FOREST, FISH AND GAME COMMISSIONER. 41 



As a whole people we are not using our preserves at all. Compara- 

 tively few people, under present conditions, can afford to use them. If the 

 Constitution was literally enforced, no one could cut a stick of wood for a 

 camp fire; no one could cut a stick on which to hang a camp kettle. In 

 many long reaches of the forest there would be no place where shelter could 

 be found. A tent could not be staked down unless the stakes were carried 

 in from other lands. The Constitution, with all the good intentions of its 

 builders, with all the needs at the time for a restrictive provision in this 

 respect, established a park and forest preserve for the people, built it round 

 with a high wall, with a few excellent people inside, but left the great major- 

 ity on the outside of the wall unable even to look in and see its great natural 

 beauty and enjoy its manifold blessings. 



The present law will not permit putting State forest land on a safe 

 business basis. Under a slightly amended constitutional provision, leav- 

 ing it absolutely safeguarded as to waste and improper use, it could be 

 reasonably used by all, protected from fire, and made to yield an annual 

 revenue through the utilization of the water, the removal of waste timber, 

 and from rentals from those who tenant it. This arrangement would pro- 

 vide maintenance without further appropriation, and annually add large 

 tracts of woodland. Why not? Should the few occupy it as against the 

 many? Are not the rights of all equal in this respect? If it is to be held 

 and used simply to protect water sources, while the water runs away unem- 

 ployed, except to sustain fish-life and water the lowlands, then the present 

 method is right. If our forest preserves are to be used as well for those 

 other and more valuable purposes, then the present method of using, hold- 

 ing and managing our woodlands is all wrong. The impracticability of 

 the present law, which prevents realizing to the fullest extent upon this 

 valuable natural asset, the woodland and water supply of the State, is illus- 

 trated by the situation at the proposed great Ashokan reservoir. It is 

 proposed to supply water for New York city by building a reservoir near 

 Kingston and conducting the water impounded there to New York city. 

 The total expense of this proposed project will be approximately 

 $160,000,000. The projectors are met with the fact that the State owns 

 land within the area required for flooding, which under the Constitution 

 cannot be flooded or taken. If the rights of the State are enforced, it will 



