COMMENT 



The past winter has been one of trial and tribulation, of testing and 

 proving of forest policies in several States, and the end is not yet. 



The most endangered situation exists perhaps in Wisconsin, whose 

 forest policy has appeared to be most safely and sanely established and 

 efficiently administered for ten years through a non-partisan Forestry 

 Board and a State Forester appointed by the Board. Although a legisla- 

 tive committee after most painstaking investigation had approved the 

 work of the Board and of the State Forester, the legislature proposes to 

 destroy this wise organization and substitute a Commission of three ap- 

 pointees by the Governor. This is done avowedly for the sake of economy 

 the new Commission to consolidate four Boards, namely, the Fish and 

 Game Commission, the State Board of Forestry, the State Park Board, 

 and the Conservation Commission. 



While, undoubtedly, the work of these various commissions could be 

 supervised by one commission, it is doubtful whether it could be done 

 more cheaply and efficiently. In our opinion, this tinkering, surely is not 

 a move for efficiency. Mr. Griffith, for ten years State Forester, it 

 seems has resigned or proposes to resign his position. It has been amply 

 demonstrated by now that the organization as constituted in the Wisconsin 

 plan is by all means the safest under our political conditions. Still worse 

 befell the State by the decision of the State Supreme Court to the effect 

 that the forest reserves established by the State, in part by purchase, 

 in part by gifts, cannot, under the Constitution, be maintained, since the 

 State, cannot spend money on internal improvements, hence cannot re- 

 forest, and may not incur altogether an indebtedness of over $100,000. 

 Under a constitutional amendment, some $200,000 worth of land was 

 purchased for forestry purposes, but this is now declared unconstitu- 

 tional. The lands must be added to the School Trust Fund and "can con- 

 tinue to be managed as forest reserve lands, but the primary object of 

 such purchases must not be for forestry!" Altogether the opinion of the 

 Supreme Court is expressed in language so involved and contradictory 

 that it would take two Pennsylvania lawyers to construe it. We believe, 

 however, we have got the general sense out of it. 



One wise judge. Chief Justice Winslow, dissents and brings forward 

 strong arguments, declaring reforestation not a work of "internal im- 

 provement" but a "public work" and hence an essential function of the 

 Government, also contending that the sovereign State has the power to 



297 



