operation and assistance. This is recognized in some States, but others are doing nothing whatever in this field, and a good many which have made a small beginning are abundantly able to do vastly more than at present. It has usually happened that the securing of good forest laws and the establishment of a State Forest Service has been brought about by the efforts of a small group of interested men, and frequently through the efforts of a single individual who has been able to arouse the interest of the people in his State. Enough States in different parts of the country have initiated State forestry to make it comparatively easy for a State contemplating new legislation to benefit by what has been done elsewhere. All that is really required in the extension of State forestry is to find the man or men in each State who will take the leadership and follow up the matter until the Legislature acts. It would seem that in the heavily timbered States the lumbermen are the men who should be most vitally interested in the conservation of our forests. In some States timberland owners have participated very actively in bringing about State forestry, as for example, in Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and some of the far Northwest States. In other instances the timberland owners have been indifferent and in some instances proper State forestry has failed on account of the attitude of the very men who should be foremost in promoting proper legislation. We need in each State not so much advice from the outside as a few patriotic citizens in whom the public has confidence and who will devote time and real effort to this public task. If the men can be found to do this preliminary work they will have no difficulty in securing competent assistance from other States and from the National Government.

THE ATTACK UPON FORESTRY.

At the same time that forestry has been making steady progress in constructive work and in public esteem, hostility to the national forest policy on the part of those who would substitute private for public control of these resources has become more determined under a new form. The early attacks upon this policy openly sought its overthrow. They came to nothing because the country was emphatically for the forests. At the present time those who attack the national forest policy commonly profess allegiance to the Conservation principle even while attempting to break it down. There is great danger that the public may not understand what is involved in measures whose purpose and inevitable effects do not appear on their face. Two such measures are the proposal to require the elimination from the forests of all lands capable of cultivation, on the plea that this will increase settlement, and the proposal to turn all the forests over to the States in which they lie, on the plea that this will increase their benefits to the people of these States. In both cases quite the contrary is true.

21-N 74

An amendment which was attached to the Agricultural Appropriation Bill last June, and which passed the Senate but was rejected by the House, would have required, had it become law, the opening to private acquisition under the homestead laws of all lands "fit and suitable for agriculture" within national forests, irrespective of their value for other purposes or of their importance for public use. The result would have been not to facilitate but to block agricultural development. It would also have been to transfer to powerful private interests timberlands, water power sites, and other areas, possession of which would tend to private monopoly of resources now under public control.

This measure is not called for in order that agricultural development of lands in national forests may take place. The Forest Service has consistently favored and sought to bring about agricultural settlement of all national forest lands which can be put to their highest usefulness by farming. It urged and obtained, seven years ago, the law which now permits the opening of such land. Under that law about one and a half million acres have been listed for entry by over twelve thousand settlers; and more will be listed as it becomes possible to list the land without defeating the very purpose of the law.

To open land certain because of its superior value for timber, waterpower development, or other purposes to be absorbed by speculators or powerful interests would not only defeat the purpose of the existing law but also constitute a breach of public trust and a betrayal of the fundamental principles of Conservation. That principle has often been misrepresented as a policy of present non-use for the sake of future generations. Its true purpose is two-fold: to prevent monopoly of public resources, and to secure their greatest use, both present and future, by scientific development. The national forests are administered with a view to securing, first, use of present resources; second, permanency of such resources; and third, greater and more valuable resources for the future.

Experience has amply proved that the elimination, under pressure, of national forest lands locally considered or alleged to be of agricultural value but in point of fact more valuable for other purposes has led to their early acquisition by timberland speculators, great lumber interests, water-power companies, livestock companies, and others who desire the lands for other ends than agriculture. In 1901 705,000 acres of heavily timbered land were thus eliminated from the Olympic National Forest. Ten years later only a little over one per cent. of this land was under cultivation, while three-fourths of it was held for its timber, mainly in large holdings. Other examples might be multiplied. With a mandatory law the pressure for opening land sought under cover of the claim of agricultural value would be well-nigh irresistible in many cases. Local agitation and political influence would in the end break down all effort to maintain public control. Such piecemeal attack on the forests

would be made without any opportunity for the public to know what was going on. In the end the dismemberment of the national forests would be effected.

The only safety for the maintenance of the policy which now receives and has long received the overwhelming support of public sentiment lies in a correct knowledge by the public of the actual situation with regard to agricultural lands in national forests. It must be made plain that all but an entirely insignificant part of the national forests is not susceptible of profitable cultivation. The forests occupy the most rugged and mountainous parts of the West. Topography, soil, and climate combine to make them natural forest lands, not potential farm lands. The areas which form an exception to this condition are not over four per cent. of the total; and such areas are now being sought out by the Forest Service and will, under the existing law, be made available for homestead entry as fast as they can be opened without defeating the purpose of the law itself. It is necessary that the country should understand the manner in which bona fide settlement is being brought about in the national forests, and also the motive of those who are trying to break down the system of forest Conservation under the guise of promoting settlement.

There has been during the past two or three years a steadily growing movement to turn over the national forests to the individual States. During the past session of Congress a rider to the Agricultural Appropriation Bill was offered in the Senate, providing for the grant of the national forests to the several States, together with all other public lands, including "all coal, mineral, timber, grazing, agricultural and other lands, and all water and power rights and claims, and all rights upon lands of any character whatsoever." While the amendment was ruled out on a point of order, it received a surprisingly large amount of support.

The proposition so far as the national forests are concerned is to turn over to the individual States property owned by the Nation covering a net area of over one hundred and sixty million acres. This property has an actual measurable value of at least two billion dollars, while from the standpoint of its indirect value to the public no estimate on a money basis could possibly be made. These are public resources which should be handled in the interests of the public. Moreover, the problems involved are such that they should definitely remain in the hands of the National rather than be turned over to the State governments. The property belongs to the Nation as a whole, and every citizen has an interest in it. The Government has already made enormous grants to the individual States, but always to further specific objects of national importance. There should not be a moment's consideration of the proposal to turn the forests over to the States unless it can be clearly shown that the interests both of the States and of the Nation are consistent with such

action. In the case of the national forests, public interests both of the Nation and of the States require their continued retention and management by the National Government.

The scope of this paper does not permit a full discussion of this problem. It must suffice to mention a few cogent reasons for government ownership:

1. The property is now owned by the Nation, and should be administered from the standpoint of national as well as of local needs.

2. The problem of protection from fire and of timber production on the national forests is one of national scope and can be properly handled only by the Government; its solution is a national duty.

3. The problem of water control is no less a national duty. Nearly all of the national forests lie on headwaters of navigable rivers or interstate streams. The Government is now purchasing lands in the East on headwaters of navigable rivers because of the disastrous results to the public which are following abuse under private ownership. It certainly should not part with title to the same class of lands which it now owns in the West. Every interstate stream presents problems which can be properly handled only through the Federal Government. The Government cannot permit the citizens of one State to be damaged by the action or failure to act of citizens of another State. It is of vital importance for this reason alone that property at the headwaters of interstate streams be retained under Government administration.

4. Not only are the interests of the individual States and communities now fully protected, but in many ways far more is being done for local communities than would be possible under State ownership. In the long run, as the timber and other resources are brought into use with improving markets, the States will receive from the twenty-five per cent. of the gross receipts now allowed them and the additional ten per cent. appropriated for road improvements a larger amount than would come in from local taxes under private ownership.

5. The States are not as well prepared, financially or otherwise, to handle the national forests as is the Federal Government. If the forests were owned by the States and handled in the real interests of the public, there would be substantially the same system of administration as today, at a greater aggregate cost for supervision by a considerable number of independent State staffs of technical men. The financial burden would be far too great for the individual States to assume. The result would be either poor administration and lack of protection, or a sacrifice of the public interests in order to secure revenue to meet the financial needs.

6. The successful application of forestry demands a stable administrative policy for long periods. This can be secured far better under National than under State control.

7. A much higher standard of constructive and technical efficiency is possible under National than under State administration. The value of the forests to the public depends directly on the skill with which scientific knowledge is applied to the task of developing their highest productiveness. Both in ability to carry on the research work required for practical ends and in ability to command professional services of the first order the Government possesses a striking advantage.

8. As largely undeveloped property the forests need heavy investments of capital for their improvement. Their full productiveness can be secured in no other way. The Government is now investing yearly in the forests a considerable part of the appropriation made for them. Even if the States did not seek to make them sources of immediate revenue at whatever sacrifice of their future possibilities, they would be reluctant to expend much for their development.

9. The States both lack the civil service system and standards of the National Government and are exposed to greater danger of being swayed by private interests. In the hands of sopilsmen demoralization would quickly succeed the present high standards of the Forest Service, while the intimate relation of the forests to the welfare of great numbers of individuals would tend to make their administrative control a highly coveted political prize. At the same time the value of their resources would certainly arouse a cupidity which would be exceedingly difficult to control. Scandalous maladministration might easily follow. The Federal Government is better watched, farther removed from local influence, more stable, and better equipped with a nonpolitical system and machinery.

The underlying purpose of the proposed transfer of the national forests to the States is really not to substitute State for Federal control, but rather to substitute individual for public control. Its most earnest advocates are the very interests which wish to secure such control. The object of the whole states rights movement as it affects the national forests is to transfer to private owners for speculative or monopolistic purposes public resources of enormous value. Retention of these resources under public ownership is needed to protect the people from abuses which are every day being demonstrated on lands over which the public has already lost control. The proposition is one which the people as a whole would repudiate in an instant if they understood what is proposed. The only danger lies in the fact that some legislation adverse to the national forest system may be passed when the public as a whole is ignorant that it is planned or does not understand the meaning. Vigilance in the defense of its interests and intelligence in the perception of the true character of masked attacks upon those interests are of fundamental necessity if the public is to protect itself.