The 1905 experience in Louisa County, Virginia, was a turning point for Bennett, one that he referred to throughout his life. In his retelling of the event, he made it clear that the immediate situation, the juxtaposition of a good soil with forest cover and a "washed" soil of the same subsoil provided them the crucial clues to this discovery—soil versus no soil. They could see that the "washed" soil had no topsoil when the contrasting soil was friable and soft, with organic matter, among other things. He attributed the strong impression of the experience to the shock of recognizing the true nature of a process he had lived with all of his life.
Also in 1909, as a measure of the Bureau's view of the perishability of soils, whether by erosion, by chemical or physical degradation, or by these factors in combination, the Bureau of Soils published its Bulletin 55. In this Bulletin, Professor Milton Whitney, Chief of the Bureau of Soils, argued that the soil was of inexhaustible and permanent fertility: "The soil is the one indestructible, immutable asset that the Nation possesses. It is the one resource that cannot be exhausted; that cannot be used up." At a later time, Bennett reacted to Whitneys statement: "I didnt know so much costly misinformation could be put into a single brief sentence."
His appearance and what followed it are now legendary. A Bennett biographer, Wellington Brink, graphically describes the event:
"The witness was not cheerful, but he was persistent, informed, and courageous. He told a grim story. He had been telling it all morning. Chapter by chapter, he annotated each dismal page with facts and figures from a reconnaissance he had just completed. . . . The witness did not hurry. He did not want to hurry. That extra ace he needed was not yet at hand. Well he realized that the hearing was beginning to drag. Out of one corner of his eye, he noted the polite stifling of a yawn, but Hugh Bennett continued deliberatively. . . . Bennett knew that a dust storm was on its way. He had
newspaper items and weather reports to support this knowledge. But it seemed mighty slow arriving. If his delaying tactics were successful, the presence of the swirling dust—material evidence of what he was talking about—ought to serve as a clincher for his argument. Presently one of the senators remarked—off the record—'It is getting dark. Perhaps a rainstorm is brewing.' Another ventured, 'Maybe its dust.' 'I think you are correct,' Bennett agreed. 'Senator, it does look like dust.' The group gathered at a window. The dust storm for which Hugh Bennett had been waiting rolled in like a vast steel-town pall, thick and repulsive. The skies took on a copper color. The sun went into hiding. The air became heavy with grit. Government's most spectacular showman had laid the stage well. All day, step by step, he had built his drama, paced it slowly, risked possible failure with his interminable reports, while he prayed for Nature to hurry up a proper denouement. For once, Nature cooperated generously."
The committee went back to the conference table no longer in doubt. This was the turning point. The 74th Congress passed without a dissenting vote Public Law 46, The Soil Conservation Act, the first soil conservation act in the history of this or any other nation. It was signed by the President on April 27, 1935.
Hugh Hammond Bennett was many things—visionary, scholar, strategist, politician, tactician, realist, prophet, naturalist, to name a few. He had the uncanny ability to wear the right hat for the right issue at the right time. He was a man who loved the land, but who loved mankind even more. He was a man's man! A tribute by Louis Bromfield, a well- known conservationist and Bennett contemporary, sums it up well: "Hugh Bennett deserves the greatest honor from the American people as one of the greatest benefactors since the beginning of their history."
some good reading Rose..