Comment 181 



various phases of the present Constitution and finally evolved a 

 Constitution which embodied, almost without exception, the re- 

 quirements of the platforms of both the old parties and a Con- 

 stitution which, according to former Senator Root, Hon. Henry 

 L. Stimson, Hon. Louis Marshall and many other well known 

 lawyers, was the strongest document ever produced by a State 

 Constitutional Convention in this country. It would be impossi- 

 ble to give in a few words the many conditions and incidents 

 which brought about the rejection of the Constitution by the 

 people of the State in the election of November, 1915. The 

 form of the articles dealing with conservation had compara- 

 tively little to do with the rejection of the Constitution. It was 

 rather the result of cumulative antagonism aroused largely by 

 misunderstandings. A bitter attack was made on the Conserva- 

 tion Articles and a propaganda interestingly financed was car- 

 ried on throughout the State against these Articles. However, 

 this was but an incident and alone would not have defeated the 

 Constitution. The comment by Dr. Fernow would seem to give 

 the impression to the outsider that the form of the Conservation 

 Articles was largely responsible for the failure of the Con- 

 stitution. 



Foresters from the Conservation Commission, from the De- 

 partment of Forestry in the State College of Agriculture at 

 Ithaca and from the State College of Forestry at Syracuse ap- 

 peared before the Conservation Committee of the Constitutional 

 Convention repeatedly, and many others representing all inter- 

 ested in forests and forestry in New York appeared before the 

 Committee. While the report of the Committee was not all that 

 foresters of the State would like to have had it, yet it seemed to 

 some to be an advance over the present Conservation Article 

 and it seemed wisdom to accept a half loaf which meant some 

 progress rather than no loaf at all and remain under the unusual 

 provisions incorporated in the present Constitution in 1893. 

 However, the people of the State refused the Constitution, and 

 all of us in the State who are interested are going ahead with 

 an educational campaign with a hope that eventually the people 

 will see the wisdom of using the forests and the forest lands of 

 the State in the right way. 



Dr. Fernow comments adversely upon the provision in the 

 1915 Constitution that the Conservation Commission should be 



