DISCUSSION OF THE PINCHOT REPORT 463 



The Pinchot program says that the ownership of forest land carries 

 with it a special obligation not to injure the public. I agree with that 

 statement, to a certain extent. Certainly a private owner has no right 

 to cause any direct injury either to the public or to his neighbor. For 

 instance, he has no right (which Ts well recognized) to leave a dan- 

 gerous slash through which fire may spread to adjoining property. 

 Neither do I believe that he has any right to so dispose of that brush 

 that it will actually destroy valuable forest wealth which is already 

 established on the land. In other words, he has no right to devastate 

 the land and actually destroy something of considerable value. Fur- 

 ther than that I believe the obligation of the private owner does not 

 extend. I do not believe he could be expected to cut his itmber in any 

 particular way or be required to save trees of certain sizes. That, I 

 think, is a matter purely to be decided on the basis of the economics 

 involved. 



The private ownership of forest land is as much a public obligation 

 as it is a private obligation. It is the duty of the public to create condi- 

 tions so favorable that the individual owner will gain by acting in ac- 

 cordance with the public interest. The private owner cannot be ex- 

 pected to practice forestry until it pays him in actual dollars. He can 

 be expected, however, to protect the public interest to the extent of the 

 proper disposal of his brush, because that means the continuous produc- 

 tion of timberland and it means the stopping of devastation — and that 

 far the public can go — and I believe that we can get the co-operation 

 and the help of the majority of private owners in putting some such a 

 plan into effect. The minority will of course have to be forced, but as 

 long as the majority is in favor of it the plan will succeed. 



This whole question of whether or not the Pinchot program should 

 be accepted is in my opinion a question of whether or not the attempt 

 to put into effect a forestry program should be made by working from 

 the top down, or from the bottom up. 



I certainly am in favor of very strong Federal action. The Federal 

 Government should give assistance, both financial and otherwise, to 

 the individual States and private owners, and give them all sorts of 

 encouragement, and should carry on a strong propaganda. The Fed- 

 eral Government, as I have expressed before, should act as a Big 

 Brother in this movement and not as a slave-driver with a whip-hand. 



The people in the individual States must be in favor of the program 

 of forestry, or it will not work, regardless of any Federal law. It is, 



