EDITORIAL 



OFFICIAL OBSTRUCTION 



[OME of the dangers of bureaucracy in government become evident at 

 times in Washington, although not a general characteristic of our 

 system, in which the various bureaus and departments are, as a rule, 

 responsive to the public will. It becomes possible at times, however, for a 

 bureau to actually override the popular will, as expressed through congress, 

 and a double example of this has appeared in connection with the Appalachian 

 forest legislation. 



It was the obvious intention of the House when it passed the Weeks bill 

 in 1910 to appropriate .$11,000,000 for the purchase of land on the watersheds 

 of navigable rivers in the Southern Appalachian and White Mountains. Every 

 step in the debate shows this. The appropriation was distributed over a term 

 of years in order not to make too heavy a draft on any one year's revenue; 

 yet the controller of the treasury, by a decision which takes no account of 

 evident legislative intention, cuts off practically between two and three million 

 dollars of this amount which it is impossible to expend before certain dates. 

 With regard to the one million for 1910 carried by the House bill which was 

 held up in the Senate until 1911, there is some justification for the controller's 

 decision, although the grounds for it are technical, the intent of the bill being 

 plain. But the remaining annual appropriations should have been regarded 

 as continuous. Otherwise, the controller's decision does the country an injury 

 and practically nullifies an act of Congress in this respect, for if the law is 

 beneficial, and Congress decided that by enacting the law, a decision impairing 

 its action impairs a national benefit. On the oiher hand, if the administration 

 of the law were not in conscientious hands, the decision might lead to hasty 

 and unwise expenditure in order to secure the full appropriation. 



Such unlimited power to modify legislation cannot safely be lodged in any 

 one man. If Congress is looking for usurpation of the legislative function, it 

 need not cast its eyes upon the Supreme Court or the President. Here is a 

 subordinate treasury officer who exercises legislative functions. 



When the Weeks bill was passed it introduced the Geological Survey as 

 a competent, scientific bureau to act in an advisoiy capacity in the purchase 

 of land under the act. The plain purpose of the bill was to purchase forest 

 land on the water.sheds of navigable streams to the amount of eleven million 

 dollars in five years. It was perfectly well known that the White Mountains 

 of New Hampshire and the Southern Appalachians were the watersheds for 

 securing which the bill was drawn. It became known soon after the passage 

 of the act that the Geological Survey would be very slow and cautious in 

 carrying out its part under the law. The position of the Geological Survey 

 was made clear in a statement of its director given to the press and published 

 last month in this magazine. It is perfectly evident that the exhaustive 

 scientific inquiry therein indicated could not successfully be carried out 

 within the term set for the operation of the law. It cannot be said that the 

 Geological Survey is going beyond the powers conferred upon it by the bill 

 if it chooses to read only the letter of the law and overlook the intent, which 

 was to accomplish results along the proposed lines with sufficient pi-omptness 



424 



