840 



A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 



they are being built up, are in large measure taken care of in the 

 western country by the national-forest system. It is true that in the 

 West land use problems of large proportions are beginning to appear 

 in several States, as the timberlands in private ownership are con- 

 verted into cut-over lands which the owners may no longer wish to 

 retain. Even in meeting this problem, however, the Western States 

 are appreciably aided by the possibility in many instances of adding 

 these cut-over lands to the national forests. 



What has been done by the Western States hitherto toward building 

 up State forests has been due primarily not to a felt need for State 

 ownership leading to a policy of acquisition, but to the Federal land 

 grants. In most States the policy, practically from the time that the 

 State governments were set up, has been to dispose of the granted 

 lands as fast as there was a sufficient demand for them to permit 

 them to be sold off. In a majority of cases the States have disposed 

 of most of their granted forest lands. It should be remembered that 

 the grants of public domain lands were made for specific purposes and 

 that the States, in receiving them, were in the position of trustees. 

 School and institutional grants, for example, were in the nature of 

 endowments. As administrators of trusts the States were bound to 

 consider first of all the best interests of the beneficiaries of the trust. 

 The State educational institutions and public school systems were 

 the leading beneficiaries, and by the sale of the lands and investment 

 of the proceeds dependable sources of revenue for these institutions 

 were created. To hold the lands and put them under administration 

 for the sake of general public benefits which might thus be realized, 

 or to engage in enterprises of forest management of uncertain financial 

 outcome, would not have been in accord with the obligations of trus- 

 teeship for specific beneficiaries. 



Several of the States, however, introduced into their constitutions 

 safeguards against the disposal of granted lands by the State land 

 authorities at too low prices. The effect of these restrictions has been 

 to keep relatively large areas in the hands of the States having the 

 limitations, for lack of purchasers willing to pay the necessary price. 

 Idaho and Washington are examples. North Dakota, New Mexico, 

 and Arizona are similarly restricted under the terms of their respective 

 enabling acts. 



Where States had rights under their land grants to school sections 

 scattered through the national forests, or right of selection based on 

 the school sections, the Federal Government has if possible negotiated 

 exchanges with a view to enabling the States to obtain lands of equal 

 value outside the forests. Under the exchange agreements, the States 

 have been given an opportunity to obtain in lieu of their school lands 

 solid blocks of land eliminated from the forests to permit the States 

 to file on them. In this way the following States have received lands 

 suitable for administration by them as State forests or parks, in the 

 amounts shown : 



State : Acres 



California 8, 973 



Idaho : 282,997 



Montana 106, 607 



Nebraska 8, 959 



Acres 



State Contin ued 



Oregon 68,666 



South Dakota 60, 150 



Washington 405,942 



