MICHIGAN ROADS AND FORESTS 



PINCHOT-BALLINGER. 



When Mr. Pinchot was dismissed by Presi- 

 dent Taft, the Forestry Club of the University 

 of Michigan asked Professor Roth to explain 

 this -ituation. The following is what he said: 



The dispute which has led, finally, to a con- 



ional investigation, is part of a larger 



controversy, and to understand it the broader 



question, its causes and development must be 



considered. 



Briefly and categorically stated the situation 

 is this: 



1. Our national land and mineral" laws are 

 antiquated and bad. 



2. Their enforcement through the United 

 States Land Office has been inadequate, and 

 this ha- led to fraud, monopoly and loss. 



3. R. osevelt was the first president to op- 



ssfully, this great mischief. He was 

 supported in this by the people and opposed 

 by congress. 



4. Mr. Ballinger, as land commissioner, was 

 not in sympathy with Roosevelt's efforts and 

 withdrew after a single year's service as com- 



oner, in March, 1908. 



In March, 1909, President Taft removed 

 Roosevelt's secretary, Garfield, and put Bal- 

 linger in his cabinet, and with this increased 

 power in land matters Ballinger at once (in 

 April, 1909) made wholesale restorations to 

 of the Land Office, reported frauds in Alaska 

 for the good of the people. 



6. May 15. Pinchot protested against these 

 actions of Ballinger and thus the open dispute 

 began. 



7. S on after this L. R. Glavis, an employe 

 of the land office, reported frauds in Alaska 

 coal claims and accused Ballinger of having 

 improper connection with these claims. 



8. In September President Taft publicly 

 exonerated Ballinger and ordered the dismis- 

 sal of Glavis. 



9. The people and the press, not being satis- 

 fied with this whitewash. Congress decided in 

 December to investigate these Alaska coal 

 land affairs and Ballinger's connection with 

 these claims. 



10. Resolutions for this investigation were 

 introduced in the senate and the house by 

 Senator Jones and Representative Humphrey 

 of the State of Washington, and both took this 

 opportunity to declare the innocence of Bal- 

 linger, an act both injudicial and unfair. 



11. January 6, President Taft made public 

 a letter of Attorney General Wickersham, the 

 head of the judiciary department of our Re- 

 public, in which again Mr. Ballinger is declared 

 innocent and Mr. Glavis is condemned. That 

 this is an outrage on common sense and con- 

 trary to all judiciary principles, that the ac- 

 cused should be proclaimed innocent before- 

 hand and the accuser thus practically be placed 

 on trial himself, seems to require no comment. 



12. The same day Mr. Pinchot in a letter 

 to Senate r Dolliver of Iowa stated his faith in 

 Glavis and denied the correctness of the find- 



of Wickersham. 



13. Next day President Taft ordered the 

 dismissal of Mr. Pinchot, Mr. Price and Mr. 

 Shaw. Mr. Pinchot, a man who has won the 

 heart and confidence of Roosevelt and the 

 people by doing a giant's task without thought 



:iv or selfish gain, a man who is not even 

 accused of any wrong, is dismissed without a 



hearing, while an obscure, selfish person, ac- 

 cused of violating his oath of office in lending 

 a hand in a most monstrous effort at public 

 robbery, is kept in the cabinet and is white- 

 washed on the very eve of trial. And our 

 Michigan senator, Burrows, is reported as 

 wonderfully pleased with this great stroke of 

 statesmanship. 



At the outset it was claimed that our na- 

 tional land laws are antiquated and bad. It 

 might be added that they are wrong in prin- 

 ciple. Our land and mineral and water rights 

 laws are based on the "boomer" principle of 

 getting all resources into private hands as fast 

 as possible, regardless of consequences. This 

 principle is still the "golden calf" of the West, 

 and it is still mere religiously worshipped and 

 guarded by all kinds of corporations, whose 

 enormous gains depended entirely on this 

 principle. 



Allow me to illustrate this by the notorious 

 Timber and Stone Act of 1878, passed by Con- 

 gress contrary to the pretests of Secretary 

 Schurtz. Under this act any man can take up 

 160 acres pf fine timber, really worth perhaps 

 $50 or $100 per acre, and pay $2.50 for it. 

 While the law compels him to swear several 

 very severe oaths that he takes this land up 

 for his own use and not for sale, etc., he nor- 

 mally sells it to some corporation as soon as he 

 gets title. The results prove the merits of 

 this law. The great body of the timber lands 

 do not belong to the individuals who received 

 them from the people; they belong to corpora- 

 tions who blocked them into large holdings 

 and are getting ready for a fine timber mono- 

 poly. One secretary after another protested 

 against this law, its appeal was requested, 

 modifications were suggested; but every time 

 such an effort struck the public lands com- 

 mittee of the house, the much overworked, 

 downtrodden, hardy pioneer settler was 

 promptly trotted out, and it was shown that 

 since his farm was on the prairie, he must have 

 a chance for timber, etc. The law stayed, and 

 it stays today. This law is an abomination, 

 dishonesty is in its very conception, it has 

 cost the people millions of dollars every month 

 and it is still on the books and in force. The 

 question naturally forces itself on every one: 

 Why does Congress refuse to enact a better 

 law? It was also claimed that the enforcement 

 of such law as we did have was defective, and 

 that this led to fraud and loss. 



For many years past, the local land offices, 

 like postoffices, have been political patronage 

 of congressmen. And for years the land office 

 employes, particularly the special agent ser- 

 vice, has been of the same character. The ill 

 repute of the land office and all that goes with 

 it is notorious in every public land State in 

 the Union. The results can be read out of 

 the very reports of the General Land Office 

 itself. Thus is the timber claim business it 

 was not enough that the claimants perjured 

 themselves, but some enterprising companies 

 simply hired dummy claimants at so much per 

 head, and finally some still more hustling per- 

 sons simply invented names and signatures 

 and thus saved even the dummy. Since these 

 are matters of court record and since even 

 some very prominent men like Senator Mitch- 

 ell of Oregon were convicted in matters of 

 this kind, we are not dealing with isolated 

 cases and opinions but with common facts. 

 The illegal fencing of millions of acres of 

 range lands by cattle companies and the inci- 

 dental shooting of "real" settlers, the wholesale 

 timber trespasses which have been going on 

 for years, all these illustrate that the enforce- 

 ment of even the poor laws we do have, was 

 largely a farce. And again we ask: Why did 

 Congress refuse to equip the land 

 office with an honest, sufficient force to care 

 for public property? 



At this point Professor Roth read a number 

 of passages from the Annual Report of the 

 General Land Office, then under Ethan Allen 

 Hitchcock, telling of fraud, inefective protec- 

 tion, unsatisfactory prosecution and trials, 

 illegal fencing, neglect of providing laws for 



Alaska, etc. In 1891 the forest reserve law 

 was passed, as a rider on the sundry civil bill. 

 It was the first success which the American 

 Forestry Association gained and it was the 

 first attempt to stay the unwise, wasteful dis- 

 posal of our natural wealth. Out of this effort 

 in forestry came the conservation movement 

 of today. It was an awakening of the people 

 and it has become a conscious effort just in 

 the first stages of organization. And it was 

 Pinchot more than anyone who brought this 

 matter before our people and who convinced 

 Roosevelt and enlisted his tremendous energy 

 in this movement. 



But there was no thought of hurting honest 

 men or honest business. It was merely an 

 effort at reasonable provision for the future. 

 There was and is no attempt to lock up any- 

 thing; all that is asked for is that the forests, 

 the mines, the waters and the land shall be 

 used reasonably and not merely wasted, and 

 also that the people, the real owners of every- 

 thing, shall truly share in this wealth and re- 

 tain a sayso in the manner of its use. 



To these efforts there was opposition at 

 once and that opposition never has ceased. 

 The men who have grown rich at the people's 

 expense are not satisfied with what they have, 

 they demand that they and not the people 

 shall determine the policy and the law. In 

 Congress they refuse to act, and if pressed, 

 present the hardy pioneer or prospector ex- 

 cuse. At the land office they do nothing 

 which the law does not compel them to do, 

 and even this little is ordered but generally 

 not executed. 



President Roosevelt and his men took their 

 duty more seriously and cared for the people's 

 property just as far as the law did not hinder 

 or forbid them to act. 



Ballinger excused his acts by saying that 

 there was no warrant in law. Roosevelt re- 

 served lands for the good of the people, as 

 long as the law did not forbid such reservatioa 

 These, then, are some of the causes and part 

 of the development of the great controversy 

 of which the present dispute is a part. 



But what of the trial? From all appear- 

 ances it will drift into an effort to show that 

 technically Ballinger was "within the law." 

 Whether he was so morally and honestly is 

 quite another matter. 



What will be the result of the investigation 

 on Mr. Pinchot and on forestry? 



It has already made Mr. Pinchot stand out 

 more clearly than ever as the greatest leader 

 for all that is good, real and lasting in govern- 

 ment and it has already doubled his power for 

 good. 



In forestry and conservation on the whole 

 it has fairly electrified the whole nation. In 

 1891 not three men in Congress cared a rap 

 about any progressive policy with regard to 

 the national wealth. Today the Congress 

 stands divided, there is actual and earnest ef- 

 fort. But what is far more important, this 

 sudden turn in the controversy has aroused 

 the people. Xot a paper, not a magazine that 

 does not take sides, ad the real leaders of 

 public opinion almost to a man stand by Pin- 

 chot and for conservation. 



And here rests the final verdict. It will take 

 several years for the people to say their word, 

 but this word will be spoken clearly and force- 

 fully and without any mixture of "legal tech- 

 nicality whitewash." 



FIRE PROTECTION. 



The Province of Quebec, through its effi- 

 cient superintendent, Hon. W. C. J. Hall, has 

 just issued in attractive and convenient form 

 a clots-bound circular, well illustrated, giving 

 directions concerning forest fires, their pre- 

 vention and control. The little booklet starts 

 out by saying: "The forests of Canada are 

 an absolute necessity to its inhabitants." An 

 interesting fact is apparent from this booklet, 

 that is that a paid patrol under proper direc- 

 tion is indispensible to any effective fire ser- 

 vice. 



