206 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



waste of soils, fertilizers (emphasizing 

 phosphates), sewage, minerals (giving a 

 list of ten in the order of the value of 

 their production coal, iron, copper, 

 clay products, petroleum, gold, stone, 

 cement, natural gas, and lead. Silver 

 was not put in this list because it is not 

 found by itself and is often a by- 

 product.) The pitiful waste of animal 

 life, including fish, flesh and fowl, con- 

 cluded her address. 



Mrs. Croker has, at her own expense, 



compiled, printed and distributed much 

 valuable material pertaining to her 

 subject, notably a twenty-page circular 

 giving the biennial report for the years 

 1912-1914 of each chairman of Con- 

 servation in the General Federation of 

 Women's Clubs, for all the states; a 

 perusal of this book gives one a very 

 clear idea of what women are doing for 

 the conservation of forests, waterways, 

 soils, birds, and state and national 

 parks. 



WISCONSIN'S FORESTRY TANGLE 



A 1 



DECISION of the Wisconsin 

 Supreme Court in February de- 

 clares in brief that the law 

 under which the State Forestry 

 Department has acquired, by purchase, 

 lands for use as State Forest Reserves is 

 unconstitutional and that such lands 

 must now be sold and the money 

 derived must be returned to the fund 

 from which it was taken. 



This is a most serious blow to forestry 

 work in Wisconsin and creates, judging 

 by comments in the newspapers and 

 from leading citizens of the State, a 

 condition which it is earnestly hoped 

 may be overcome. Just how this is to 

 be effected is at this writing not ap- 

 parent. 



The State is prevented by law from 

 incurring an indebtedness over $100,000, 

 except for defense in time of war. It 

 is also prevented from expending State 

 money in "internal improvements," 

 such as improvement of streams for 

 public navigation, construction of public 

 highways, etc. 



In .1907, two constitutional amend- 

 ments were passed which authorized the 

 State to appropriate money for the 

 acquirement and improvement of water 

 powers and for acquiring and main- 

 taining lands for State forestry work. 

 Under this amendment some $200,000 

 worth of land was purchased for 

 forestry purposes. Also certain lands 

 belonging to the State Schools were also 

 acquired by the Forestry Department. 



The Supreme Court's decision that 

 this purchase and this acquirement of 



school lands were both unconstitu- 

 tional and unlawful compels the 

 Forestry Department apparently to 

 relinquish all claim to the lands and 

 cuts the State Forestry Board and the 

 State Forester down to such narrow 

 limits that the service is not much more 

 than a police power for the prevention of 

 forest fires. It cannot engage in 

 reforestation or buy lands for that 

 purpose. 



Probably a new amendment to the 

 constitution will be necessary to over- 

 come the existing difficulty but it will 

 take two years to get this adopted. 



The State now holds 20,000 acres 

 granted by the United States for 

 forestry purposes and also a small 

 acreage acquired by private donations. 

 These the State Forestry Department 

 can hold and care for but cannot 

 expend money for reforestation because 

 this is considered an "internal improve- 

 ment" and is therefore unlawful. 



Chief Justice Marshall of the Supreme 

 Court while agreeing that the constitu- 

 tional amendments of 1 907 are unlawful 

 declares that reforestation cannot be 

 considered an "internal improvement" 

 and argues that it is necessary for public 

 welfare and should be provided for by 

 special taxation. 



He says: "My difficulty with the opinion, 

 stated in a general way, is this: It so limits and 

 circumscribes the powers of the State with 

 regard to reforestation and afforestation that 

 it leaves little more than a shell behind. At 

 least this is the way the opinion impresses me 

 and the way I think it will be generally under- 

 stood. 



