24 FOKEST RESERVES IN IDAHO. 



Senator Heyburn to the President. 



Wallace, Idaho, July 15^ 190 Jf. 

 The President : 



Some time since, while en route, I was handed Mr. Pinchot's com- 

 munication to you of June 12, together with his report on my pre- 

 vious letters addressed to you in regard to forest reserves in Idaho. 

 They came to me through your secretary. I have not been able 

 heretofore to make reply, because of my absence. 



The first portion of Mr. Pinchot's letter is merely critical of my 

 ijiterpretation placed upon the conference I had with you shortly 

 before I left Washington, and charges me with " throwing over " 

 what he terms " an agreement made at that time without even re- 

 ferring to it." Mr. Pinchot is mistaken in this, but in any event I 

 do not feel called upon to reply to a charge made in such spirit. The 

 recollection must rest with you as to the result of that conference. 



Mr. Pinchot says: 



There is no need to discuss whether or not the President has the right to 

 create forest reserves in the mineral regions, further than to say that he has 

 done so continually from the beginning of the forest-reserve policy. That 

 the Interior Department has distinctly held in favor of bis right so to do. The 

 question of whether any land is more valuable for the mineral therein, or for 

 agricultural purposes than for forest purposes is distinctly one to be deter- 

 mined by the Executive, and the mere fact that land is mineral in character 

 has no bearing whatever upon the comparison of values which the law directs 

 the Executive to make. 



This is Mr. Pinchot's interpretation of the law, which reads as 

 follows : 



No public forest reservation shall be established except to improve and pro- 

 tect the forest within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable 

 conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the 

 use and necessity of citizens of the TTnited States ; but it is not the purpose or 

 intent of these provisions or of the act providing for such reservations to author- 

 ize the inclusion therein of lands more valuable for the mineral therein, or for 

 agricultural purposes, than for forest purposes. 



It would be difficult to harmonize the provisions of this statute 

 with Mr. Pinchot's conclusions as to the law. 



Only lands valuable for forest purposes are intended to be included 

 in a forest reserve by the express provision of the statute. Forest 

 purposes include — 



( 1 ) Necessity for present use. 



(2) Probability of necessity for future use. 



(3) Availability for present use as to proximity to use and trans- 

 portation. 



(4) Proximity to market or probable market. 



(5) Condition of timber as to variety and maturity. 



These questions have not been taken into consideration by Mr. 

 Pinchot or by those upon whose reports forest reserves have been 

 created. 



Mr. Pinchot makes what he calls " a report " on my letter on the 

 Idaho forest reserves, and endeavors to prove that the creation of 

 these forest reserves is justified from the fact that the land embraced 

 within them is practically useful for no purpose. He has appended 

 a table which upon analysis shows that there exists no sufficient 



