A STRIKING INFRINGEMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS 5 



by the laws concerning the denudation of privately owned forest lands. 

 Here again the minute restrictions of the old kings were swept aside by 

 the great outburst of democracy and individualism in 'the Revolution. 

 For a considerable period following 1791 private owners were freed from 

 all control and many forests were destroyed. This was in part a neces- 

 sary process of converting forests into wheat fields, but apparently went 

 too far and contributed to the acute shortage of forest products which 

 France experienced near the middle of the Nineteenth Century. In time 

 the wave of revolutionary freedom was checked by a reawakening of the 

 conservative instincts of the French toward their natural resources. The Q 

 law against the devastation of forest land, which was enacted substan- 

 tially in its present form in 1859, has often been called a striking anomaly 

 in the jurisprudence of modern France. It restricts the rights of private 

 ownership in one class of property alone forest land which is 

 singled out for special interference and control by the State. 



The French Government does not dictate how the private forest owner 

 shall cut his timber but, with the exception of small, isolated tracts or 

 enclosed areas adjoining dwellings, holds him responsible for not destroy- 

 ing his forest or converting the land to other uses without prior warrant 

 from the State. Violations of the law are judged solely by the fact that 

 forest land has actually been devastated. Whether this resulted from 

 the methods of cutting, from fire, from over-grazing, or from deliberate 

 clearing for agriculture is immaterial. So is the intent or good faith of 

 the owner. If " defrichement " has actually resulted, without permission 

 in advance, the owner of the land is liable to a fine of as much as $115 per 

 acre. He may also be ordered to reforest the denuded land within a 

 prescribed period. 



These penalties may be avoided by obtaining the consent of the State 

 to the destruction of a forest in advance. This requires a declaration of 

 intent by the owner of the forest eight months in advance, investigations and 

 reviews by various forest and other administrative officials, and a final 

 decision by the Minister of Agriculture. The request of an owner to de- 

 stroy his forest can be denied on the ground that its preservation is 

 essential to protect water sources, to protect mountain slopes from 

 erosion, to prevent the movement of sand dunes, or to safeguard the public 

 health or the national defense. Many attempts have been made to 

 amend the law so that the destruction of a private forest may be forbidden 

 on the ground that it is needed by the immediate community or by the 

 country at large for growing timber. None of them has yet overcome 

 the resistance to this further invasion of the rights and liberties of the 

 property owner. 



A Striking Infringement of Property Rights. The control of private 

 forests and forest devastation thus stands as an interesting compromise 



