 100 346 Yale University, 204-206 Young, Senator, 70 Yreka, California, 33 Zinke, Paul, 199 Zivnuska, John A., 201, 224 Zon, Ralph, 182 Amelia R. Fry Graduated from the University of Oklahoma in 1947 with a B.A. in psychology, wrote for campus magazine; Master of Arts in educational psychology from the University of Illinois in 1952, with heavy minors in English for both degrees. Taught freshman English at the University of Illinois 1947-48, and Hiram College (Ohio) 1954-55. Also taught English as a foreign language in Chicago 1950-53. Writes feature articles for various newspapers, was reporter for a suburban daily 1966-67. Writes pro fessional articles for journals and historical magazines, Joined the staff of Regional Oral History Office in February, 1959. Conducted interview series on University history, woman suffrage, the history of conservation and forestry, and public administration and politics. Director, Earl Warren Oral History Project Secretary, Oral History Association; oral history editor, Journal of Library History. Philosophy, and Comparative Librarianship. 13