COMMENTS ON THE SNELL BILL 487 



also be reforested. This program should be carried out within the 

 next twenty-five years in order to meet the need. There is not the 

 slightest danger from overproduction. It will cost close to $1,000,- 

 000,000 for acquisition, reforestation, and the protection of these 

 growing forests from fire, and we cannot get that much money by 

 direct appropriations. If the Treasury Department were authorized 

 to issue bonds upon the recommendation of the National Forest Reser- 

 vation Commission, within some limit in money or work accomplished, 

 the Commission could then formulate a program and carry it out as 

 rapidly as economically practicable. 



The Snell Bill, now before Congress, tackles this problem of forest 

 restoration in a comprehensive manner. It is a splendid enumeration 

 of the things desired, and is in fact more of a forestry platform than 

 a bill. As a bill it contains inherent weaknesses or internal stresses 

 which may jeopardize its passage. While it is claimed that the bill 

 does not aim at the regulation of the lumber industry, yet the Secretary 

 of Agriculture is authorized to recommend essential requirements in 

 the cutting and removing of timber crops and may withhold co-opera- 

 tion from any State which does not comply in legislation or in adminis- 

 trative practice with those requirements. In practice, therefore, the 

 Secretary of Agriculture could demand such regulation and if not 

 adhered to he could withhold co-operation, thereby defeating an im- 

 portant purpose of the law. The lumbermen know that they have little 

 to fear from State regulation, and hence many of them support the bill 

 because of the other advantages, such as fire prevention, which they 

 will receive from the law. But, unless these requirements are met by 

 the States this provision of the law will be nullified. 



The amounts requested by the bill for fire prevention and reforesta- 

 tion are inadequate if fires are to be effectively prevented and our 

 idle land is to be set to work producing timber. The acquisition item 

 is probably too large to receive favor in Congress because it must be 

 a direct appropriation, and if this item is cut, it is a fair assumption 

 that the other items, some of which are already too small, will also be 

 reduced. 



If this bill were considered as a forestry platform, which it really 

 is, the various provisions would naturally fall into one of three bills, 

 namely : 



