54 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



To this fact the Secretary of the In- 

 terior has borne testimony. In his last 

 report but one he said: "The home- 

 stead law is not applicable to much of 

 the balance of the public domain." 



There is a fundamental difference 

 between the character of the lands taken 

 up under the homestead law and those 

 still remaining in national ownership. 



The former were, for the most part, 

 arable and rich. Those now remain- 

 ing are largely arid, semi-arid, moun- 

 tain and forest. 



For the settler to take up a quarter 

 section of arid land avails him little. 

 Provision must first be made for re- 

 claiming this land by the application of 

 water ; but with irrigation this land be- 

 comes so productive that, in many in- 

 stances, a quarter section is far too 

 much to allow to a single settler. 



On the great public range, suitable 

 as yet only for grazing, the quarter- 

 section proposition is again found in- 

 applicable, and cattle and sheep kings 

 would be the first to oppose its intro- 

 duction. 



The application of the homestead 

 principle to mineral lands leads to gro- 

 tesque results. A single area of 160 

 acres may prove more valuable than 

 whole counties of agricultural land ; 

 while/ through the use of dummy en- 

 tryrr.en, the property of one owner may 

 be vastly extended. 



Again, unless we are willing to dis- 

 pense for the most part with forests, 

 the homestead principle breaks down 

 when applied to forest land. Here, in 

 many instances, private property in land 

 is strikingly inappropriate, and here, 

 again, dummies have been used with 

 telling effect. 



To the intelligent observer, interested 

 primarily in the public well-being, it has 

 become evident that much of our ex- 

 isting public domain must be handled 

 on different principles than those under- 

 lying the homestead law. 



I'ut suppose our remaining public do- 

 main were as arable and rich as the 

 Mississippi Valley, and, under the 

 homestead law, were all disposed of 

 to private individuals. Have we 

 stopped to think what would happen 

 next? 



Let the reader glance at the popula- 

 tion table of the United States, show- 

 ing our total millions from 1790 to 

 1900. By decades, these will be found 

 to run as follows : Three, five, seven, 

 nine, twelve, seventeen, twenty-three, 

 thirty-one, thirty-eight, fifty, sixty-two, 

 seventy-six. 



Does any one imagine our popula- 

 tion has reached the limit of its growth "" 

 If not, where will the additional mil- 

 lions look for land when all the exist- 

 ing lands have been taken up by those 

 now living and turned over to an equal 

 number, let us say, of their descendants ? 



It may be well that, before all our 

 public lands were thus reduced to pri- 

 vate ownership, we were compelled to 

 face arid, mountain, and forest lands. 

 We thus found opportunity to stop and 

 think. 



In consequence, we are learning that, 

 whatever merit may attach to the prin- 

 ciple of private property in land, that 

 principle is not of universal application. 



We have learned that, as regards 

 some lands, at least, public ownership, 

 and administration in the public in- 

 terest, are essential and indispensable. 



How much farther we may need to 

 carry this principle we do not yet, as 

 a people, know. We shall probably 

 learn, as we have learned many other 

 thing?, by experience. 



But now comes a movement, petty, 

 it may be, in numbers, but aggressive, 

 and well represented in Congress, de- 

 claring that it is a "crime to perpetuate 

 the public domain," proposing to "throw 

 off the incubus of Federal control," and, 

 while hedging a little as regards "the 

 actual timbered lands of the public do- 

 main," demanding that "every natural 

 resource pertaining to the public do- 

 main shall pass * * * into 

 the ownership of the individual." 



Here we have a direct issue, intelli- 

 gible to the simplest mind, sharp, clean- 

 cut, unequivocal : On the one hand 

 stands national ownership and admin- 

 istration ; on the other, the demand that 

 such ownership and administration end, 

 and that individual ownership and ad- 

 ministration and laissez faire take its 

 place. 



