EDITORIAL 



633 



McHarg as an Index 



THE outburst of Ormsby McHarg is 

 significant. 



The public has been assured that 

 there were no differences in adminis- 

 tration circles on the merits of the con- 

 servation policy. 



All concerned, we have been told, 

 are deeply and equally interested in the 

 whole scheme. 



Such apparent differences as have 

 arisen have had to do not at all with the 

 policy, but only with the methods. 

 Some have proposed to conserve the 

 resources in one way and some in 

 another. 



The chief difference, it has been re- 

 iterated, has had to do with interpre- 

 tations of law. Some have thought the 

 law permitted of more latitude, and 

 others less, in saving for posterity 

 something out of the wreck of our 

 once "inexhaustible" natural wealth. 



But now appears Mr. Ormsby 

 McHarg. 



This gentleman occupies no less a 

 position that that of Assistant Secretary 

 of Commerce and Labor in the present 

 administration. 



Furthermore, he has been a trusted 

 political lieutenant. For he tells the 

 public that, "in the late campaign he 

 was put in charge, by Mr. Hitchcock, 

 of nine far western states." 



Just why Mr. McHarg need have 

 spoken at all is not clear ; nevertheless, 

 he spoke. 



Furthermore, his utterances have no 

 uncertain sound. 



He was clearly "in earnest." He 

 "did not palliate ;" he "did not excuse." 



So important, evidently, in his mind, 

 was the conservation issue that he was 

 not deterred, even by considerations of 

 official propriety, from expressing his 

 sentiments. 



How much of a conservationist is 

 Mr. McHarg may be judged from the 

 following excerpts from his interview : 



"Let the ordinary laws of supply and 

 demand regulate the cutting of trees." 



"There is enough timber standing in 

 the state of Washington alone to sup- 

 ply this country for fifty years. Vast 



supplies remain in other states sufficient 

 to maintain the supply for a much 

 longer period. The abundance 



of the forest was such that the alarm- 

 ist statements as to approaching ex- 

 haustion of supply were utterly un- 

 founded." 



"The talk of a gigantic water-power 

 trust being formed to lay a heavy 

 tribute on all posterity of the land is 

 the veriest nonsense." 



"The Reclamation Service during the 

 latter part of President Roosevelt's ad- 

 ministration carried on a purely 'dog in 

 the manger' policy that has done much 

 to hold back various sections of the 

 West." 



"The Reclamation Service, without 

 genius to carry out its projects, has, 

 notwithstanding, located the water 

 rights, and then stood idly by them and 

 said: 'No one else can appropriate this 

 water * * *.' The 'dog in the manger' 

 policy has thus brought about a stu- 

 pendous waste of natural resources." 



That Mr. McHarg's fulminations 

 represent mere sound and fury goes 

 without saying among the informed. 

 Further, that he failed utterly to "make 

 good" with facts when challenged by 

 Associate Forester Price to do so 

 should not be overlooked. 



But this is not the important thing. 



The important thing is that a "near" 

 cabinet officer displays not simply lack 

 of sympathy with the conservation pro- 

 gram, but violent hostility toward and 

 contempt for it. 



He even goes so far as to attribute 

 bad faith to its chief promoters, as 

 when he accuses the Forest Service of 

 concealing important facts and figures 

 "proving the truth" of what Mr. 

 McHarg says. 



All of this is exactly in line with facts 

 brought out in the September issue of 

 CONSERVATION in the article entitled, 

 "The Interests versus the People." 



There it was pointed out that a fight 

 has been organized against the con- 

 servation movement, and that members 

 of Congress are definitely enlisted in the 

 war, even to the extent of paying dues 

 to the Denver organization formed to 

 fight it. 



