574 



CONSERVATION 



The opinion of the Maine Supreme 

 Bench sets forth unequivocally the prin- 

 ciple that the property rights of the individual 

 are subordinate to the rights of the com- 

 munity and especially that the waste of wild 

 timber land derived originally from the state, 

 involving as it would the impoverishment of 



properly be prevented by state restrictions. 



The Court says that there are two reasons 

 why the right of the public to control and 



y 



"First, such property is not the result 

 of productive labor, but is derived solely 

 from the state itself, the original owner; 

 second, the amount of land being incapable of 

 increase, if the owners of large tracts can 

 waste them at will without state restriction, 

 the state and its people may be helplessly 

 impoverished and one great purpose of gov- 

 ernment defeated." 



r 



Commenting on this policy, the Presi- 

 " 



Such a policy will preserve soil, forests, 

 water power as a heritage for the children 

 and the children's children of the men and 

 women of this generation; for any enactment 

 that provides for the wise utilization of the 

 forests, whether in public or private owner- 

 ship, and for the conservation of the water 

 resources of the country, must necessarily 

 be legislation that will promote both private 

 and public welfare; for flood prevention, 

 water-power development, preservation of the 

 soil, and improvement of navigable rivers 

 are all promoted by such a policy of forest 

 conservation. 



This decision was also quoted in part 

 and discussed at the same meeting by 

 Mr. Edgar E. Ring, state forest com- 

 missioner of Maine. 



STILL OTHER RESOLUTIONS 

 In view of the hardships suffered under 



tTirr'hoV d a^Sed1o th e ha h ,Th e ; 



entryman upon public land under a Govern- 

 ment project shall not be required to estab- 

 lish residence thereon before the Govern- 

 ment is prepared to furnish him water. 



The lands in question are, of couse, 

 worthless without water. For the citi- 

 zen to live upon them while the irriga- 

 tion works are being constructed un- 

 questionably involves, in cases, extreme 

 hardship. A living cannot be made 

 upon the land, and the entryman cannot 

 go from it to make a living elsewhere 

 without forfeiting his claim. Herein, 

 doubtless, is found one chief reason why 



irrigation is "not a poor man's propo- 



sition." The problem, however, it 

 M j hfc easil bg solyed 



> 



The demand for deep waterways, 



notably the fourteen-foot waterway 

 through the Illinois and Mississippi 

 ri I *? Great Lakes to the Gulf, 

 and the welcome declaration in ia- 

 VO r of establishing national forests in 

 the s out h er n Appalachian and White 

 Mountains by Federal action, have also 

 the genuine ring. 









, s p ition ? 



"While it is possible that persons of 

 . / t1 



limited means may successfully enter 



and acquire irrigated lands, it will gen- 



erally be found that it is not a poor 

 ? .. , , , J .,-, 



man s proposition, unless coupled with 



intelligent industry in agriculture. The 

 whole scheme of the act is based upon 

 appropriation of the proceeds of the 



*f * ,,. . , * rertain states 



public lands in certain ^ state 



and territories for the construction of 

 irrigation works for the reclamation of 

 ar j d an( j sem i_ ar id l anc Js therein. No 



, , ._ 



further appropriation by Government is 



intended, or can be inferred from the 



Thug ke Secretary Ballinger at 



. J 



tne National Irrigation Congress. For- 



mer Senator Wilson, in defending the 

 power compan i eS; j s quo ted as saying 

 at the Congress : "It is the duty of the 

 people to hdp the Government, and not 

 the duty of the Government to aid the 

 P e P le in reclamation." 



Statements like these at an irrigation 

 confess are distinctly disappointing. 

 It goes without saying" that the desert 

 is not to be reclaimed without mtelli- 

 gent industry." The Secretary's re- 



mark however, is supposed to carrv 



. , ' . . '. , r f. 



with it a criticism of the cooperative 



policy of Director Newell and his ad- 

 visers whereby water users were per- 

 mitted to pay for their rights, in part, 

 at least, by their labor. By this means, 

 it is claimed and apparently not dis- 

 puted, men who otherwise could 

 not have done so have been enabled to 

 secure homes upon irrigated lands, and 

 the Government has been enabled, at 

 the same time, to carry its reclamation 



