106 REPORT OF THE FORESTRY COMMITTEE 



wide, scientific, non-political State supervision. That I do not think the timber 

 land owners would object to, especially if it is optional with them and they have 

 certain privileges in the way of compensation. Without compensation, I think 

 it may be a question for the legal talent to decide whether or not it is constitutional. 



Mr. James Whipple, of New York : I had not expected to say anything on 

 this or perhaps any other subject, but you have raised a very important question 

 and one which, if properly exercised by States, can be of greater service than the 

 preservation of some kinds of forests or forestry area than any other thing, ques- 

 tion or point that has been raised here today, so far. 



I have always contended that it was the duty of the State, where denudation 

 was taking place at the head waters of the stream, and especially navigable 

 streams, in the interest of the general welfare of the people, for thcj people to 

 control, to some extent, the cutting of timber upon private land. In my judgment 

 as a lawyer — not a very good one, though— there is in the police power of every 

 State, authority to do that and pay no compensation for preventing of the cutting 

 down to a certain size unless, in the constitution of the State, there is something 

 that prohibits that course being taken. 



Mr. E. M. Griffith : In Wisconsin, we have several billion acres of denuded 

 lands, which are going to cost the State millions and millions to reforest. Sup- 

 pose we grant that it is the State's duty to do that. Someone has denuded that 

 land, and does it not seem rather foolish for any State to buy up denuded land 

 and then spend $5 or $11, or whatever the cost per acre may be, in reforesting 

 that land at the expense of all of us, the public, and at the same time there are 

 hundreds of thousands of other acres denuded. 



I think I can see the lumberman's point of view perfectly clearly. They do 

 not want their property confiscated, none of us would, but can they stop and 

 think of any industry in the country where they would permit the same thing to 

 go on ? In other words, is it the business of any State or of the American public, 

 as a whole, to sit idle and see millions and millions of acres denuded, and then 

 have a lot of Foresters meet, as we have, and cheer the thought that the State 

 should go in and buy up all that denuded land and plant it ? That is a pretty big 

 job for Uncle Sam or all of the States combined, and should it be done — ^person- 

 ally I do not think it will- — as Mr. Whipple has said, and as I know the Attorney 

 General of Wisconsin has advised me in his opinion, a law which would limit the 

 cutting of timber upon privately owned, is clearly constitutional. I do not think 

 there is much question about that. It does seem to me that in some way the 

 public should be made to bear that added cost, if there is any. 



Just what I should propose is, say that a region like the Lake Shore Region, 

 if the States of Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin should pass a similar law 

 limiting the diameter, or providing that the timber should be cut under State regu- 

 lations, and providing for slash burning, and that lumbermen may add that to 

 their cost, it would distribute the cost of forest protection to everybody. I have 

 thought of it a great deal, and as I can see it, something like that is the only prac- 

 tical solution, but in some way this country will come to the same conclusion that 

 we must limit the cutting of timber on privately owned land, just as they do in 

 Europe, I think is absolutely without a doubt. 



Mr. J. B. White, of Missouri : I would think that the State would have just 

 as much right to tell a farmer how he must treat his land. The farmers of this 

 country have been depleting the soil, they cannot raise half as much wheat to the 

 acre as they could twenty years ago on the same farm and if a State can pass a 

 law saying that you must leave a certain tract of timber to grow trees on and you 

 must not cut below a certain diameter, the State can say to the farmer, you must 

 feed your soil, you cannot run that field any longer and continue to mine your 

 soil instead of farming. It is a difficult proposition. 



