102 FOREST LANDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF WATERSHEDS. 



will be an immense gain ; and the same will be true if the low-water stages cau 

 be increased by two or three feet. Whether the much greater results expected 

 by Mr. Leighton can ever be realized is a question which the future alone can 

 determine. 



A word, finally, concerning the legal obstacles in the way of a broad Govern- 

 ment policy looking to the development of national forests and the storage of 

 water on an extensive scale. The expansion of Government work into fields of 

 obvious utility is often blocked by the structure of our Government through 

 the bar of constitutional prohibition or at least lack of power. It is said that 

 the purchase of lands for the rearing of forests for timber alone is unconstitu- 

 tional, and that the same is true of the storage of water for any other purpose 

 than navigation ; and yet, forests for timber and reservoirs for power must 

 always remain the real justification for public expenditure along these lines. 

 To the average understanding the distinction between things constitutional and 

 things unconstitutional is often hard to discern. The Government is now 

 expending millions in storing water and conducting it upon land whereby the 

 products of the soil may be obtained. It is applying this water to both public 

 and private land, or to lands that were in private ownership when the projects 

 began. Is there any real difference between providing the power to raise sugar 

 beets, for instance, and that for manufacturing them into form for human con- 

 sumption and transporting them to the consumer? Are not the last-mentioned 

 purposes quite as necessary as the first? And again, is there any distinction 

 in principle between improving a river so that boats can navigate it and improv- 

 ing it so that it may provide power that will transport produce by laud as well 

 as by water? 



Again, the Government has accepted gifts of land like the Yosemite Valley 

 and the Muir Redwood Grove, to be given over to the enjoyment of the people 

 and involving perpetual expenditures for maintenance in the future. It has 

 traded lauds of its own for lands with which it has parted ownership. It 

 reserves vast areas to-day which might be private lands to-morrow. What is 

 the distinction of principle between doing all these things and buying outright 

 lands that are needed for the same or similar purposes? They are distinctions 

 without real differences. They concern the letter and not the spirit, and they 

 can not stand whenever the interests of the public really demand their 

 abrogation. 



Still, it is probably a fact that federal 1 authority to buy lands for forest 

 culture alone and to create reservoirs for industrial use exclusively, would be 

 considered by the courts as transcending the power of Congress under the 

 Constitution, and it is this fact that forces those who believe in having the 

 Government do these things to strain the truth by attempting to prove that 

 they are necessary for navigation and for the prevention of floods. It enforces 

 a policy of indirection instead of permitting these things to be done squarely 

 for their real purpose and as a matter of right. In his address before the 

 Judiciary Committee, in its hearing on the Appalachian bill, Mr. Pinchot 

 stated that that proposition must stand or fall upon the theory that the forests 

 regulate stream flow, and are therefore useful to navigation. Did he not refer 

 to the particular point here under consideration that on any other theory the 

 measure would be unconstitutional? Surely he did not mean that the cause of 

 forestry itself must stand or fall upon any such issue. 



Does not this situation suggest the necessity for an important initial step 

 tvhich shall sweep away these artificial barriers and let these great questions 

 stand or fall on their intrinsic merit? If the upbuilding of new forests, if the 

 storing of our flood waters, are necessary measures for the welfare of the 

 nation, the way should be cleared for their accomplishment. There may be 

 differences of opinion about amending the Constitution in the interest of uni- 

 form divorce laws, popular election of Senators and the like, bur. if we may 

 judge from the universal agreement upon the particular subjects here consid- 

 ered, every State in the Union would ratify an amendment giving to Congress 

 the power to legislate for the conservation and development of the natural 

 resources of the country. 



The author should possibly state, in justice to the otncinl body of engineers 

 to which he belongs, that the arguments presented in the foregoing paper are 

 his individual opinions only. He is not acquainted with the views of tiny other 

 officer upon the subjects treated, except as he has seen them expressed in 

 official reports or in the public press. 



a It has even been hinted by high judicial authority that the reclamation act 

 itself would not stand the test of constitutionality, if brought into court. 



