18 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



June 2.". l!(:;i 



may prove to be that it is obvious tli;it tlie door lias been left wide 

 open for the escape at such time ami in sueli manner as may be 

 found convenient or necessary, of those who have "endorsed" this 

 Bill. Naturally the Forest Service favors these provisions, which, 

 in fact, transfer to it the constitutional authority of Congress to 

 legislate upon a highly important and controversial subject. There 

 could not have been aJiy meeting of minds in tlie legal sense among 

 the endorsers of legislative terms so ambiguous and uncertain as 

 those which I have quoted. Evidence of what may be the determi- 

 nation of the Forest Service upon "essential requirements" is 

 already at hand, in the plan submitted by the Society of American 

 Foresters, and expressed in legislative terms in bills introduced in 

 the Senate by Mr. Capper. This legislation proposes complete gov- 

 ernmental regulation and control of the cutting practices of the 

 lumber industry, as well as to require standard accounting systems, 

 periodical reports on production, orders, shii)ments, sales, distribu- 

 tion of costs, and, finally, the right to control production when such 

 action is determined to be necessary for the public good in the 

 opinion of the commission created by the bill. These alarming pro- 

 jiosals illustrate clearly the possibility of delegating the legislative 

 authority to define a National Forest Policy to a single administra- 

 tive department. The study of these bills yields little satisfaction 

 so far as actual progress toward a definite Forest Policy is con- 

 cerned. The Capper Rill is of extremely doubtful validity, and its 

 economic plans wholly impracticable. The Snell Bill begs the ques- 

 tion and transfers it to the State legislatures for a combat between 

 federal appropriations and the lobby, which may oppose the "essen- 

 tial requirements" of the Secretary of Agriculture. This is clearly 

 an unsatisfactory situation. The time is ripe to correct it. The 

 people are now ready to solve their problems with full respect for 

 constitutional principles and in consonance with American ideals. 

 Such a solution need not be feared by any citizen or class of citizens. 

 With prejudice and dissimulation eliminated, the lumbermen as a 

 class, and as individual citizens, must proceed to a frank, open and 

 unselfish support of a rational forest policy, insisting always upon 

 their rights and in return fully and freely discharging their obliga- 

 tions as citizens. 



Must Respect Private Bights 

 I think it may be conceded that the use of forest land in such a 

 manner as to be a detriment to the public health and morals and in 

 defiance of public welfare would create a situation of sufficient 

 importance to warrant legislative interference, but such interfer- 

 ence must proceed with the strictest regard to the right of the 

 private property owner, and only in cases amounting to an obvious 

 public necessity. In such cases legislation would be justifiable and 

 within the scope of the police power to prevent destruction and 

 injury to standing timber by fire; to provide for improvements 

 needed for the prompt detection and suppression of fires; to reduce 

 the inflammability of forests. These requirements may include 

 patrols, trails, lookout stations, top lopping, burning brush, con- 

 trolled selected areas and other reasonable measures for the pur- 

 poses stated. The same may be said of legislation, to check the 

 depredations of insects and disease. Economic utilization is a ques- 

 tion of practice and beyond the control of mandatory legislation, 

 excepting perhaps to provide for its honest and fair conduct. Legis- 

 lation ma.v also accomplish something in this respect through edu- 

 cational measures and through the dissemination of information in 

 relation to the utilization of forest products. 



Where Police Powers Stop 

 The extension of the police powers to the problem of forest 

 replacement by laws to restrict the owner of forest lauds, in the use 

 of them without compensation therefore presents a wholly different 

 question, and if we are to guard against grave injustice to the 

 owners of such property, we must proceed with a clear understand- 

 ing, not only of the legal aspect of the public and private rights 

 involved, but of the policy of the .\merican people in relation to 

 the governmental regulation and control of industry. The police 

 power is extra constitutional, there is no hard and fast definition 

 of it. It is generally speaking an inherent sovereign power for the 



protection of the liealth, morals and general welfare of the people. 

 There is no doubt of its extensive scope for those purposes. It must, 

 however, be applied with due respect for definite constitutional 

 limitations. The Constitution provides, in definite terms, that 

 jirivate property shall not be taken without compensation to the 

 owner therefor. Thus the boundaries of the police power are limited 

 to laws which do not operate to "take" private property. The 

 real test in each case is whether the restrictions inij)osed amount to 

 a "taking" of private property. To illustrate, a restriction that 

 merchantable trees under a certain size could not be cut would, in 

 my opinion, constitute a taking of private property, within the 

 meaning of the Constitution, and for that reason would be beyond 

 the exercise of the police power. The same may be said of restric- 

 tions providing that certain trees be left for seeding or for other 

 protective purposes. If the public interest is such that the property 

 must be, all or in part, taken for a jmblic purpose the Constitution 

 specifically provides the method of taking such property through 

 appropriation, and the payment to the owner of proper compensa- 

 tion therefor. 



Thus far I have spoken solely of the legal rights Involved. To 

 my mind there is nothing in these that need disturb any citizen. 

 The danger arises when an attempt is made to subordinate these 

 rights to the desire of one class of citizens to impose upon another 

 class an undue and unjust proportion of the public burden. This 

 l)rings us to the question of public policy, which is the real issue 

 here. If I correctly interpret the present state of the public mind 

 and of the expression of it through the Federal Administration, it 

 is distinctly opposed to interference with the conduct of business 

 affairs, except and only to the extent necessary to enforce the prac- 

 tice of common honesty and fair dealing. I do not understand it 

 to be the present public policy to use the strength of the Govern- 

 ment to impose an undue burden upon any class of citizens, or to 

 be disposed to emphasize the strength of the Government, for the 

 sole purpose of satisfying the desires of those who preach progress 

 with little or no knowledge of the practical aspects involved. 



I stated in an address at Xltica, N. Y., last December, that Con- 

 gress would not enact any such proposals as are contained in the 

 forestry legislation now pending in Congress, and I am informed 

 on excellent authority that it has no present intention of making 

 such enactments. The reason may be that the Administration is 

 not friendly to Federal regulation of business, or it may be that 

 the proponents of the legislation have failed to convince Congress 

 of its true meaning, and of the sincerity of their support. In any 

 event, I reaffirm the belief that the time is ripe for the enactment of 

 forestry legislation, based upon sound American principles. These 

 principles seem to me to be: 



American Foresty Principles 



1. Adeipiate protection to prevent the destruction or injury of 

 standing forests by fire; the burden for such protection to be shared 

 by the public and the owner of the land. 



2. The extension of ownership, especially of protective areas and 

 cut-over and denuded lands, by both Federal and State purchases. 



3. Reforestation on public lands and liberal inducement to own- 

 ers to reforest private lands. 



4. Forest surveys and the classification of lands suitable for 

 forest ]iroduction. 



5. Forest perpetuation and renewal with public assumption com- 

 mensurate with public benefit of all burdens imposed upon the 

 owners of private timber land. 



These principles are sufficient in outline to comprehend the 

 obvious details of the several programs which have been discussed, 

 and seem to me to present a safe platform for both public and 

 jvrivate interests and to promise actual co-operation and progress. 



In conclusion may I express the hope that this association will 

 not lend its influence or support to legislation which does not clearly 

 define in legislative terms the policy proposed and which does not 

 fairly distribute the burden of forest perpetuation between public 

 and private interests? 



