EDITORIAL 227 



AN UNFRIENDLY APPOINTMENT 



^^i^HAT the Speaker of the late House of Representatives was a bitter 

 C^) enemy of Appalachian-White Mountain forest legislation and that he 

 ^*^ is a determined and persistent fighter were perfectly well-known facts. 

 We hardly supposed, however, that he would carry his hostility after the 

 Weeks bill was passed to the point of naming, as one of the National Forest 

 Reservation Commission provided for under the new law, a man who had 

 been always an opponent of the measure, unwilling to see any good in it, and 

 whose residence on the Pacific Coast precludes knowledge of the conditions 

 in our eastern mountains. So incongruous did this appointment seem that 

 a long statement was made to some of the newspaper correspondents to explain 

 why Mr. Hawley of Oregon would be a peculiarly useful member of the 

 Commission. 



Of Mr. Hawley's integrity and sincerity we make no question and we 

 believe he will act conscientiously as a member of the Commission. We 

 believe, however, that it is quite unprecedented to appoint to administer a law 

 a man who is so entirely out of sympathy with its purpose and unacquainted 

 with the conditions it was framed to meet. In making such an appointment 

 5Ir. Cannon simply showed his continued determination to oppose the new 

 law and to do what he could to make it a failure. Fortunately, this is very 

 little since Mr. Hawley is but one of seven. 



It may be a question under the terms of the act whether any of these 

 appointments are valid beyond the term of the 61st Congress. For the act 

 says : "Provided, that the members of the commission herein created shall 

 serve as such only during their incumbency in their respective official positions, 

 and any vacancy on the commission shall be filled in the manner as the original 

 appointment." 



These members were appointed as members of the 61st Congress by the 

 presiding officers of that Congress. Does this appointment run beyond the 

 life of this Congress? 



THE REPORT ON THE LUMBER INDUSTRY 



^^s^HE report on the lumber industry by the Commissioner of Corporations, 

 C^) Herbert Knox Smith, of which we have already published a summary, is a 

 ^*^ document that yields new light on close study; but its importance should 

 not be exaggerated. There is an old story, familiar to everyone, of the shield 

 one side of which was silver and the other of gold, and of the controversy that 

 arose between two men each of whom looked at only one side. It may be 

 suggested in passing that Commissioner Smith's i-eport was made by an able 

 lawyer whose especial business has been hunting for trusts and monopolies 

 and the con.sequences thereof. His report on the lumber industry reflects 

 this acquired attitude. It looks at one side of the shield only, and its value 

 must be rated with that in mind. 



The first fact suggested by it we briefly called attention to last month. 

 The concentration of timberland ownership which forms the burden of the 

 report is the result of a public policy which we now see was lacking in wisdom 

 and forethought, although it seemed to fit the conditions of development of 

 a new country. The result has been, instead of the general distribution 

 of the national wealth which was intended, concentration of this wealth in 

 comparatively few hands. For this there is no remedy and we must simply 

 accept the fact. As we have said, the fact is an argument plain and 

 unanswerable for national or state ownership of as large a part of the forests 



