5/8 CONSERVATION 



icr analogies we Mr. Tawney strikes at Mr. Roose- 



u W /for t another Whl NeTo velfs "numerous commissions," stating 



d a] acted Rome burned while that "they existed and carried on their 



fhelntert Office strains over legal work in lat,on of law and as a- 



constructions the forests are burnmg. sult^f *%" refurn Tihe dd 



^ idea that the Executive is the fountain 



of justice and can therefore do no 



The Case oi Congressman Tawney wrong. 



r A ,ci- fnaw Further on he declares these com- 



N CONSERVATION for August (page ^ been inted> not 



496) Chancellor Van Rise without authorit of law> but in 



I 



1 w > 



cism of Congressman Tawney or yiolation of j and explains that "it 



paralyzing the work of the w&s * * * to preve nt the violation of 



Conservation Commission was quo thg kw , thg executiye branch of the 



In the Congressional Record for July G nment that the prov ision of the 



27 may be found Mr. Tawney s reply. Gvil A opriation Act for 



He criticizes the "enthusiasts" in the ^ adopted 



conservation movement to wiion Mr Tawney next devotes two col- 



worthy an end seems to justify any umns to sh owing what the Federal Gov- 



means, whether lawful or otherwise, ernment has been and [ s doing for prac- 



and refers to the Appalachian proposal ^ conservation> and again urge s the 



as an example. The member ol Uon- conservat i O nists to turn their attention 



gress who differs with the theoretical tQ the state le?islatures . 



conservationists must expec Conservationists recognize that the 



be singled out as the enemy ot prog- Government has done much in recent 



ress," or worse. years and decades in contravention of the 



In Mr. Tawney's judgment, the con- laisses f aire po \[ cy Mr. Vrooman's 



servation of "our dual system of gov- arddes help to make this clear . They 



ernment and our national credit, is in- realize> however, that every step taken 



volved in such schemes. in this d i rect i on has been in the teeth 



He would throw the responsibility of the advOcates o f a do-nothing gov- 



for conservation work upon the states, ernment; the y also realize that good 



instead of having it ^foisted upon the wofk well done affords groun d, not for 



Federal Government." desisting, but for doing more good 



The reasons why this is not done, he wor j c> 



thinks, are that the states may thus The tne ory that conservation is in- 



escape the burden of expense, and that nn j te ly costly, they repudiate. The facts 



"the advocates of conservation" may show that it yj e ids vastly more than it 



"concentrate public opinion upon Con- costs . To sacrifice forests, soils, miner- 



gress," which is easier than to concen- a j Sj wa terways and water-powers rather 



trate it upon forty-six state legisla- than unc i er g O the expense of saving 



tures. them, conservationists hold, is like let- 



Like Speaker Cannon, Mr. Tawney t [ n g one 's house burn to save the labor 



is appalled by "the ultimate cost" of o f throwing water upon the flames. 



"reforestation," which "would be so The pecuniary argument is altogether 



vast as almost to defy computation." upon their side. 



Mr. Tawney next points to increas- AS to the states, conservationists are 



ing public expenditures, culminating in willing and glad to have them do their 



a "billion dollar session." par t, but they will not accept the new 



True, he concedes that 72 per cent of version of the old states' rights doctrine, 



the expenses of the last fiscal year went a s voiced by Speaker Cannon and his 



for wars, past or prospective, and friends, and agree that Congress may 



neglects to show wherein the conser- abandon its proper field and throw its 



vationists are responsible for this. Still duties upon the states. Let Nation and 



he advises them to preach economy in state each do its part : there is no lack 



army and navy expenditures. of work for either. 



