102 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



stronger argument, based on the Interstate Commerce provision of the 

 constitution, for a law to prevent forest devastation than there was in 

 the case of the Child Labor Law ; not because I apprehend that the 

 devastation of child vitality is not more against the general welfare 

 than the devastation of forests, but because, as far as forest products 

 are concerned, it is well known that soon the majority of all our larger 

 and better forest products must come to the East from a distance of 

 approximately 3,000 miles, which means the extra use of thousands of 

 locomotives, scores of thousands of freight cars, and tens of thousands 

 of railroad employees, which together with the occupation and wear 

 and tear of our railroad tracks and general equipment, undoubtedly 

 affects interstate commerce to a very highly material degree. I cannot 

 but feel that the Supreme Court would be inclined to say that legisla- 

 tion to stop further forest devastation and to help in reforesting devas- 

 tated areas would tend to hold, restore, and maintain the equilibrium 

 of Interstate Commerce in forest products, and would be constitutional 

 under the power of Congress "to regulate commerce among the sev- 

 eral States." 



3. Even if the Interstate Commerce clause should be thrown to one 

 side by the Supreme Court, it would be possible for Congress to tax 

 such forest products as enter into interstate commerce and have not 

 been produced in compliance with regulations promulgated under the 

 National law. This is the plan now being tried by Congress to prevent 

 the devastation of child-life. 



In conclusion I would say that for us to start an argument pro and 

 con the constitutionality of a National law to prevent further forest 

 devastation would be futile. With no authorized umpire, the crack 

 of doom would find the debate raging still, but no forests left. Instead 

 of turning tail and running before the wind-inflated and demon-dis- 

 torted bug-a-boo of unconstitutionality, we should follow the highly 

 successful course of the conservationists, backed by the fine courage of 

 Theodore Roosevelt, and described in the six cases set forth above ; 

 namely, take it for granted that what is for the general welfare and for 

 the good of posterity can. as the framers of the constitution seem to 

 intend, be sustained. 



