STATE REGULATION OF TIMBER 



CUTTING 



ON THE 27th of March, 1907, the 

 Maine senate asked the opinion of 

 the Maine supreme court as to the power 

 of the legislature in order "to promote 

 the common welfare, etc.," to "regulate 

 and restrict cutting or destruction of 

 trees on wild and uncultivated land." 

 March 10, 1908, the court rendered an 

 opinion which has been widely com- 

 mented on, especially since President 

 Roosevelt's mention of it in his address 

 to the Conservation congress. This 

 opinion is frequently referred to as a 

 "decision." which it was not, no case 

 being before the court. It was a dic- 

 tum in response to an inquiry by a 

 branch of the legislature, and one of 

 the justices declined to join in it, on 

 the ground that no exigency existed 

 sufficient to- warrant the inquiry. 



The opinion, an abstract of which is 

 given herewith, was reported in the 

 Atlantic Reporter, Vol. 69, No. 9, of 

 date June 4, 1908. 



The question of state regulation was 

 made a subject of discussion at the an- 

 nual meeting of the American Forestry 

 Association in January, and two papers 

 were presented, one from the standpoint 

 of a forester, the other from that of a 

 ia,wyer. These papers follow the ab- 

 stract of the court's opinion below. 



OPINION OF THE MAINE SUPREME COURT. 



1. Constitutional La%v. — Police 

 Pozvcr. The legislature of Maine has, 

 by the constitution of Maine "full 

 power to make and establish all reason- 

 able laws and regulations for the de- 

 fense and benefit of the people of this 

 state, not repugnant to this constitu- 

 tion nor that of the United States." 



2. Same. — It is for the legislature 

 to determine from time to time the oc- 

 casions and what laws and regulations 



280 



are necessary or expedient for the de- 

 fense and benefit of the people ; and 

 however inconvenienced, restricted or 

 even damaged particular persons or 

 corporations may be, such general laws 

 and regulations are to be held valid 

 unless there can be pointed out some 

 provision in the State or United States 

 Constitution which clearly prohibits 

 them. 



^ Jiniinent Domain. Deprivation 

 of property zvithont compensation. 

 Legislation to restrict or regulate the 

 cutting of trees on wild or uncultivated 

 land by the owner thereof, etc., without 

 compensation therefor to said owner in 

 order to prevent or diminish injurious 

 droughts and freshets, and to protect, 

 preserve and maintain the natural 

 water-supply of springs, streams, ponds 

 and lakes, etc., and to prevent or 

 diminish injurious erosion of the land 

 and the filling up of the rivers, ponds 

 and lakes, etc., would not operate to 

 "take" private property within the inhi- 

 bition of the constitution. 



/. Same. \\'hile such legislation 

 might restrict the owner of wiM or un- 

 cultivated lands in his use of them, 

 might delay his taking some of the pro- 

 duct, might defer his anticipated profits 

 and even thereby might cause him 

 some loss of profit, it would never- 

 theless leave him his lancL, tlieir pro- 

 duct and increase, untouched and with- 

 out diminution of title, estate or quan- 

 tity. He would still have large meas- 

 lux of control and large opportunity to 

 realize values. He might sulTer delay 

 but not deprivation. While the use 

 might be restricted it would not be ap- 

 propriated or "taken." Such legisla- 

 tion would be within the legislative 

 power and would not operate as taking 

 of private pro]:)erty for which compen- 

 sation nnist be made. 



