REGULATION OF TIMBER CUTTING 287 



souri vs. Illinois, 200 U. S., 496. ting; but that it has not yet gone to 



Whether Georgia, by insisting upon this such lengths is a conservative statement, 



claim, is doing more harm than good The supreme court of Maine cer- 



to her own citizens is for her to de- tainly has rendered an opinion that 



termine." some measure of state regulation is 



That in answer to a position taken permitted by the constitution in that 



in the brief on the part of the company state. Advisory opinions lack some- 



that many of the citizens of the state what of the authority of decisions in 



of Georgia were entirely satisfied to litigated cases ; but this opinion is as 



have this thing go on because of the definite as words permit. Its effect may 



business they were getting in connec- be thus stated in language selected from 



tion with the manufacture. the questions submitted and the opinion 



The other case decided by Mr. Jus- itself. 



tice Holmes was the case of Kansas vs. The state has legislative power to 

 Colorado, 185 U. S., 139, and 206 U. S., promote the general welfare, as an ef- 

 46, which merely covers the point that ficient means to this end, by laws to 

 one state may obtain relief against an- regulate or restrict, without compensa- 

 other to prevent the diversion of the tion, the cutting or destruction of trees 

 waters of a river unreasonably so as growing on wild lands, 

 to prevent its flow from the upper state It is evident from the opinion that 

 to the lower one. To the same effect the court had in mind a situation where 

 is Missouri vs. Illinois, 180 U. S., 208, the regulations might defer or some- 

 involving the pollution of an interstate what diminish the profit, but would not 

 stream. deprive the owner of his property or 

 These cases abundantly sustain the even the ultimate profitable use of it. 

 decision of Mr. Justice Holmes that For the general good, the owner is to 

 a state has a standing in court to pro- be compelled to yield something of his 

 tect the atmosphere, the water, and the hitherto unhampered right to destroy 

 forests, and as abundantly sustain the his own. 



position here taken that his decision Whether such a doctrine is good 



does not extend to the preservation of morals depends largely upon the point 



forests from destruction by the actual of view. That it is the law in Maine 



owner. at present is settled ; that it is sound 



In dealing with the Supreme Court law as a general proposition is yet to 



decisions, it has seemed sufficient to be determined. 



confine the discussion to the cases cited The lengths to which a state may 

 by President Roosevelt and by other go under the police power is a question 

 less eminent exponents of the policy of upon which the decisions in different 

 state regulation. In actual decision, states are hopelessly at variance. In 

 these seem inconclusive. The only some, the rights of property are con- 

 language bearing directly upon the point, sidered to be well-nigh sacred ; in 

 appears in Judge Holmes' opinion in others they seem to be less regarded. 

 Georgia vs. Tennessee Copper Com- While Maine, in the case just consid- 

 pany, and is clearly negative. ered, shows a tendency towards the ex- 

 "It [the state] has the last word as treme on one side, the sister state of 

 to .whether its mountains shall be New Hampshire holds the balance on 

 stripped of their forests and its in- the other side. 



habitants shall breathe pure air Tt In a recent case (State vs. Jackman, 

 might have to pay individuals before it 68 N. H., 318), the supreme court, 

 could utter that word, but with it re- by unanimous decision, held that a law 

 mains the final power. requiring abutting owners to clear side- 

 It would be rash to assert that the walks of snow was unconstitutional and 

 Supreme Court would not uphold rea- could not be supported under the doc- 

 sonable state regulation of timber cut- trine of police power, saying that such 



