1042 A NATIONAL PLAN FOR AMERICAN FORESTRY 



a large-scale program of acquisition, it would probably take a very 

 long time to get all of the forest that should be acquired. Meanwhile, 

 if there are no restrictions on the utilization and management of the 

 forests, present practices may be continued, with irreparable injury to 

 the forests themselves, to their owners, and to the public. Whether 

 or not the eventual solution is to be public ownership of virtually the 

 entire forest area, some means should be found to protect the public 

 interest as long as the forests remain in private ownership. Much can 

 be accomplished through public assistance to and cooperation with 

 private owners. There is nothing in the experience of this or any 

 other country, however, to give grounds for confidence that voluntary 

 cooperation will sufficiently safeguard the forests. 



From the standpoint of public policy, there can be no valid objec- 

 tion, in principle, to such degree of public control over private property 

 as may be necessary to prevent injury to other individuals or to the 



Eublic in general. This principle is thoroughly established in the 

 iws of every State. That it applies to forest property as well as 

 to every other kind of property is admitted by spokesmen of the 

 forest owners, even though they may question the advisability of 

 regulation which goes beyond this. To quote two of them: 



The States * * * can and should make drastic regulations to prevent 

 forest fires. * * ^ * Every owner of forest land (should) be required to conduct 

 operations thereon in such a manner as to avoid creating a fire menace to adjacent 

 property. 51 



Like every other owner of property, the owner of forest land is bound in law 

 so to use his property as to do no harm to the property of another, and to do no 

 public injury. This obligation is universal, is everywhere recognized, and should 

 be enforced. 52 



The application of this principle to forest property has been clearly 

 upheld by the Supreme Court of Maine. That court ruled that the 

 State may regulate cutting or destruction of trees growing upon 

 privately owned land, for the purpose of promoting "the common 

 welfare by preventing or diminishing injurious droughts and freshets, 

 and by protecting, preserving, and maintaining the natural water 

 supply of the springs, streams, ponds and lakes and of the lands, and 

 by preventing or diminishing injurious erosion of the land and the 

 filling up of the rivers, ponds and lakes." One of the principal 

 reasons which the court gave for reaching its decision is stated 

 as follows: 



The amount of land being incapable of increase, if the owners of large tracts 

 can waste them at will without State restriction, the State and its people may be 

 helplessly impoverished and one great purpose of government defeated. 53 



PREVENTION OF DIRECT INJURY TO OTHERS 



That mandatory or compulsory control is logical public policy is 

 shown by the fact that it is already provided for, in varying degree, 

 by the laws of several States with respect to those practices which 

 threaten direct injury to other persons or the general welfare. These 

 practices include : 



(1) Practices which increase the danger from fire, such as (a) care- 

 lessness with fire in connection with timber-cutting operations or 



R. S. Kellogg, in Journal of Forestry 19 : 641-646. (October 1921.) 



M Wilson Compton, in Journal of Forestry 18 : 258. (March 1920.) 



*3 See Seventh Report of the Forest Commissioner of the State of Maine. 1908. pp. 30-35. 



