298 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 



try would turn to a position of actual hostility. A complete reversal 

 of this kind seems unlikely, and yet a few scattered indications of 

 such a change may perhaps already be observed. There will probably 

 be a constant issue in Congress on the question of the percentage of 

 forest reserve receipts which shall go to the western states, and this 

 percentage may be fixed at such a point as to seriously affect the 

 value of the reserves. 



This represents only one of the possibilities in the future develop- 

 ment of the reserves. Another possibility is that the Stock Raising 

 Homestead Act of 1916, under which settlers and speculators may 

 enter 640 acres of grazing lands, may some day be extended to the 

 national forests. 



There have always been some people who favored turning the na- 

 tional forests over to the states. Mr. James J. Hill has been one of the 

 most influential champions of this policy, but in Congress, Senators 

 Heyburn and Borah of Idaho, Fall of New Mexico, and Bailey of 

 Texas, and Congressman Lafferty of Oregon have been actively fa- 

 vorable to such a disposition of the reserves. A considerable number of 

 western men would probably vote for the proposition if it were pre- 

 sented in Congress. About 1912 or 1913, there were a great many 

 efforts in Congress to effect this change. Even such consistent oppo- 

 nents of the reserves as Carter and Mondell, however, have been 

 unwilling to go so far. Such a step at the present time would of course 

 mean the abolition of most of the reserves, for most of the western 

 states would not take care of reserves placed in their hands.^** 



On the whole, it seems that the national forests are reasonably safe. 

 All the probabilities in the case point to a retention and even an 

 extension of the reservation policy. 



30 Cong. Bee, Feb. 26, 1909, 3230, 3231; May 14, 1912, 6390; May 15, 1912, 6477, 

 6478; May 16, 1912, 6561; Aug. 7, 1912, 10338; June 10, 1913, 1970: H. R. 2890; 

 62 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 1793; 63 Cong. 1 sess.: Outlook, Sept. 17, 1910, 90; Dec. 28, 

 1912, 935: Scientific American, Sept. 6, 1913, 176: Report, Oregon Conservation 

 Commission, 1913. 



