574 



CONSERVATION 



The opinion of the Maine Supreme 

 Bench sets forth unequivocally the prin- 

 ciple that the property rights of the individual 

 are subordinate to the rights of the com- 

 munity, and especially that the waste of wild 

 timber land derived originally frorn the state, 

 involving as it would the impoverishment of 

 the state and its people and thereby defeat- 

 ing a great purpose of government, may 

 properly be prevented by state restrictions. 



The Court says that there are two reasons 

 why the right of the public to control and 

 limit the use of private property is peculiarly 

 applicable to property in land: 



"First, such property is not the result 

 of productive labor, but is derived solely 

 from the state itself, the original owner; 

 second, the amount of land being incapable of 

 increase, if the owners of large tracts can 

 waste them at will without state restriction, 

 the state and its people may be helplessly 

 impoverished and one great purpose of gov- 

 ernment defeated." 



Commenting on this policy, the Presi- 

 dent said : 



Such a policy will preserve soil, forests, 

 water power as a heritage for the children 

 and the children's children of the men and 

 women of this generation ; for any enactment 

 that provides for the wise utilization of the 

 forests, whether in public or private owner- 

 ship, and for the conservation of the water 

 resources of the country, must necessarily 

 be legislation that will promote both private 

 and public welfare; for flood prevention, 

 water-power development, preservation of the 

 soil, and improvement of navigable rivers 

 are all promoted by such a policy of forest 

 conservation. 



This decision was also quoted in part 

 and discussed at the same meeting by 

 Mr. Edgar E. Ring, state forest com- 

 missioner of Maine. 



STILL OTHER RESOLUTIONS 



In view of the hardships suiTered under 

 the present law, it is desired that the home- 

 stead law should be amended so that the 

 entryman upon public land under a Govern- 

 ment project shall not be required to estab- 

 lish residence thereon before the Govern- 

 ment is prepared to furnish him water. 



The lands in question are, of couse, 

 worthless without water. Eor the citi- 

 zen to live upon them while the irriga- 

 tion works are being constructed un- 

 questionably involves, in cases, extreme 

 hardship. A living cannot be made 

 upon the land, and the entryman cannot 

 go from it to make a living elsewhere 

 without forfeiting his claim. Herein, 

 doubtless, is found one chief reason why 



irrigation is "not a poor man's propo- 

 sition." The problem, however, it 

 would seem, might easily be solved. 



The demand for deep waterways, 

 notably the fourteen-foot waterway 

 through the Illinois and Mississippi 

 rivers from the Great Lakes to the Gulf, 

 and the welcome declaration in fa- 

 vor of establishing national forests in 

 the Southern Appalachian and White 

 Mountains by Federal action, have also 



th 



e genume rmg. 



^ «=' ^ 

 What Is the "Poor Man's Proposition?" 



"While it is possible that persons of 

 limited means may successfully enter 

 and acquire irrigated lands, it will gen- 

 erally be found that it is not a poor 

 man's proposition, unless coupled with 

 intelligent industry in agriculture. The 

 whole scheme of the act is based upon 

 appropriation of the proceeds of the 

 sales of public lands in certain states 

 and territories for the construction of 

 irrigation works for the reclamation of 

 arid and semi-arid lands therein. No 

 further appropriation by Government is 

 intended, or can be inferred from the 

 act." 



Thus spake Secretary Ballinger at 

 the National Irrigation Congress. For- 

 mer Senator Wilson, in defending the 

 power companies, is quoted as saying 

 at the Congress: "It is the duty of the 

 people to help the Government, and not 

 the duty of the Government to aid the 

 people in reclamation." 



Statements like these at an irrigation 

 congress are distinctly disappointing. 

 It goes without saying that the desert 

 is not to be reclaitned without "intelli- 

 gent industry." The Secretary's re- 

 mark, however, is supposed to carry 

 with it a criticism of the cooperative 

 policy of Director Newell and his ad- 

 visers whereby water users were per- 

 mitted to pay for their rights, in part, 

 at least, by their labor. By this means, 

 it is claiined and apparently not dis- 

 puted, men who otherwise could 

 not have done so have been enabled to 

 secure hotnes upon irrigated lands, and 

 the Government has been enabled, at 

 the same time, to carry its reclamation 



