FIFTH NATIONAL CONSERVATION CONGRESS 331 



is true of the most fiery resolutions against the Forest Service. A record of 

 such has emanated from a State, to which, by the way, the Government has 

 granted over 12,500,000 acres of lands, in which language was exhausted in 

 describing the utter incompetency and general foolishness of the Forest Service, 

 but even this production did not charge dishonesty. 



EEASONS OF CRITICISM 



While no doubt causes for complaint have and do exist, it is also true the 

 Forest Service has endeavored to carry out the policy of the law. It has been 

 handicapped in its efforts by lack of means to care properly for the vast trust in 

 its charge and to do all that is desirable within a short time. Given the money, 

 classification of the lands could be greatly expedited and this in itself would 

 remove a chief cause of complaint. With experience gained from year to year, 

 with a better knowledge of local conditions, with a clearer understanding of the 

 situation, with the application of good judgment and common sense to every- 

 day problems, the service is fast removing existing prejudices and the public is 

 learning more and more to appreciate its value and the importance of the preserva- 

 tion of the forest to State and Nation. Assuming, therefore, that there will be 

 no substantial dissent as to the general policy of public control, we shall consider 

 whether the State or the Nation is the better agency to carry it out. 



THE STATE AS AN ADMINISTRATOR 



We have all read, doubtless, many resolutions and addresses issued by con- 

 gresses, legislatures and publicists advocating turning over the public forests to 

 the respective States. As yet there have appeared absolutely no concrete sug- 

 gestions of a proposed State policy. Much less has there been discussion of what 

 the States have done with their public lands in the past. There runs through all 

 the arguments, appeals not only to prejudice but also to that sentiment of selfish-, 

 ness and personal gain implanted in us all. Conceded as it must be that the 

 national forests are now legally the property of the nation, it would seem that 

 those seeking to change the present status for alleged public welfare would have 

 the burden of showing, first, that they have some plan under which they propose 

 to control and dispose of them ; second, that such plan will produce better results 

 than we are now securing; and third, that actual experience shows the States to 

 have developed their superior competence to execute such a plan in the interest 

 of the' public. None of these fundamental requisites is ever discussed by the 

 State control advocates. We cai therefore turn only to past performances to 

 ascertain, if possible, what the test of experience shows the results of State con- 

 trol to be. 



DISPOSITION OP GRANTS TO STATES 



Enormous areas of lands have been granted all the public land States, so 

 every opportunity has been afforded them to show not only their willingness but 

 their ability to handle these public assets in the public interest. The following 

 list, taken at random, will give some idea of the amount of these grants: Cali- 



