170 AMERICAN FORESTRY 



that any such instrument, to be permanent, must provide for national growth 

 and changing conditions. Nothing is more instructive in our history than the 

 prophetic vision with which Washington, Jefiferson, Marshall and others of 

 our elder statesmen, looked forward through the years to the development of 

 the nation they were founding. They would never have circumscribed that 

 development by any provision which could have prevented the guarding of the 

 people's welfare against any unfavorable conditions that might arise. 



The nation that can purchase lands for national parks, as has been done 

 several times, can purchase lands for national forests to maintain a permanent 

 timber supply, protect our waterpowers and preserve the public health, 

 whether such forests affect the navigability of navigable rivers or not. It was 

 decided by the Supreme Court in the Gettysburg case that the national govern- 

 ment could purchase land for the inculcation of patriotism. This was a broad 

 interpretation, but one which need not cause terror in the heart of any citizen 

 of the United States or admirer of the Constitution. It is distinctly in the 

 line of the maintenance of national dignity and good citizenship. 



Not to go back to old purchases of land in the early history of the country 

 which have already been cited, to provide timber for the Navy, there are on 

 record the following purchases of land within recent years which certainly do 

 not come under the interstate commerce clause in any sense : Sully's Hill Na- 

 tional Park, North Dakota, was purchased from the Devil's Lake Indians by 

 virtue of an act dated April 27, 1904. Piatt National Park was purchased 

 from the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians by authority of acts dated July 1, 

 1902, and April 21, 1904. The National Bison Range on the Flathead Indian 

 Reservation was authorized by act dated May 23, 1908. By this act $30,000 

 was appropriated to enable the Secretary of the Interior to pay the confeder- 

 ated tribes for the land according to an act dated April 23, 1904. The same 

 act provided ten thousand dollars for fencing the range and putting up build- 

 ings. An act dated March 4, 1909, provided |47,000 for the maintenance of 

 the Montana Bison Range. 



If the government can do these things with its money, it is idle to claim 

 that it cannot spend it equally for lands in any of the states of the Union for 

 the important economic purposes connected with forestry as understood in 

 these modern times. The fact is, we strain at gnats and swallow camels in 

 appropriation of money for national purposes, and whenever it suits legis- 

 lators to oppose a measure which is otherwise meritorious, the cry of uncon- 

 stitutionality is almost always resorted to. Notwithstanding all the agitation, 

 argument, and education of recent years, we have much to learn as a people 

 in regard to the economic importance and necessity of scientific forestry. This 

 lesson is being rapidly learned, however, and when it is fully understood the 

 resulting enlightenment will lead to a development of our forest policy which 

 will not endanger the Constitution, but will give greater permanence to the 

 nation, strengthen the United States treasury, and infinitely add to our re- 

 sources as a people in the years to come. 



PROFESSOR GLENN'S REPORT 



THE comprehensive report of Professor L. C. Glenn on denudation and 

 erosion in the Southern Appalachian region and Monongahela basin, 

 which is briefly reviewed this month, comes most appropriately at this 

 time when the long sought law making possible national action to preserve 

 the forests of this region has been enacted. The report is a mine of informa- 

 tion which will now be of the greatest service. Professor Glenn's first-hand 

 knowledge on the subjects treated in the report has not been equaled by any 



