NORTHERN PACIFIC OR THE NATION — WHICH? fiT9 



acquired by the railway company. The Government can not safely 

 wait until the railway company actually attempts to select such sections, 

 but in the event of an adverse decision must move promptly with a 

 view to saving as much from the wreck as possible by transferring the 

 improvements to even sections wherever this is physically possible. 

 No doubt many of the sawmill sites essential for the utilization 

 of the forest crop on different watersheds would be found to be 

 on odd sections, and therefore control of the entire watershed would 

 be largely governed by the demands of the railway company. As to 

 telephone lines, roads, and trails, the Government is in a less hazardous 

 position. The railway company has realized that such improvements 

 were advantageous to its own holdings, and has uniformly followed 

 the very generous and liberal policy of allowing the Forest Service 

 to construct telephone lines, roads, and trails, across its lands any- 

 where within the National Forests, without let or hindrance. Un- 

 doubtedly the same policy would be pursued if, as the result of the 

 suit now pending, the scope of the railway company's jurisdiction 

 should be extended over the odd-numbered sections within the indem- 

 nity limits. 



Reasonable forethought requires also that the Forest Service make 

 an immediate review of its timber-sale situation within the indemnity 

 strips, with a view to adjusting such timber-sale contracts as may be 

 affected by an adverse decision. A great many sales have already been 

 made within these strips and the timber cut and removed. Manv 

 sales are also current. It would be necessary to prepare to take what- 

 ever action the situation requires if the decision is adverse and the 

 railway company immediately selects the odd sections involved in any 

 large going sale. In such cases a contract with the Government would 

 be involved. The operator will have made plans and investments based 

 upon the assurance of being able to secure the timber from the total 

 contract area. As an innocent third party, he should be protected, and 

 the Forest Service should endeavor to secure from the railway com- 

 pany in such an instance the recognition of the rights of the purchaser 

 so that the operator might continue as before, excepting that his pay- 

 ments for the timber cut from the odd sections would go to the railway 

 company instead of to the Government. An interesting question is 

 also involved as to the right of the railway company to demand from 

 the Government payment for timber which the Government may have 

 sold and which has already been cut and removed from such odd 



