EDITORIAL 



703 



Thus safeguarded, it was believed 

 the state could place upon the corpora- 

 tions such restrictions as it might see 

 fit, and so preserve its natural gas and 

 other interests. 



But the constitution-makers, it seems, 

 failed to reckon with the Federal courts. 

 A Federal judge is now reported to 

 have launched a sweeping injunction 

 restraining state officers from interfer- 

 ing with the plans of corporations to 

 pipe gas into other states. 



The judge holds that, like grain or 

 coal, natural gas is a product of inter- 

 state commerce, with the handling of 

 which the state has no right to inter- 

 fere. 



The state of Maine has a similar law, 

 prohibiting corporations from transmit- 

 ting electric power beyond the confines 

 of the state. 



It is now suggested that, if the Okla- 

 homa law in invalid, the same is true 

 of the Maine law. 



But how, may we inquire, may the 

 interests of a state be protected? 



If its own legislature is powerless, 

 recourse must next be had to the Na- 

 tional Congress, the responsibility of 

 which body is correspondingly in- 

 creased. 



Yet appeals to Congress do not al- 

 ways bear fruit, as friends of Appala- 

 chian legislation can testify. 



When they call upon Congress to pro- 

 tect the forests and streams of New 

 England and the South by enacting ap- 

 propriate legislation, they are told to 

 go to the state legislatures, and not 

 trouble Congress with state afifairs. 



_ Are the people's interests to be 

 kicked like a football from state legis- 

 latures to Congress and back again? 



Are their rights to be denied them 

 through a "dog-in-the-manger" policy 

 under which Congress will not, and the 

 state must not take the necessary pro- 

 tective steps? 



Is the "twilight zone" between state 

 and Federal jurisdictions to be a per- 

 manent obstructive fact ? 



With the convening of Congress 

 just ahead, light on this point would be 

 appreciated. 

 5 



Conservation Not Owned by Mr. Pinchot 



A S HAS already been pointed out in 

 -'>■ these columns, the city of Denver is 

 the headquarters for the fast-vanishing 

 but die-in-the-last-ditch contingent who 

 still believe that the yet ungobbled iwr- 

 tions of our national heritage belong, 

 by inalienable right, to the grabbers 

 who can get there first. 



Conservation, including especially 

 the September and October issues, is 

 evidently read in that fair city, and 

 the wails that ascend from those whose 

 means of gain at the people's expense 

 are threatened by the great American 

 awakening, are wild and weird. 



From the press utterances emanating 

 from Denver, it may be gathered that, 

 in the opinion of the contingent referred 

 to, this magazine and the press bulle- 

 tins issued by this office are the prop- 

 erty of Mr. Giflford Pinchot, United 

 States Forester. 



For the benefit of these, and any 

 others who may labor under like delu- 

 sions, a brief historical statement may 

 be submitted. 



There was a period when the Secre- 

 tary of Agriculture was the president 

 of the American Forestry Association, 

 a fact dwelt upon by the present writer 

 in Conservation for March. 1909. 



There was also a time, practically co- 

 incident with that of Secretary Wilson's 

 presidency, when Forester Pinchot was 

 chairman of the Executive Committee 

 of the same Association, and when 

 other members of Government Bu- 

 reaus associated with him were mem- 

 bers of its Board of Directors. 



But on April 24, 1907. Mr. Pinchot 

 wrote the following letter to the Sec- 

 retary of the American Forestry As- 

 sociation : 



Dr. Thos. E. Will, 



Secretary, American Forestry Association, 

 Washington, D. C. 



My dear Doctor Will : After mature con- 

 sideration, I have decided to present my 

 resignated both as chairman and as a mem- 

 ber of the E.xcciitive Committee of the 

 .ALmerican Forestry Association. T do this 

 partly because I am about to leave Washing- 

 ton for an absence of six months, and partly 

 because I believe it to be unwise for a Gov- 

 ernment forest officer to be connected with 

 the American Forestry Association in a 



