EDITORIAL 605 



sion respecting ownership or distribu- Chamberlin, to paraphrase his own most 

 tion of values which has no logical rela- ingenious sentence, by either "a care- 

 tion to conservation, and may even be less lapse into confusion of thought, or 

 incompatible with its highest realiza- else a wilful perversion of what is le- 

 tion." gitimate in the art of persuasion," 

 Let it be conceded that the problems glided without a note of warning from 

 of conservation and those of ownership an elementary distinction which com- 

 "center in separate fields," and see what mands universal assent to a real separa- 

 this concession amounts to. It amounts tion which has no actual reference to 

 to a logical distinction between the own- such a distinction, and may even be 

 ership of resources and the uses to incompatible with sound reasoning? 

 which they are put. It does not amount Moreover, Professor Chamberlin mis- 

 to a real separation of ownership from construes the program of conservation 

 use in actual practice ; it throws simply when he tells us, with an air of crush- 

 no light whatever upon the problem of ing finality, that "to divide Alaska into 

 the relation of ownership to use. We 90,000,000 moieties and give each of 

 think that no one will withhold assent us one, would not settle the problem of 

 to ,the proposition that ownership of a the highest utilization of the Alaskan 

 plot of ground is something quite dis- resources." Who, besides the opponent 

 tinct from the use to which the ground of straw whom Professor Chamberlin 

 is put; that while one is a legal title to has made that he may destroy him, 

 a definite parcel of real property, the has ever contended that such a 

 other is the application of more or less course would lead to such a result? 

 intelligence and energy to a given set The mere title to a resource will not 

 of physical conditions. It should necessarily conserve it by a process of 

 hardly have been necessary for Pro- logical illation, as every one would 

 fessor Chamberlin to pomt out to us promptly concede ; but we are not at 

 so elementary a distinction. But it is present concerned with the logical im- 

 a very different thing to assert that, as plications, but, on the contrary, with the 

 a matter of human experience, title to practical results, of ownership. Are we 

 the land and the use which is made of prepared to affirm, for instance, that 

 the land have no practical relation. The the prevailing system of individual own- 

 sophistry becomes more evident when ership of land in the United States has 

 we develop the argument, as Professor had no bearing historically on the de- 

 Chamberlin does, and maintain that be- velopment of the resources of the United 

 cause "the best conservation of the soil States? Again, it is surely significant 

 is not necessarily dependent on the most that the reasoning by which Professor 

 desirable partition of the land," there- Chamberlin attempts to separate own- 

 fore, by implication, conservation of the ership from the conservation of re- 

 soil is in no way dependent in actual sources has been most loudly applauded 

 practice on the partition of the land, by representatives of those corporate in- 

 In this whole contention we are dealing terests which own most resources, and 

 with the ancient fallacy which held that use them with least regard for the gen- 

 a logical concept was identical with the eral welfare. 



thing conceived, the fallacy by detecting But there is an even more important 

 which, according to our recollection, weakness in the argument which would 

 Kant first made himself famous. Own- erect a barrier between the scientific and 

 ership and the use of a resource are technical aspects of conservation, on 

 logically distinct, but in reality they are the one hand, and the political and so- 

 closely interdependent. Historically this ciological aspects of conservation, on 

 fact is so well known that one of the the other. It was Mr. Roosevelt who 

 very first classifications which the stu- first pointed out that our natural re- 

 dent of economic history finds it con- sources are our national resources as 

 venient to make is the classification of well. Conservation is no mere academic 

 the land tenures. Has not Professor question ; it is a national issue, because 



