WHERE WE STAND 443 



CONFISCATION 



Certain lumbermen in California and elsewhere have objected to 

 Federal control of the harvesting of forest crops on the ground that 

 the costs imposed might be so heavy as to amount to confiscation. The 

 same argument, of course, would apply against State control. 



It is admittedly conceivable that a government bent upon confisca- 

 tion might impose regulations so costly as to confiscate. Is there a 

 single example, however, under either Federal or State control, where 

 charges have been so high as to amount to confiscation? If so, I am 

 not aware of it. In practice precisely the opposite commonly takes 

 place. The charges imposed have usually been too low — often far 

 below the going market rates. Examples known to all of us are graz- 

 ing fees, water-power charges, land rentals, etc. 



We all know likewise that the costs of avoiding forest devastation 

 are reasonable, and often merely nominal, on the National Forests, 

 where timber has been harvested in commercial operations for many 

 years under precisely the methods contemplated by the Committee and 

 the Forest Service. The cry of confiscation is raised simply to divert 

 attention from the main issue, which is the necessity for public control. 

 The lumbermen are not worried about costs, but they are very much 

 worried by the fear of any sort of regulation from the outside. 



The Committee's plan involves the prevention of forest devastation 

 only by the perpetuation of forest crops through natural reproduction — • 

 volunteer growth. It does not call for the planting of forest lands, 

 although the owner would be at liberty to plant in case he preferred 

 to keep his lands productive in that way. There seems to have been 

 some misapprehension on that point. 



CONSTITUTIONALITY 



The constitutionality of Federal control may be brilliantly debated 

 by the ablest lawyers for years to come, but there can be no conclusion 

 until legislation is passed and a decision is handed down by the Su- 

 preme Court. All we need to know at present is that there are excel- 

 lent reasons to believe that Federal control is constitutional on the 

 ground of protecting the watersheds of navigable streams and the 

 regulation of interstate commerce. It is fair to assume, also, that in 

 case Federal control is essential the public will find a way to enforce it. 



AMERICANISM AND DEMOCRACY 



It is argued that national control is undemocratic and un-American. 

 What is meant is not clear. We have National control of the railways, 



