THE DEMOCRACY OF NATIONAL CONTROL -±49 



command have filled the position. Therefore, the Federal Govern- 

 ment, though sometimes autocratic in its methods, has usually dis- 

 played in comparison a very high degree of efficiency, and a higher 

 administrative tone generally than can be found within any of the 

 States. 



Efficiency in itself may or may not be the real desideratum. As we 

 are now concerned with a discussion of democracy, it must be affirmed 

 that the degree of democracy within the Federal Government depends 

 upon the spirit of the administration itself. At times our Federal 

 Government has been conducted in a manner more autocratic than any 

 other administration in the world ; and then again in the most demo- 

 cratic manner. It is largely a matter of leadership. Cabinet officers, 

 bureau chiefs, and other directing heads within the Federal Govern- 

 ment who desire democracy in their departments find no difficulty in 

 securing a higher degree of it than the framework of our State ad- 

 ministrations will permit. 



I take it that democracy means not only that we shall have freedom 

 of speech, of assembly, and of the press for the common man, but that 

 the voice of the common man shall be listened to with respect. Under 

 this definition I consider that in the early days of the Forest Service 

 there was attained a degree of democracy such as few of our State, 

 city, and other local units of government have ever attained. At that 

 time the ear of the higher officers of the Forest Service was always 

 open to the advice of the field man down to the lowest rank. As the 

 field man was in direct touch with the users of the Forests the national 

 administration rapidly brought itself into alignment with the desires 

 of those most concerned in the management of the National Forests, 

 namely, the forest users and forest workers. 



These principles have their direct bearing, of course, on the matter 

 of State or Federal control of private forests. State eft'orts in the 

 line of forestry have met for the most part with total failure. States 

 which have built up a fair degree of efficiency in forest matters have 

 often taken slumps later on to the lowest state of efficiency. The rea- 

 sons for these failures are partly due to the situation in State admin- 

 istration discussed above, and in particular they are due to the control 

 of forestry matters by people who do not know the field with which 

 thjey are dealing. Federal departments have always found it neces- 

 sary to employ specialists, and that is the long established precedent in 

 the Forest Service. Given Federal control, with service by experts 

 and democratic administration, things which are at all times within 



