984 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



retention of publicly owned power sites with that of 

 national interference in the regulation of private water- 

 powers, the purpose being to arouse indignation against 

 unjust and tyrannical interference with state and private 

 rights, under cover of which Congress shall be persuaded 

 to part with what the nation now and always has owned, 

 and has the right to hold. 



But the danger of the attack on the conservation of 

 publicly owned waterpowers lies in the effort to drag 

 down in a common ruin the tremendous achievements in 

 other lines of national conservation secured in the last 

 quarter century. On what authority is the statement 



PLANT NO. 1 OF THE PACIFIC LIGHT AND POWER CORPORATION 



This plant, on Big Creek, Sierra National Forest, California, is one of two power houses constructed 

 by this company on Big Creek, with an aggregate installed capacity of 94,000 horsepower. The 

 power developed is used in the operation of electric railways in and about Los Angeles. This 

 company's permit covers an ultimate development of 250,000 horsepower on the Sierra National 

 Forest. 



made that the conservation movement originated "in a 

 wise demand for the economic use of natural (but) not 

 national resources," and that the demand that these natu- 

 ral resources be retained by the national^ aovernment con- 

 stitutes a deterioration of the conservation movement. 

 Once and for all, let it be understood that the conserva- 

 tion movement in this country began with and still cen- 

 ters on the struggle for retention of national ownership 

 of public lands and resources. 



Conservation as a public issue originated about 35 

 years ago, when the founders of the American Forestry 

 Association declared their intention of securing congres- 

 sional action authorizing the permanent retention by the 

 national government of the title to forested non-agricul- 

 tural lands. This idea finally found expression in the 

 law of 1891, under which successive presidents have by 



proclamation created the National Forests totalling 160,- 

 000,000 acres in the United States, exclusive of Alaska. 



Were the pioneers of this movement. Dr. B. E. Fer- 

 now, F. H. Newell, Edward A. Bowers, GiflFord Pinchot, 

 Henry S. Graves, and others fighting for a chimerical 

 dream when they vigorously opposed this principle of 

 private acquisition and demanded that of the remaining 

 public lands those which were suitable only for forest 

 production should not be allowed to pass out of the 

 hands of the national government? What motives actu- 

 ated Presidents Harrison, Cleveland, McKinley, Roose- 

 velt and Taft, all of whom exercised widely the power 

 given them to make these reser- 

 vations ? 



The idea which has moulded 

 this entire national policy is that 

 these public forests can be best 

 protected and maintained in a 

 productive condition under con- 

 tinued national ownership. It 

 was held that under a policy of 

 retaining these forest lands, the 

 government could secure refor- 

 estation, protect watersheds, 

 prevent fires, and require con- 

 servative methods of lumbering, 

 thus preventing the waste and 

 destruction of this national as- 

 set, to the permanent benefit of 

 the public, while under private 

 ownership these results would 

 not be attained. 



But merely to reserve and lock 

 up these resources has never 

 been the aim of conservation. 

 "A wise demand for their eco- 

 nomic use" correctly states the 

 case. The real issue lies as to 

 methods by which this use can 

 best be perfected. The lumber- 

 ing and manufacture of standing 

 timber, the development of 

 waterpower, and the use of other 

 resources demand the investment 

 of large amounts of capital and the establishment of a 

 systematic business. Only three possible methods pre- 

 sent themselves for accomplishing these ends, namely, 

 the assumption of such investment and business activity 

 by the government ; the retention of ownership only by 

 the government and the investment of private capital in 

 the business, under lease or contract ; or the sale and dis- 

 posal of the property itself to the capitalists who desire 

 to develop it. The first is State Socialism and has never 

 been advocated by conservationists. The third is indi- 

 vidualism and would utterly destroy this national policy. 

 The second expresses the aims and goal of national con- 

 servation. But is it possible for the government to enter 

 into business relations with private capital and to regu- 

 late the use of its lands by the terms of leases or con- 

 tracts in such a way as not only to preserve the property 



