Current Literature. 51 



so as to increase the industries of the state, develop its resources 

 and add to its wealth and prosperity." Any law was constitu- 

 tional which accomplished these results, if not contrary to the 

 rights of property. The question of taking property without com- 

 pensation was then discussed at length and the conclusions were, 

 "Private property can only be said to have been taken for public 

 uses when it has been so appropriated that the public have certain 

 and well defined rights to that use secured, as the right to use a 

 public highway, ferry, railroad and the like." This is recognized 

 as a strict construction, but justified with respect to land by these 

 significant words: first, "such property is not the result of pro- 

 ductive labor but is derived solely from the state itself, the ori- 

 ginal owner; second, the amount of land being incapable of in- 

 crease, if the owners of large tracts can waste them at will with- 

 out state restriction, the state and its people may be helplessly im- 

 poverished and one great purpose of government defeated." 

 Again, "while it might restrict the owner of wild and uncultivated 

 lands in his use of them, might delay his taking some of the 

 product, might delay his anticipated profits, it would neverthe- 

 less leave him his lands, their product and increase untouched 

 and without diminution of title, estate or quantity. He might 

 suffer delay but not deprivation. While the use might be re- 

 stricted it would not be appropriated or taken." Based on this 

 reasoning the court decided the proposed legislation constitu- 

 tional and not taking of private property for which compensa- 

 tion must be made. 



While the general principles supported by this decision are 

 sound and progressive, foresters generally must admit that any 

 law prescribing a rigid diameter limit of cutting is false in prin- 

 ciple and would be sure to work injury to the owners of timber 

 property, besides being a handicap in the proper management of 

 a forest to secure new crops of timber. Many species can be 

 reproduced successfully only by practically clear cutting. In 

 such stands trees below the size limit would frequently be of 

 stunted growth and should come out. In thinning a young stand, 

 it is always the smaller trees that must be removed for the good 

 of the stand, yet such a law would prevent thinning, and reduce 

 the profits on plantations to a serious degree. 



There are but two arguments to justify interference with private 

 management of woods ; First, the preservation of the productive 



