Editorial 



PRESIDENT WILSON SPEAKS PLAINLY 



ONE of a number of bills, introduced in Congress 

 with the intention of tearing down the bulwarks 

 of our National Forests and of bringing these re- 

 ser\ed lands under the operation of general laws per- 

 mitting the alienation of titles and the acquisition of the 

 land by states, communities and private citizens, passed 

 Congress recently, only to receive a deserved veto by 

 President Woodrow Wilson on August 22. 



This bill, known as House Bill 11,162, would have 

 given to every city and town, now or hereafter to be 

 established, the right to take from national forest lands 

 a total of 1440 acres for several public purposes. 



The President in his veto calls attention to the fact 

 that the existing laws provide ample means for the 

 attainment of the public purposes contemplated by the 

 bill. Cemetery grounds if needed can be eliminated by 

 presidential proclamation. For municipal water supply, 

 special cooperative agreements are in force which fully 

 safeguard the interests of the public. Touching parks 

 and recreation, the President says : 



" The Department moreover is already providing for 

 special local needs for recreation purposes by making the 

 National Forests freely available for such uses and by 

 taking steps to develop their availability as public rec- 

 reation grounds." Continuing, the President points out 

 the fundamental objections and dangers of this class of 

 land legislation, a warning which is needed at this time. 

 He says: 



" The bill which I returned would give cities and 

 towns the right to select and acquire a total of 1440 acres 



of land for the several purposes mentioned, at a uniform 

 price of $1.25 an acre, without regard to the value of the 

 timber on it or to the need of the land for other public 

 purposes ; or to the effect of the alienation of ownership 

 on the administration of the forests, and especially upon 

 the administration of adjacent or neighboring areas. 

 Counties may select 640 acres. Since the same rights 

 would accrue to new cities, towns and counties, this gen- 

 eral grant might in the long run result in the alienation of 

 a very large proportion of the national forest area. 



" But the most serious objection to the bill is that it 

 subjects the National Forests to disposition under a gen- 

 eral grant. At the very time while provision is being 

 made for purchase by the Government of forested lands 

 in the East for the protection of the watersheds, it is pro- 

 posed to permit similar lands in the West to be perma- 

 nently alienated. I would respectfully urge that it is un- 

 wise to permit alienation of the National Forests under 

 general legislation of this sort. If the process of piece- 

 meal distribution is begun, independent of any oversight 

 or control of the National Government, there is manifest 

 danger that the forests will be so disintegrated as to 

 make their efficient administration impossible and the 

 purpose for which they were established unattainable. 



"Against such a process the National Forests should 

 be carefully protected." 



What clearer, more concise and more convincing 

 statement could there be than this utterance of the Chief 

 Executive against the piecemeal distribution of our 

 National Forests which is attempted by many and 

 various bills at each session of Congress? 



COMMERCIAL GRAZING VERSUS WILD LIFE IN NATIONAL PARKS 



THE bill creating a national park service in the 

 Department of the Interior, in place oj the pres- 

 ent inadequate piecemeal administration, is on the 

 Senate calendar and should speedily pass. 



But there is one provision in the bill as it stands which 

 should be promptly eliminated before it becomes a law, 

 and that is the opening up of these national parks to 

 commercial grazing of sheep and cattle. As it stands, 

 the bill permits the Secretary of the Interior to " grant the 

 privilege to graze livestock within any national park, 

 monument or reservation, when in his judgment such use 

 is not detrimental to the primary purpose for which such 

 park, monument or reservation was created." 



There is only one primary purpose for creating a 



national park, and that is to preserve nature and wild life 



in its original condition for the pleasure of the entire 



body of our citizens. Cattle and sheep grazing are com- 



562 



niercial uses wholly unharmonious to this primary pur- 

 pose, and destructive of forage needed by wild game. 



If portions of areas now reserved or proposed as 

 national parks can be operied up to commercial grazing 

 without detriment to the primary purpose of the park, it 

 is priina-facie evidence that such areas should not be in- 

 cluded within the park at all, but should remain as 

 national forest lands, on which commercial uses are per- 

 mitted and encouraged by law and regulations. 



From an administrative standpoint, this provision has 

 some very objectionable features. The Department of the 

 Interior is without any experience in the management of 

 grazing privileges, and at the present time does not take 

 in a dollar of revenue from this source. The grazing 

 policy and administration are wholly in the hands of the 

 Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture, which 

 has, in the eleven years since 1905, built up an efficient 



