FOREST RESERVES IN IDAHO. 25 



reason for the creation of any of the reserves referred to in it; shows 

 no necessity for the present use of the timber; no probability of the 

 necessity for future use; no availability for the present use if such 

 existed, because not in proximity to any present or prospective use 

 or transportation to any market; shows nothing as to conditions of 

 timber respecting its variety or maturity. 



-The inquiry arises, Why shut up vast sections of a new State 

 against individual selection for permanent use under existing laws 

 in the absence of a showing — 



(1) That the lands belong to the Government. 



(2) That they are valuable and necessary timber lands. 



(3) That there is a present or prospective need for this timber. 



(4) That it is available to market, including means of transporta- 

 tion. 



The mineral value of lands in a mineral country is an undetermined 

 quantity, but is always measured b}^ the possible estimate in the light 

 of experience. All mineral countries have been condemned by men 

 inexperienced m such matters. The impressions of a theorist or one 

 unacquainted by long and actual experience Avith the changing con- 

 ditions representing mining sections are of no value. 



Mr. Pinchot, in his report on my letter, makes a lot of dogmatic 

 assertions as to the conclitions in Idaho within and without forest 

 reservations. He seems to have been anxious to confound me upon 

 the statements which I have made from my own personal observa- 

 tions and knowledge. He selects a lot of trifling incidents and local- 

 isms that tell nothing in the determination of the great question as to 

 whether or not the Government, after creating the State of Idaho, 

 shall minimize its resources at the instance of nonresident theorists. 



It Avould be interesting to knoAv, after many j^ears of experience 

 under forest-reserve laws, how much timber the Government has sold 

 from such reserves, and how^ much it has received for it, and what 

 the expenses have been connected with the reservations, and whether 

 the forest conditions have improved under the policy. 



I repeat that I am in favor of creating forest reserves at the head, 

 and only at the head, of streams flowing into arid regions for the 

 purpose of benefiting, if it does benefit, the w^ater supply incident to 

 the irrigation and reclamation of arid lands. For about the first 

 ten years of the application of this law to Idaho, no forest reserve 

 was created at the head of any stream flowing into the arid regions 

 of the State. Such reserves as were created were on the north Avater- 

 sheds of streams flowing into the humid regions of the State. The 

 statements of Mr. Mofitt and Mr. Miller referred to are misapplied. 

 Neither of those men are in faA^or of the creation of the Coeur d'Alene 

 Reserve. Fragments of the letters have been used, which letters w^ere 

 written under an entire misapprehension of the proposed extent of 

 the reservation or of the rules goA^erning the same. 



Congress has the disposal and control of the public lands of the 

 United States. It delegates it only by statute. It has not delegated 

 the poAver to any department of the GoA-ernment to create forest 

 reserA^es, except for the limited purposes named in the statute, and it 

 expressly excepts lands not A^aluable for agricultural purposes from 

 the grant of poAver to create forest reserves. 



