EDITORIAL 



705 



principle "that the natural resources of 

 the country belong first of all to the 

 whole people." 



It rejoices, furthermore, at evidence, 

 piled as Ossa upon Pelion, that a daily 

 increasing number of disinterested 

 American citizens and of citizens con- 

 cerned for the well-being of America 

 and the perpetuity of the race, stand 

 with equal emphasis for this identical 

 principle. 



And now comes a former member of 

 the United States Senate announcing 

 that this principle is "socialistic." 



Conservation has only to remark 

 that if Mr. Patterson desires to convert 

 a majority of the American people to 

 socialism, he has but to give adequate 

 publicity to the doctrine announced by 

 him to the Colorado Conservation 

 Commission. 



J^ &' )^ 



Whose Is the Land ? 



SINCE ex-Senator Patterson shied at 

 Doctor Grass's declaration that "the 

 natural resources of the country belong 

 first of all to the whole people," we 

 wonder what he would think of Prof. 

 Liberty Hyde Bailey's statement at 

 Spokane. 



Here is a paragraph from his ad- 

 dress given at the National Irrigation 

 Congress, and published in Conserva- 

 tion for October : 



In the last analysis, the land belongs to all 

 the people. No man really ozuns his land; 

 society allows him to use it, and to say zvho 

 shall use it when he is done with it; and 

 every man is under obligation to society to 

 maintain the fertility of his land. Even a 

 farm is not a man's own, in a sense that he 

 has a right to abuse it without check. More 

 than that, he is under obligation to use all 

 the natural resources of the earth with a 

 care for those who are to come after him. 

 No man has a moral or social right to de- 

 nude the land of its forest, unless he leaves 

 the. land in condition for his successor to 

 utilize it with satisfaction. The American 

 practise of raping the earth of timber has 

 no defense, not only in economics, but also 

 none in moral obligation. 



For the Denver school, this should 

 be bitter medicine. 



This view, however, rests not simply 

 on the declaration of Doctor Grass or 



Professor Bailey. Should it be chal- 

 lenged, a cloud of witnesses in its de- 

 fense can be produced to whose testi- 

 mony even that element must listen 

 with respect. 



^ ^« i« 



More "Progress" Backward 



IN ITS issue of September 20, the 

 Portland Oregonian published a half- 

 column story from Washington stating 

 that, "as a result of the Pinchot- 

 Ballinger row, the administration may 

 later determine to recommend the trans- 

 fer of the Forest Service from the De- 

 partment of Agriculture to the Depart- 

 ment of the Interior. 



"Such a change," the writer says, 

 "can only be made by act of Congress, 

 and it probably would call for consid- 

 erable pressure from the President in 

 order to get the necessary authority, es- 

 pecially if Gifford Pinchot is permitted 

 to remain as Chief Forester." 



The writer goes on to argue that the 

 Forest Service is out of place in the 

 Department of Agriculture, having 

 nothing in common with the other bu- 

 reaus of that department, but much in 

 common with the General Land Office 

 and Geological Survey of the Depart- 

 ment of the Interior. 



He states that "on several occasions 

 the suggestion has been made that the 

 Forest Service should be transferred" 

 to the Interior Department, "but dur- 

 ing the last administration Mr. Pinchot 

 had sufficient influence with the Presi- 

 dent to get the support of the admin- 

 istration in his objection to the change." 

 Now, however, he thinks, in view of 

 the Ballingcr-Pinchot controversy, and 

 the supposed attitude of the President, 

 the latter himself might lead in the de- 

 mand for the transfer. 



The writer contimics : 



"If the Forest Service was made a 

 bureau of the Interior Department, it 

 would be on equal footing with the 

 Land Office, and under the control of 

 the same Cabinet officer. The Secre- 

 tary of the Interior then would have 

 a say, not only as to questions of title 

 to forest-rcscrve lands, but as to all 

 (juestions of forestry administration." 



