646 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



tution prohibits the State from incurring an indebtedness for sums 

 larger than $100,000 and running for a longer period than five years. 

 The same constitution, curiously enough, prohibits expenditures for 

 "works of internal improvement," and forest reserves, reforestation, 

 or any forestry work might be so considered. 



A friendly test case was brought before the State Supreme Court, 

 and on February 12, 1915, the court construed the constitution by 

 letter and decided adversely to the Forestry Board, and the purchases 

 unconstitutional. 



The moneys paid out are declared liens upon the properties which 

 should inure to the benefit of the various trust funds, that the State 

 has inaugurated, and which appear to have been interfered with by 

 the forestry legislation. An endless muddle is the result. 



There was, however, at least one chief justice who rose above 

 the literal interpretation of the constitution. Although concurring in 

 the opinion of the court, he did not share the doubt in regard to the 

 right of the State to raise taxes in acquiring and handling land as a 

 forest reserve. 



Since Chief Justice Winslow's opinion appears to us the only sane 

 one, and the one to which every forester will subscribe, we give extracts 

 from it. 



"My difficulty with the opinion (of the court) stated in a general 

 way, is this: It so limits and circumscribes the powers of the State 

 with regard to the afiforestation and reforestation that it leaves little 

 more than a shell behind. . . . 



"There are three general propositions which I think should be 

 stated in this case clearly and fully; wit;hout hedging them about with 

 limitations, qualifications, and provisos which render them practically 

 useless, and those propositions are as follows: 



"First, the acquisition, preservation, and scientific" care of forests 

 and forest areas by the State, as well as the sale of timber therefrom 

 for gain in accordance with the well understood canons of forest cul- 

 ture, is preeminently a public purpose. It would be a mere affectation 

 of learning to dwell upon the value to a state of great forest areas. 

 That has been established long since and is not open to question. The 

 lamentable results which have followed the cutting of forests over 

 large areas, the serious effects of such cuttings upon climate, rainfall, 

 preservation of the soil from erosion, regularity of river flow, and 

 other highly important things which go to make the welfare of the 

 State, are matters of history. 



"Second, before a public purpose of the first rank in importance, 

 there can be no question of the power of the State to levy taxes for 

 the accomplishment of the purpose. The power of taxation exists for 



