292 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



while the stockmen were getting the grazing for half what it was 

 worth, but the states lose a share of what they ought to receive under 

 the present scheme of apportionment. Thirty-five per cent of the loss 

 falls upon them. The Forest Service was planning a gradual increase 

 in rates at the time the recent war broke out, but this was postponed 

 because of war conditions. The livestock associations protested 

 vigorously against the increase.^® 



THE FOREST LIEU ACT AGAIN 



The difficulties arising under the Forest Lieu Act of 1897 have 

 been discussed in a previous chapter ; but it is necessary to note here 

 that those difficulties did not end with the repeal of the act in 1905; 

 and even within very recent years, there has been a great deal of dis- 

 cussion of this act, largely in the way of a criticism of the Forest 

 Service for a part it was alleged to have played. 



Senator Heyburn always, maintained that the evils of the Forest 

 Lieu Act should be attributed to Secretary Hitchcock, and to the 

 conservation movement generally. Humphrey of Washington later 

 took a similar position, especially charging the Forest Service with 

 having backed the bill for the creation of the Mount Ranier National 

 Park, and asserting that it was the conservationists who blocked the 

 passage of th6 act repealing the Forest Lieu Act until the Northern 

 Pacific could get its scrip located. 



The merits of the Forest Lieu controversy have been discussed in 

 a previous connection,^^ but it may be pointed out here that only a 

 vivid imagination could trace any of the evils of the Forest Lieu Act 

 to the door of the Forest Service. Previous to 1905, the forest reserves 

 were under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, while 

 the Division of Forestry — ^later known as the Bureau of Forestry, 

 and after 1905 as the Forest Service — was in the Department of 

 Agriculture. The officials in the Division — or Bureau — of Forestry 

 could hardly be criticised for not protesting against something which 

 was officially none of their business. ^^ 



16 ^TO. Forestry, MAr., 1917, 177: Am. Lumberman, May 27, 1916, 58. 

 IT Cross Reference, pp. 176-190. 



•y^Cong. Bee, May 14, 1912, 6383, 6384; June 2, 1913, 1863, et seq.; Mar 10, 

 1914, 4631; Mar. 14, 1914, 4867; Jan. 27, 1915, 2148 et seq. 



