286 AMERICAN FORESTRY 



remain unimpaired by its citizens, is terfere to prevent the destruction of 



not dependent upon any nice estimate forests by the owner; but a reference 



of the extent of present use or specu- to the cases shows that it actually means 



lation as to future needs." nothing- of the sort. The two well- 



Those who would support this idea known cases that are cited make it clear 



that the state may regulate timber cut- that the court used these words in their 



ting find in these words authority for exact sense. 



their position. "Protect the forests 7 ' The case of Georgia vs. Tennessee 



* * * "irrespective of the assent or Copper Company, 206 U. S., 230, one 



dissent of the private owners." "The o f the cases cited by Mr. Justice 



public interest is omnipresent." "The Holmes, arose in this way: The at- 



constitutional power of a state to in- torney general of the state of Georgia 



sist that its natural advantages shall brought proceedings in the United 



remain unimpaired"- -these expressions States court in the state of Tennessee 



are striking. They are fundamental, to secure injunction against the Ten- 



and seem a ready answer to ancient no- nessee Copper Company, which was so 



tions concerning the rights of private operating its works as to cause noxious 



property. gases to flow from its stacks into the 



No one would undertake to question state of Georgia and there injure the 



the importance of these utterances by timber and other crops on the ground, 



our highest court. They demonstrate The question decided in the United 



the patriotic and progressive spirit of States Supreme Court was that the state 



that great tribunal, and bear splendid of Georgians quoted by Justice Holmes, 



testimony of the protection which it af- had a standing in court to have an in- 



fords to public rights against private junction issued against the corporation 



and corporate aggression. Beyond that, in the other state that was so conducting 



they give promise of future safeguards its works as to cause an unjustifiable 



to the paramount interests of society in and unreasonable destruction in the 



matters affecting the public welfare. state of Georgia. I want to quote a 



Granting all this, it is the lawyer's word from that decision to show the 



duty to inquire soberly into the true origin of this suggestion, "irrespective 



effect of a decision, and to interpret its of the assent or dissent of the owners 



language in the light of earlier cases. of the property most immediately con- 



The true effect of this decision, which cerned." The court says, again by Jus- 

 has been so widely quoted, is merely tice Holmes : 



to recognize the state's right to limit "It is a fair and reasonable demand 

 the use of public waters, which it holds on the part of a sovereign that the air 

 in trust for its people. "What it has it over its territory should not be polluted 

 may keep and give no one a reason for on a great scale by sulphurous-acid gas ; 

 its will." The rights which are lim- that the forests on its mountains, be 

 ited are the relative rights to devote the they better or worse and whatever do- 

 waters to private uses. Such rights, mestic destruction they have suffered, 

 though ordinarily appurtenant to the should not be destroyed or threatened 

 adjacent soil, must yield to the needs by the act of persons beyond its con- 

 of that public for which the waters are trol ; that the crops and orchards on its 

 primarily held in trust. The question hills should not be endangered from the 

 of state interference with property ac- same source. * * * 

 tually owned by the individual is not "We are satisfied, by a preponder- 

 raised or considered. ance of evidence, that the sulphurous 



It is declared that the state "has a fumes cause and threaten damage on 



standing in court to protect * * the so considerable a scale to the forests 



forests, irrespective of the * * * dis- and vegetable life, if not to the Vealth, 



sent of private owners." This might within the plaintiff state as to make out 



be taken to mean that a state may in- a case within the requirements of Mis- 



