222 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



time the commission was given greater discretion in dealing with land 

 subject to mineral or timber reservations.^' 



That many owners would try to exact very high prices for their 

 land, was of course to be expected, particularly when they held land 

 which for any reason the commission was especially anxious to secure ; 

 but the Attorney-General ruled that the commission had the power 

 under the act of August 1, 1888,^^ to acquire tracts of lands by con- 

 demnation, and two years later the Federal District Court of New 

 Hampshire impliedly recognized the validity of this decision. °^ 



RESULTS OF THE LAW 



In the purchase of lands under the Weeks Law, the National Forest 

 Reservation Commission has proceeded cautiously. In the fiscal year 

 1911, it approved for purchase only 31,876 acres; in 1912, 255,822 

 acres; and in 1913, 425,717 acres. It was not until 1913 that the 

 entire annual appropriation was used. Of the total 1,501,357 acres 

 approved prior to June 30, 1917, 792,835 acres were cut-over or 

 culled timber land, and 384,195 acres were virgin timber land. The 

 average price paid was about $5 per acre, which would indicate that 

 the virgin timber was of decidedly poor quality. Most of the 

 land approved for purchase is situated in the Appalachian Moun- 

 tains ; in Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, Geor- 

 gia, Alabama, and Tennessee; but nearly 350,000 acres has been 

 selected in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, and a small 

 amount in Maine. The passage of hostile legislation by the legislature 

 of Georgia in 1917 led the Reservation Commission to discontinue 

 purchases in that state until the legislation should be repealed.^* 



The results of the Weeks Law have thus been very modest, the total 

 approved for purchase being less than 1 per cent of the total forest 

 reserve area, but it seems probable that the ultimate results of the 

 policy it has inaugurated will be very important. There are several 

 reasons why private initiative cannot usually be depended upon to 

 undertake the reforestation of cut-over lands. In the first place, the 



55 S. Doc. 137; 62 Cong. 2 sess., 2, 3: Stat. 37, 855. 



56 Stat. 25, 357. 



67 S. Doc. 137; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: U. S. vs. Certain Lands; 208 Fed. Rep., 429. 



68 S. Doc. 137; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: S. Doc. 307; 63 Cong. 2 sess.: H. Doc. 564; 65 

 Cong. 2 sess.: Southern Lumberman, Dec. 15, 1917, 33. 



