WHERE WE STAXD . 44.5 



to leave it to the States rather than the Nation. Moreover, the attempt 

 to repeat the oft-tried experiment would be time lost, when time is a 

 vital factor. 



State legislation is relatively unstable. The failure of State forest 

 legislation and administration is notorious. In the very regions where 

 the prevention of forest devastation could come in time to count, the 

 States have been, are now, and would hereafter be powerless against 

 the lumber interests. Forest laws passed this year (if passed at all) 

 might easily be done away with or emasculated in a year or a decade. 

 When good laws have been passed, they have often been sterlized in 

 the execution. States have seldom adhered to definite forest policies. 

 I repeat that lumbermen, seeing some sort of control on the way, 

 strongly prefer State control, well knowing that they themselves can 

 control it. 



Forest bills recently before the legislatures of Maine and New York 

 are typical of what may be expected from the States. They would 

 make the prevention of forest devastation optional with the private 

 owner, a policy which experience has proved to be an utter failure. 



National control, of course, is not perfect ; but it is decidedly the 

 best sort of control we are able to apply. Compared to State control 

 it is proved by experience to be intelligent, skilled, stable, effective, 

 clean, fairly free from political influence, and closed to pressure from 

 special privilege. The United States Forest Service has demonstrated 

 the truth of this statement, and the lumbermen know it. 



An administration which places the harvesting of forest crops under 

 Federal control and fire suppression under nationally aided* and na- 

 tionally supervised State control is workable in practice, if not ideal in 

 theory. We are not aiming at perfection. We are aiming at results, 

 the best and quickest results obtainable under the conditions which 

 confront us. 



NATIONAL BUREAUCRACY 



The fear that the Committee's plan means the building up of an 

 obnoxious national bureaucracy is groundless. To have yielded to this 

 cry would at one time have destroyed the Forest Service itself. No 

 army of field officers or clerks will be necessary. Many a lumberman 

 already well knows what measures are needed to stop devastation on 

 his own lands, and many more will discover for themselves how best 

 to keep their lands productive. The one thing lacking is the obliga- 



