232 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



It thus appeared that, while a few of the western men actively 

 opposed the repeal of the Timber and Stone Act, others asserted that 

 they were merely opposed to repeal unless another law for the sale of 

 timber could be secured in its place. But most of the men, even in the 

 latter class, probably did not want the act repealed, because they 

 could never have been persuaded to vote for a general timber sale law 

 to take its place. That had been demonstrated in Congress over and 

 over again. Whenever a timber sale bill came up, most of the western 

 men began to talk about the injustice that would be done to the "poor 

 settlers" and miners, if they had to buy the timber they wanted. 

 Furthermore, many of the men, even from other sections of the coun- 

 try, had shown entire inability to see the logic of selling the timber 

 without the land. Thus there was little likelihood that Congress would 

 provide for the sale of timber in the public domain, and therefore little 

 likelihood that any considerable number of western men could be 

 brought to favor the repeal of the Timber and Stone Act. No doubt 

 if the issue had been presented squarely, it would have been strongly 

 opposed by such men as Teller, Clark, and Fulton, and it is hardly 

 likely that it would have received a favorable vote. It is true that the 

 bill introduced by Quarles, accomplishing somewhat the same end, 

 had passed the Senate, but in that case the sop of an addition to the 

 reclamation fund had been used to secure the support of the West. 



Hansbrough and others, to the good old days when Teller was Secretary of the 

 Interior, and to the later administration of Cornelius N. Bliss; and it was stated 

 that Teller was the only secretary in many years who "knew anything about the 

 public land system from practical experiences," while Bliss was referred to as a 

 "great executive officer" who never became "hysterical over alleged land frauds." 

 The inference was, of course, that Hitchcock was hysterical in his enforcement of 

 the land laws. Hitchcock was doing some of his best work in the prosecution of land 

 and timber thieves at this time, and these criticisms were wholly baseless. It seems 

 that throughout the history of the public lands, the honesty and efficiency of offi- 

 cials in the Land Department were in no way so accurately indicated as by the 

 amount of criticism they received at the hands of politicians from the West. As 

 Pinchot once expressed it: "It is the honorable distinction of the Forest Service 

 that it has been more constantly, more violently and more bitterly attacked by the 

 representatives of the special interests in recent years than any other government 

 bureau. The attacks have increased in violence and bitterness just in proportion as 

 the service has offered effective opposition to predatory wealth. The more success- 

 ful we have been in preventing land grabbing and the absorption of water power 

 by the special interests, the more ingenious, the more devious, and the more 

 dangerous these attacks have become." {Cong. Bee, Jan. 6, 1910, 336.) 



