Auy;ust 25. 1021 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



17 



"Aetivo support of tlu' jiriiiciplt's expressed " by the Snell- 

 MeCormiek forestry bill now before Congress is urged in a state- 

 ment authorized l)y the directors of the National Lumber Manu- 

 facturers' Association nt their regular meeting July 28 and issued 

 on August 9. 



This statement repeats and answers in detail the outstanding 

 objections to the Snell-McCorniirk bill, and concludes with the 

 .Icclaratinii that "we have approved the Snell-McCormick bill in 

 the belief that it will provide an adequate and effective solution of 

 the Nation's forest problem." 



Suidi a declaration mi-ans a very strong foi'ce behind the measure, 

 as it infers the active support of the eleven regional associations 

 constituting the membership of the National. A'iewed in this light, 

 the statement is one of the most important that has been made yvt 

 -on the national forestry policy question. 



The text of the statement follows: 



In view of public (Uscussions of tlie SneU-McConnick forestry hill imw 

 hcfore Congress, and the endorsement thereof by the National Lunibt'i- 

 Manufacturers' Association, the lioard of Directors of saul association in 

 n-gular meeting July 28, 1921, an<l by unanimous vote authorized the 

 fiillowing statement of its posititin and of the reasons which have led it 

 to the conclusion that the principb's incorporated in the Snell-McCorniick 

 bill are deserving of the lumber industry's support, together with cnmnicnt 

 npuii specilic ol)ji'ctioiis to tin- tiill which ha^'c been nunle. 



When approached in 1919 in a cimstructivc spirit by the I'nited. States 

 Forest Service, tirst through ex-Korester Graves and later by Fwestor 

 Greeley, and asked to cooperate in framing and establishing a needed 

 American forest policy, the association unhesitatingly endorsed the project, 

 making at that time a public declaration of its views of the economic 

 principles involved. It called upon its regional constituents to nominate 

 competent representatives to a committee to confer with the Forest Service 

 and other agencies on forestry matters admitting of general and con- 

 certed national effort. At the same time, recognizing that in practice 

 forestry is largely a local problem not susceptible rif national definition, 

 it urged its constituents to create local committees to collaborate with 

 other agencies, both public and private, in studying antl pronnding the 

 specific steps suitable to the neeils of their respective localities. 



Greeley Platform Adopted 



A general platform t'(»rninbiti'il after careful study by the association's 

 forestry committee was formally mlopted in 1920, endiodying essential 

 principles of responsilulity closely in harmony with those endorsed by 

 Forester Greeley, who was asked to submit for consideration his specific 

 views as to needed federal legislation, if any, although it was l)elieved and 

 asserted that (juestions of actual forest practice were for local determina- 

 tion only. He did this, folkiwlng a similar course with other organizations. 



Thus at about the same time both the need and the exact form of possible 

 federal legislation were receiving the attention of nniny agencies, indus- 

 trial, private ami piHilic, dcveloiiiiig ureat need of concerted attention 

 which would not bewilder the public with conflicting theories and preju- 

 dices. 



The function of our forestry comndttee was to get in touch with all 

 these agencies and. under the general principles already endorsed, to seek 

 and promote the best solution, all things considered, by which the Industry 

 could be in line and cooperate with the sanest and most competent majority 

 of interests concerned, including the Forest Service of the United States. 

 It was to avoid commitments as to local practice, but to encourage the 

 best means of having this properly considered as time and conditions 

 permit. 



The Snell-McCormick bill, based largely on Forester Gi'eeley's sugges- 

 tions, and approved by him. took its final form at a conference in October, 

 1920. at which he was present by invitation of accredited representatives 

 of the National Limiber Manufacturers' Association, American Paper and 

 I'ulp Association, American Newspaper Publishers' Association, National 

 Association of Wood-Using Industries. American Forestry Association, 

 United States Chamber of Coiinnerce ami National Wholesale Lumber 

 I'ealers' Association. 



This bill was then reported back by the forestry committee to the Board 

 of Diri'ctors of the National I.undier Mjfnufacturers* vVssociation, was 

 formally endorsed by it in I>eccnd)er, 1920. and was later submitted to 

 I'resident Harding as representing the imlustry's position. It soon recidveil 

 the emlorsi'inent of most of the interested agencies in the United States, 

 inclmling nearly all state foresters and. by a much divided but neverthe- 

 less majority vote, the Society of American Foresters as well as hnuber- 

 men's and other business organizations, chambers of commerce, forestry 

 associations and the like. 



Tr has. however, been criticised by a few represenlativ*'s of two extreme 

 positions ; those on the one hand who hold that it does not go far enough 

 to regulate forest industry, and those on the other hand who fear it goes 

 too far. The objections raised and our opinion of their weight are in the 

 main as given below after a brief re-aiialysis of the Snell-MtrCormlck bill 

 itself. 



Few Departures Made 



The Snell-McCormick bill .onlains littlf- that is new In federal legisla- 

 tion, being rather a correlation of existing projects in consistent systematic 

 form that perndts considering their adequacy as federal ptdicy reipiired 

 in aildition to the present ownership and administration of national forest 

 areas. Most of these features have arouseil no controversy. Such con- 

 troversy as has arisen centers on the initial sections touching upon forest 

 management on privately owneti lands. These sections do not involve a new 

 problem, hut apply to it un\y a solution which has already been tested 

 and creates no new prece<lent in principle. It is on this point that con- 

 siderable confusion exists, responsible, we believe, for some sincere opposi- 

 tion to the measure. 



The first section authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate 

 with state authorities ami other appropriate agencies, such as representa- 

 tives of lumbermen, in setting up the essential requirements of each rcgitm 

 for the better proti'ction and perpetuation of forests. So far no new 

 power is granted. He can d() this now and has done so. Further, he is 

 authorized to cooperate with state and forest owners io bringing into 

 effect the requirements determined, and funds for this purpose are to he 

 supplieti. lie may refuse cooperation, however, if the state fails in legisla- 

 tion or administration to comply with tlie requirements. So may any state 

 refuse with equal freedom. 



This is in substance no more than the application to all forest problems, 

 without specific reference to the watersheds of navigable streams, of the 

 present system of cotiperation in fire prevention on such watersherls rmder 

 the so-called Weeks law. Where the states afford a certain measure of such 

 prevention, from which the nation derives benefit, the government helps 

 pay the bills, as it should do. Also, and properly, as the feileral taxpayers' 

 agent, it must be satisfied that the work is done to good purpose. 



Thus state legislation and police power are invoked, being inseparable 

 from fire prevention, and applying to the individual and on private lands. 

 Hut the authority and constitutionality of state action, and the rights of 

 individuals tliereunder. are absolutely unaffected, while the government 

 itself arrogates no police power. Nor is the principle one of coercion in 

 restrictive legislation by means of subsidy, for the latter is based on the 

 state's expenditure in at least equal and presumably far greater measure, 

 although the government may decline to participate if the states' system 

 is not made effective. The government does not dictate the terms. It 

 confers with the states and accepts their terms if satisfied. Individual and 

 property rights as guaranteed by the Constitution are not. and cannot be. 

 affe<-ted by such legislation. 



Down to Fundamentals 



I'erhaps the intent of the Snell liill, as we understand it. can best be 

 illustrated by considei'lng the fundamental problem whicli it is intended 

 to solve and the principal solutions which have been proijosed. The object 

 is to assure a continuance of an adequate tinilicr supply and id' other forest 

 benefits. All states and their populations are interesteci in this, as well 

 as the chief forest states. 



One school of thought represented by the so-called Capper Uill holds that 

 the object mentioned, particularly the protection of consuming states, can 

 be accomplished only by ftderal control of all forest Jau'is and forest 

 industry, laying down and enforcing for all operations regulations which 

 must be complied with for the public good, regardless of the costs or hard- 

 ship they imposi? upcm private enterprise. The other school, led by Forester 

 (Jreeley and fimling expression in the Snell bill, differentiates. It assumes: 

 (a) That uthqimtr results are sought — not ni'cessariiy ultimate 

 and maximnm n-sults : hence the ntost complex, difficult and olijec- 

 tionable measures should not be invoked unless and until, as is 

 unlikely, they prove necessary. 



tbi That fire prevention will go a long way. proitably most of the 

 way. and in some cases, all the way. toward solving the entire problem 

 by assuring natural reproduction of desirable species on much of our 

 forest land. 



(c) That better tax conditions, as well as safeguarding the invest- 

 ment against fire, nnist precede any considerable investment in for- 

 estry. 



td) That as lire and tax con<litious are controlled by state, not 

 federal legislation, federal regulation in any event cannot well be 

 imposed regardless of these state conditions. 



(e) That all Constitutional police power necessary to be invoked 

 lies with the states. 



{Contintii (I on itni/c 20) 



