496 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



THE VITAL ISSUE 



FOR twenty-five years, or since March 4, 1891, when 

 President Benjamin Harrison was given power by 

 Congress to set aside public lands bearing timber as 

 forest reserves, a perpetual struggle has been waged in 

 this country between the advocates of two opposing the- 

 ories of government. On the one hand are ranged the 

 advocates of individualism, who hold that the greatest 

 good can come only through the passing of all our national 

 possessions into private ownership to be developed and 

 exploited free from government interference or regu- 

 lation. Opposed to this doctrine are the champions of 

 public control, and especially of retention under public 

 ownership of the remaining non-agricultural lands bearing 

 timber, water power, or minerals, which are still owned by 

 the nation, and their development and use under wise 

 restrictions, for the benefit of the people as a whole. The 

 old traditional policy of the United States, possessing 

 absolute ownership of its vast new territories both east 

 and west of the Mississippi, was to develop this region by 

 disposing of the public title and entrusting all resources 

 of whatever kind to private ownership. The principle 

 of the homestead law, and of the stone and timber act, 

 was to benefit the individual by giving to him 160 acres 

 of farm land or public timber at a cost only sufficient to 

 defray expenses to the Government. A pioneer civilization, 

 with limitless undeveloped wealth in field and forest, 

 rested its hope for rapid growth on the individual. To 

 benefit him, to bestow a rich competence upon whoever 

 had the hardihood to conquer the wilderness, was to 

 create increased values by the very effort of these 

 pioneers, and establish the foundations of civilization. 



Our social progress was made to depend upon the 

 frontiers, which became the solution of all pressing prob- 

 lems. The venturesome, the unfortunate, the sons and 

 daughters of farmers on impoverished eastern soils, the 

 city dweller, had only to go west and start life anew, borne 

 along by a contagious optimism and energy which is the 

 ruling spirit in all new communities. The Government, 

 with a lavish hand, gave of its wealth not only to farmers, 

 but bestowed more than 80,000,000 acres of its domain 

 on the western states, to be in turn disposed of by these 

 states, for the most part, with equal liberality, for sums 

 representing but a fraction of their real or prospective 

 value, that the individual might benefit. Railroads re- 

 ceived grants whose extent would feed empires. This 

 entire policy, wonderful in the extent and rapidity of its 

 results, and typically American and pioneer in its ideals. 

 is based on the single conception of individualistic effort 

 as the sole means of furthering public or social welfare, 

 and as the only practical method of utilizing for public 

 good the natural resources originally owned by the people, 

 as a whole. Whatever the future may hold in store for 

 us as a nation, it is the sincere hope of every American 

 that we may retain the vigor and independence which is 

 the fruit of this spirit of self-expression. 



But civilization is the result no less of the forces of 

 co-ordination, co-operation and of sacrifice of individual 



prerogatives whenever they conflict with public welfare. 

 When a single theory of government is permitted to 

 dominate, it may end by destroying. If America permits 

 the doctrine of individualism to thwart all efforts at 

 logical and necessary development towards higher and 

 greater ideals, and more permanent and universal con- 

 tent and prosperity, then as practical Americans we must 

 question the infallibility of those who uphold this doctrine. 



The withdrawal of public timber lands in 1891 was the 

 first blow struck at this infallibility. Why was this done? 

 Because it had already in that early day been shown that 

 the unchecked operation of the principle of private pos- 

 session of timber would end by destroying the forest 

 resources of the country, literally " root and branch." 

 The recuperative powers of Nature, sufficient under 

 ordinary conditions to maintain not merely the forest 

 cover but the protection of the more valuable timber trees 

 in the stand, failed before the wide clean sweep of modern 

 logging, and the immense increase and continuity of 

 modern forest fires. It became evident to thoughtful 

 owners that Nature, confronted with new and disastrous 

 forces of destruction, must be aided by man's controlling 

 mind, if the equilibrium were to be restored and future 

 forests assured. 



At the outset, it was clear that this demanded a central 

 directing intelligence. The individual, left entirely to 

 himself, has so far consistently failed, through no fault of 

 his own, to subordinate his private welfare and profit to 

 a future and distant goal of communal good. Public senti- 

 ment groping for expression, vaguely resentful and appre- 

 hensive in witnessing the progressive spoliation of timber 

 resources upon which much of future prosperity is bound 

 to depend, sought means of correction, and still seeks it. 

 Various futile or impractical plans are frequently pro- 

 posed in state legislatures to force timber land owners to 

 restrict the cutting of trees below certain diameters, or to 

 reforest cut-over lands. These efforts of the public con- 

 sciousness and foresight to curb the destructive ten- 

 dencies of individualism have so far been unavailing, and 

 are so opposed to our national traditions that their ad- 

 visability is seriously questioned. 



A second channel of effort, promising better results, 

 was that of public education. To persuade forest owners 

 that better methods of management for their woodlands is 

 possible, still leaves the choice with the individual. Since 

 by far the greater part of our woodlands are and will 

 remain in private ownership, the more that can be done to 

 stimulate owners to care for their property, the better, 

 but if they choose to waste their timber lands, they cannot 

 at present be effectually prevented from doing so. 



But what about the remaining timber resources, to which 

 national title was still clear? Should these go the way of 

 all the rest, and be lost to the people through the operation 

 of the homestead laws, stone and timber claims, placer 

 mining locations, land "scrip" and other means of obtain- 

 ing patents ? Should the nation relinquish its remaining 

 store of public timber, to be despoiled in turn, and then in 



