180 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



all brought under the same system, and that they should 

 be controlled throujjh the State authority. 



"If we use the basis of this bill and substitute for 

 this pencral, rather vajrue language in the first two sec- 

 tions, a really mandatory j)rovision, the State which 

 failed to enforce the regulations on private individuals 

 would also fail to receive the cooperation of the Govern- 

 ment. 



"I would not at all minimize the fact that in the timber 

 exporting States sentiment in favor of really getting 

 down to the practical practice of forestry on private lands 

 and the im|)osing of regulations through State authorities 

 on private owners is exceedingly small. I am candid 

 to confess that during the past year I have been greatly 

 disappointed in the reading of the accounts of those who 

 have been promoting this measure ; that that feature of 

 the plan looking to real effective legislation on the part 

 of the States has been not emphasized, or so glossed over 

 as to give the impression that this measure is not one 

 which looks to requirements by a State on the part of 

 owners to do what I believe to be essential, to perpetuate 

 their forests, but that it is rather a measure looking to 

 public cooperation, education and encouragement." 



In answer to a direct question, Mr. Graves said : 



"I am opjjosed to the Snell bill as it reads today. I 

 would like to read a tentative draft of what I would con- 

 sider as an effective bill under this general plan. Sub- 

 stitute for paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Snell bill the fol- 

 lowing : 



" 'That the Secretary of Agriculture, through the For- 

 est Service, is hereby authorized and directed, in coop- 

 eration with the appropriate officials of the various 

 States, or other suitable agencies, to determine for each 

 forest region of the United States the essential re- 

 quirements in protecting timber and cut-over lands from 

 fire and projier methods of forestry.' 



"The idea of this is to make the expenditure on the 

 part of the Federal Government in this cooperation which 

 is ])roposed in this bill contingent upon the States put- 

 ting into effect mandatory legislation. 



"I have a few objections to Mr. Pinchot's proposal, or 

 the Cap])er bill. Briefly they are these : I think in the 

 first i)lace it looks too exclusively to the big timber land 

 owners, and to the big lumber operations, and does not 

 |)rovide sufficiently for the great areas of second growth 

 and cut-over lands, and lands in small ownership. The 

 old timber is going pretty fast ; the actual number of 

 owners of it is comparatively small I presume not over 

 about two thousand of the really large tracts of timber 

 lands; the bulk of our forests, are already today of the 

 character of second growth and cut-over lands, and I do 

 not see that the Cap])er bill is looking sufficiently pro- 

 vides sufficiently for the requirements on the part of 

 the i)ul)lic for the handling of that class of land. I do 

 nut think that that bill and certainly not this measure 

 Ixfiirc you sufficiently provides for the great service^ 

 ioii-.;(l(rs. rather, the great service- of the forests in 

 tlie 'Icvcloiiiiicnt of the sections of the country where 

 the ffircsts arc located. In fact, at the end of Section 



1 it uses this expression, referring to the methods of 

 forestation which should be used: 'Favorable forest i)ro- 

 tection and renewal, with a view to furnishing a con- 

 tinuous supply of timer for the use and needs of th; 

 l)eople of the United States.' 



"That is only one service of the forest and oni, jiur- 

 pose of this whole proposition. We have got a great 

 land problem which concerns nearly a third of the area 

 of the country, and the way the forests are handled upon 

 it is going to have a profound influence on the develo])- 

 ment of the region and on the maintenance of local in- 

 dustries and the building up of agriculture and an indus- 

 trial structure in the rural communities, and I do not 

 think that the Capper bill gives sufficient consideration 

 to that viewpoint, because it is apparently aimed too ex- 

 clusively toward the problem of the large timber tract 

 and the large lumberman. 



"The third point is the one I have just mentioned, 

 that it is to distinguish between fire protection, which 

 it presumes will be handled by the State, and silvicul- 

 ture, which is going to be primarily a requirement of 

 the Government. I think that if you have a Federal law 

 which deals directly with the private owner, the ques- 

 tion of the requirement of fire protection and the re- 

 quirements for cutting, whatever those may be, should go 

 together. 



"And finally, I think any Federal law of that kind is 

 likely in the long run to tend to reduce the responsibili- 

 tiesspeaking of responsibility on the part of the in- 

 dividual States. I think any strong, permanent policy 

 of forestry should place the largest burden, the largest 

 responsibility, down the line ; have the States doing 

 their part, making their appropriations, and assuming 

 their responsibilities in every direction, but if you place 

 the control of this feature of private lands on the Govern- 

 ment I do believe there is going to be a tendency for the 

 States to feel that the Government is assuming the re- 

 sjjonsibility and they can also assume the burden, ex- 

 actly as in some cases there has been a tendency liere 

 and there in the operation of the Weeks law I mean the 

 portion of the Weeks law dealing with cooperation for 

 fire protection for individual States to assume that 

 they can either reduce or tail to make the increased ap- 

 propriations for fire protection because of the Govern- 

 ment appropriations. 



"And finally, I think that the responsibility on the part 

 of the individual in this whole thing should be empha- 

 sized. I do not know that this proposal I have made 

 would do more than the Capper bill. I would like to 

 say with reference to the Capper bill, with entire can- 

 dor, that if a bill of this kind or a measure of this 

 kind is going to continue to receive, or fail to receive, the 

 backing of those interested in bringing about a national 

 forest program, so far as the insistence on a full carrying 

 out of the right methods on private lands by the owners 

 is concerned, if it continues to fail to receive the backing 

 of really effective State legislation, I for one shall con- 

 sider that it is not going to be possible to carry it 

 through." 



