EDITORIAL 



113 





National Forests but what contains many such areas. 

 Sce>iery, and tliat of a strikingly unusual type, is the dis- 

 tinctive note, for which we expect to pay the price of complete 

 protection from commercialism. If, by the creation of 

 numerous more or less mediocre National Park areas, we 

 destroy this distinction, and at the same time, throw a 

 sop to local economic needs by breaking down the barriers 

 to grazing, timber cutting and power development, our 

 National Parks will cease to differ in any important respect 

 from the National Forests out of which practically all of 

 them must be created. 



With this obliteration of ideals long held and closely 

 cherished, the need for a separate administration of park 

 areas from forest areas will lose its force, and become a 

 drawback and embarrassment instead of an advantage. 

 There would be no valid reason for permitting the Interior 

 Department, by the mere declaration in Congress of the 

 creation of a park out of a National Forest, to take over the 

 administration of the area, if its management permits 

 and requires an exact duplication of all the commercial 

 uses and policies now being supplied by the Department 

 of Agriculture. The common sense of the public will fail 

 to see the advantage of such duplication of administration. 



The evils to which we are endeavoring to call the at- 

 tention of Congress, are embodied in such bills as S. 3486, 

 for the Olympic National Park; S. 3982, to establish a 



National Park including Mount Baker; H.R. 16239, for a 

 National Park to be taken from the Angeles National 

 Forest in Southern California. S. 3036, for a Cabinet 

 National Park near Glacier Park, Montana, and certain 

 others, including S. 5913, to greatly enlarge the Sequoia 

 National Park at the expense of the surrounding National 

 Forest areas. 



The friends of our parks, and of our National Forests, 

 and the advocates of their continued separate adminis- 

 tration, should be vigilant to prevent such hybridization 

 and cheapening of the National Park system, that we may 

 hold fast to a unique national luxury nay, a necessity 

 which no others can afford and which lends to the West 

 its most distinctive charm for the traveler who desires to 

 see the wonders of his own country. 



In conclusion, we wish to again call attention to the 

 failure of Congress to pass the bill, H.R. 20447, urged by 

 both Agricultural and Interior Departments, for the 

 creation of a National Park of the Grand Canyon of 

 Arizona, and respectfully suggest that there exists no 

 valid excuse for such neglect. The Grand Canyon needs 

 no defenders. How does it happen that it has no champions 

 in Congress ? The public will expect from its representa- 

 tives a wise, consistent and far-sighted policy in the 

 creation of additional National Parks. Let us begin with 

 the Grand Canyon of Arizona. 



DOES STATE FORESTRY NEED "REORGANIZATION?" 



WITH the increasing responsibilities of modern con- 

 ditions, and a higher standard of public service, 

 old forms of state executive machinery are being 

 weighed in the balance, and found wanting. Steadily 

 mounting state expenditures have stirred our legislatures 

 and executives to inquire into the efficiency and economy 

 of the present conduct of public business, not for the 

 purpose of summary retrenchment by the crippling of 

 useful departments, but in order to eliminate actual 

 waste and get the highest possible returns in service for 

 each dollar expended. 



Waste in public administration has been so common 

 that many are tempted to cynically accept the condition as 

 inevitable. Such an attitude is unworthy of a strong 

 nation. When we have grasped the principles upon which 

 efficiency is based, we shall apply them without fear or 

 favor. In determining these principles we are not without 

 guidance. The secret of efficiency is the capable executive ; 

 the man of trained mind, initiative, resourcefulness and 

 integrity. Such men must be secured and retained by any 

 business, public or private. Mediocrity and inefficiency 

 in men who occupy responsible positions is the direct 

 cause of failure, graft, special privilege, and all the famil- 

 iar evils which have disgraced our public affairs. 



But these evils are equally possible in private enter- 

 prise and have wrecked many business structures. In 

 private business such losses mean destruction, and the 

 additional pressure for results has secured far greater 

 efficiency. The form of organization which has grown 



from these needs has special significance to the seeker 

 after first principles. 



Large private corporations which have grown beyond 

 the ability of a single man and, in this, resemble state 

 organizations, invariably rule their affairs through a 

 board of directors. Their functions are clearly defined. 

 They determine the general policy of the institution, 

 select the executive, and hold him responsible for results. 

 The board scrupulously refrains from meddlesome inter- 

 ference with the details of management, while the executive 

 is equally careful not to usurp the prerogatives of the 

 board or assume responsibility for innovations in policy 

 requiring their sanction. Nor do private corporations 

 make the mistake of combining two or more dissimilar 

 lines of work under a single manager, well knowing that 

 the secret of success is a clear-cut concentration on fa- 

 miliar lines. Where two such projects are controlled by 

 the same interests, a separate organization, even to the 

 board of directors, is effected for each, as a fundamental 

 requisite of success. 



Public business is still groping in the dark after these 

 facts, yet for the last decade, state forestry, as well as 

 many state educational institutions have demonstiated 

 conclusively that this same plan is as fully effective in 

 public as in private affairs. Boards without an executive 

 are foredoomed to failure and there are many such 

 state boards. But in forestry, the insistence on the 

 appointment of trained foresters has, in eighteen out of 

 twenty-seven states, provided this executive. When 



