682 AMERICAN FORESTRY 



state shall play its part in the direction of its own domestic affairs. It was 

 decided several years ago by a court from whose decision there is no appeal, 

 which set a final seal upon the work of John Marshall and his associates, that 

 even the original states are not independent and sovereign, but that sover- 

 eignty resides in the nation. The states west of the Alleghenies, organized, 

 chartered and settled by the original thirteen were the bond and guarantee 

 of that nationality. The principles of national conservation rest on this foun- 

 dation. 



There was another convention last month in Denver, the so-called Public 

 Lands convention, where this ou^rown political idea which was taboo at 

 Kansas City had full swing. This Denver meeting was simply an attempt to 

 set back the clock of national development, — a task impossible. United effort 

 of the whole people to conserve the natural resources of the country for the 

 common good is the only safeguard for continued prosperity of the American 

 people. 



A SILENCE BROKEN 



I 



^^E^HE recent Secretary of the Interior made a remarkable address at Den- 

 \) ver last month, remarkable from its savage personal note and, coming 

 from a former administrative oflQcer of the government, for its failure 

 to discriminate between the functions of legislative bodies and administrative 

 bureaus. That there are abuses of bureau power is unquestionable. Bureau 

 officials are human and liable to human errors, and among them is that ancient 

 failing of man who is "dressed in a little brief authority.'' We have had oc- 

 casion of late to criticise the adherence to the letter rather than the spirit by 

 one of our most useful scientific bureaus, but we would not on that account 

 abolish the Geological Survey and turn its highly specialized scientific work 

 over to those whom Mr. Ballinger vaguely describes as the people's represen- 

 tatives. In fact, we are inclined to think that if the people's representatives 

 had steered a straighter course in harmony with the people's will, the case 

 which has aroused the criticism referred to would have been settled in a better 

 way for all concerned. 



Mr. Ballinger criticises the practice of investing certain bureaus with the 

 power of making rules and regulations having the effect of law as being tan- 

 tamount to the substitution of the bureau chief for the law maker. It may 

 again be admitted that abuses can arise under such a system, but when there 

 are large affairs to administer, what shall we do about it? Congress cannot 

 direct the details of all the countless administrative functions of the govern- 

 ment. The people's representatives have their hands full now. Some power 

 must be given to public servants employed under authority of Congress, and 

 it should be borne in mind that such servants are always subject to the con- 

 trol and direction of the people's representatives in Congress. If their meth- 

 ods are bad, they can be changed by authority of law. Of course, the answer 

 from the gentlemen with whom the ex-secretary has allied himself, is that the 

 national property should be given up to the state. But this, as we have said 

 elsewhere, is a dead issue. The people of this country will not hand over their 

 national birthright to be administered by a group in which they are not rep- 

 resented. To do so would be to run counter to the strongest point embodied 

 in Mr. Ballinger's argument. 



The animus of the ex-secretary's argument is directed against the Forest 

 Service, as was shown by the climax in which he denounced what he calls the 

 most gigantic political scheme ever attempted in the history of the republic, 



