ORGANIZATION FOR NATIONAL CONTROL '^•i."> 



bring State officers under nominal Federal control by deputizing them 

 to act as Federal officials. Such nominal control by the Federal Gov- 

 ernment would admittedly be weak and provokative of friction. 



Would not the situation be distinctly better under the Committee's 

 plan for national control ? Silvicultural measures on lands being logged 

 would be controlled directly by Federal officers under Federal regula- 

 tions, and in that respect the plan would certainly be much stronger. 

 The basic anti-devastation measures would be applied throughout the 

 whole country, through one organization, under one executive head. 

 That would seem to be the one thing of vital importance because it 

 makes sure that something will be done. 



But, it is argued, if State forces are to be used for fire protection 

 and Federal forces for silvicultural work, it means indirect Federal 

 control over fire, a thing so closely related to the successful practice 

 of silviculture as to demand undivided control. The answer is that 

 the National Government would have precisely as much to say about 

 the State's plans for fire protection and the State's efficiency in apply- 

 ing those plans as under the Forest Service program ; for the Committee 

 contemplates the same Federal subsidies, justifying the same degree 

 of supervision through the Federal deputizing of State officials. In 

 either case Federal funds, naturally, would not be forthcoming until 

 the State's plan for fire protection was so framed and its forces so 

 organized as to tie in satisfactorily with the plans of the National 

 Government to control devastation where forests are being cut. Both 

 the Committee and Forest Service plans, as thus viewed, necessitate 

 close co-operation between the National Government and the States. 



Here is the main point, however. The Committee's plan places the 

 key to the whole situation — the right and power to enforce fundamental 

 measures against forest devastation^ — directly in the hands of tJie 

 National Government. Once the law is enacted there will be driving 

 power behind it throughout the nation. Under the Forest Service 

 plan many different laws would have to be enacted in many different 

 States, and nothing at all would happen unless and until the States 

 themselves cared to act. In yielding to local option the hope of real 

 achievement would be submerged. 



Another suggestion is this. In many of the Western States private 

 owners of timberlands have for some time past turned over their 

 properties to the National Government for protection against fire. 

 Owners within or adjacent to the National Forests do this under "co- 



