EDITORIAL 



OPPOSITION TO TRANSFER OF NATIONAL FORESTS 



A STEu-VDY barrage of resolutions opposing the pro- 

 ^*- posed transfer of the National Forests in the 

 United States and in Alaska from the Department of 

 Agriculture to the Department of the Interior has had its 

 effect in preventing any further advance of this measure 

 in Congress. Senators and Representatives from all 

 sections of the country have received these resolutions 

 from civic and other organizations as well as protests 

 from individuals. Both resolutions and protests have 

 been vigorous and of the character which compel atten- 

 tion. Apparently those who support the measure have 

 been surprised by the rapidly spreading and wide-spread 

 opposition to it, while those who oppose it have been 

 cheered, not only by the protests, but also by the state- 

 ment of President Harding in his speech before the 

 National Agricultural Congress in which he emphasized 

 the close relationship between forestry and agriculture. 

 This relationship is one of the best arguments in favor 

 of allowing the National Forests to remain under the 

 jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. 



The forcefulness of the resolutions is noticeable. The 

 Pennsylvania State Forest Commission declares the pro- 

 posed transfer to be "unnecessary, unjustified and dan- 

 gerous to the cause of forestry in Pennsylvania and the 

 nation," and adds that "it would ruin the Forest Service." 

 The Penobscot (Me.) Forestry Club says "it would be 

 contrary to the public interests." The Asheville (N. C.) 

 Chamber of Commerce declares that as the forest is a 

 product of the soil "the extraordinary progress made 

 in the protection of our forests would be immensely 

 retarded and the whole forestry program set backward, 

 we believe, by changing the administration of forestry 

 affairs from the Agricultural Department to the Depart- 

 ment of the Interior." The California State Board of 

 Forestry, speaking for the forestry interests of that state, 

 "records its emphatic disapproval of such transfer," while 



the Pueblo, Colorado, Commerce Club sends out the reso- 

 lutions of the San Isabel Public Recreation Association, 

 in which it concurs and which declared that "this organi- 

 zation vigorously protests against any change and ear- 

 nestly requests our representatives in Congress to oppose 

 any transfer of the National Forests." The Rye Recre- 

 ation and Progressive Association, of Rye, Colorado, 

 states "our relations with the Forest Service proves to us 

 that their methods of administering the forests are to the 

 best interests of all concerned" and voices its protest 

 also. The Maine Forestry Association "feels that the 

 proposed transfer would be a severe blow to the present 

 high efficiency of the Forest Service and would inevitably 

 result in a loss of ground previously gained in the 

 struggle for intelligent forest conservation" and opposes 

 the transfer; and the North Carolina Forestry Associa- 

 tion declares "we strongly condemn the movement to 

 transfer some or all of the activities of the Forest Service 

 from the United States Department of Agriculture, where 

 it has been most efficiently administered during the past 

 fifteen years, to the Department of the Interior." 



The California Forest Protective Association, com- 

 posed of timberland owners, voices its protest in no un- 

 certain words by saying "such transfer would not be 

 effective as to economy or unity of organization, and 

 would very probably result in destructive changes in 

 the work of the Forest Service and the administration 

 of the National Forests." 



These quoted are only a few of the expressions of 

 opinion from influential organizations, but they express 

 the character of all of the protests which have been 

 made and those which are to be made protests which 

 Congress cannot possibly ignore and which will un- 

 doubtedly make a decided impression upon the represen- 

 tatives of the people. 



OPERATION OF THE WEEKS LAW THREATENED 



P UBLIC interests are seriously threatened by failure 

 * of the Bureau of the Budget to make adequate 

 provision for the operation of the Weeks Law after 

 June 30 of this year. Since 191 1 the Government has 

 been gradually acquiring land under this law because 

 Congress has recognized the importance of the work and 

 has made available the moderate appropriations necessary 

 to carry out the original plan. This plan contemplates 

 the ultimate acquirement of five million acres of forest 

 lands on the watersheds of important eastern rivers. 

 There has not been a single break in the continuity of the 

 work. During the present fiscal year, which ends June 

 30, 1922, the appropriation was $1,000,000. 



Now comes the Bureau of the Budget with its appro- 



priation estimates for the Department of Agriculture 

 for the next fiscal year, and it reduces the item for the 

 acquisition of land under the Weeks Act to a paltry 

 $50,000. If the item stands, it means practically the com- 

 plete suspension or postponement of forest land pur- 

 chases in the East, and this just at a time when the 

 Government can buy land most advantageously. It is 

 presumed that the Bureau of the Budget justifies its 

 action on the ground of enforced economy. American 

 Forestry recognizes the desirability of upholding the 

 budget system and it endorses governmental economy 

 when it is shown to be real economy and not at the ex- 

 pense of public interests or federal responsibility. In this 

 instance it believes the Bureau of the Budget proposes 



