EDITORIAL 



What Is Conservation? 



. T N VIEW of the prominent place that 

 1 the issue which has been named con- 

 servation has occupied in the press of 

 the country for some time, it seems un- 

 necessary to ask the question at the 

 heading of this article. It is, ^never- 

 theless, a fact that conservation is hon- 

 estly misunderstood by many people, 

 and that on the part of some others 

 there is a persistent and reprehensible 

 attempt to misrepresent its whole 

 spirit and purpose. At frequent inter- 

 vals there come, generally from the 

 west, although the western complain- 

 ants have eastern allies among the ad- 

 vocates of special privilege, sharp at- 

 tacks on the advocates of conservation. 

 These attacks take the form of news- 

 paper editorials, of speeches addressed 

 to public gatherings, of complaints by 

 individuals who have found some of 

 their privileges curtailed by the exer- 

 cise of the functions of government in 

 the public domain, or perhaps of hand- 

 somely printed circulars from banking 

 houses setting forth the evils of the con- 

 servation policy and appealing to the pa- 

 triotism of the people to permit the de- 

 velopment of the country. Often they 

 take the subtler and more dangerous 

 form of undermining through political 

 and official channels the great enter- 

 prises for real national development. The 

 attempt is made to make it appear that 

 the conservation of natural resources is 

 a sentimental idea designed for the ben- 

 efit of future generations by the sacri- 

 fice of the interests of the present. Our 

 forests, our water powers, our minerals, 

 are given to us, say these critics, not to 

 bottle up and preserve for an indefinite 

 future. They argue that the present 

 generation is just as important as the 

 next and those that will follow. 



This is plausible. We have no doubt 

 that many of those who advance these 



arguments sincerely believe in the jus- 

 tice and patriotism of their position. 

 Neither have we any doubt that many 

 of those who use this argument use it 

 deliberately to disguise plans for the 

 personal exploitation of the property 

 of the people. 



The principle of conservation has 

 been so often clearly stated that this 

 misinterpretation by intelligent men is 

 incomprehensible. Must it be repeated 

 over and over again that conservation, 

 in its special sense as now used among 

 us to designate a definite national policy, 

 means use, wise use, determined by the 

 actual needs of the people; use without 

 waste, and with perpetuation where that 

 is possible, as in the case of forests; 

 and use of the natural resources of the 

 earth, the gifts of nature for the great- 

 est good of the greatest number. Con- 

 servation has no idea of restricting use. 

 It does exist for cutting out waste. It 

 denies the primary right of a few indi- 

 viduals to use for their private and per- 

 sonal gain the resources of the people. 

 That is simple and that is the reason 

 for all this ' misrepresenation. The 

 galled jade winces. 



It is characteristic of the exploiters 

 to represent themselves true benefac- 

 tors, the real friends of the people. 

 Personal exploitation of the public 

 property always shelters itself behind 

 the guise of "promoting the public 

 good," "the development of the coun- 

 try," "adding to the country's wealth," 

 and many people believe the claim. We 

 all believed it a few years ago until we 

 began to study the forestry question, 

 which has taught us many things about 

 our national domain. 



Mr. Garfield stated the issue clearly, 

 when he said in reply to a question 

 while he was on the stand in the 

 Pinchot-Ballinger inquiry, "We believe 

 in present day use of the resources so 



423 



