these stated priorities. The Forest Service has 

 contended that the act is consistent with an 

 equal priorities interpretation of the Multiple 

 Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (to be dis- 

 cussed later) and thus does not interfere with 

 administration of the Forest for such pur- 

 poses as grazing, recreation, and wildlife man- 

 agement. A third interpretation is that the 

 1897 Act constitutes "the original multiple 

 use act, for it was under it that multiple use 

 and sustained yield began." This third inter- 

 pretation allows the conclusion drawn in this 

 study. Namely, no statutory priorities of any 

 kind are established for the various resources, 

 and the appropriate decisionmaking process is 

 thus not described by either equal priorities 

 or single use doctrines. 13 



Legislative History 



The Act of 1897 was partly engendered by 

 widespread dissatisfaction with the adminis- 

 tration of the forest reserves established fol- 

 lowing the Creative Act of 1891. Westerners 

 felt that large areas of land had arbitrarily 

 been withdrawn from entry. The General 

 Land Office within the Department of Interi- 

 or felt that provision for the protection of the 

 forests against fire and trespass was in- 

 adequate. 14 In 1896, the National Academy 

 of Sciences appointed a seven-man commis- 

 sion to study and report on the administra- 

 tion of the forest regions. The commission 

 noted, among other things, that the low pay, 

 short tenure, and insecurity of the patronage 

 system, and the poor quality of the appoint- 

 ees made it almost impossible to enforce the 

 provisions of the 1891 Act. 15 The report rec- 



13 Personal communication, Dean A. Gardner, At- 

 torney in Charge, Office of the General Counsel, U. S. 

 Dep. Agr., Ogden, Utah (January 12, 1972). A simi- 

 lar interpretation was set forth by Richard E. 

 McArdle at the Fifth World Forestry Congress at 

 Seattle, Wash., Sept. 10, 1960. He called the 1897 

 Act "the genesis of Multiple Use." 



14 See McCloskey (1961), p. 57-58, and compare 

 with Gates (1968), p. 567-671 and passim; also 

 Pinchot (1947), p. 79-132; and Cameron (1928), p. 

 205-211. 



15 "Report of the National Forestry Committee of 

 the National Academy of Sciences upon the inaugur- 

 ation of a forest policy for the forested lands of the 

 United States/' as noted in Gates (1968), p. 568. 



ommended that 13 new forest reservations, 

 containing some 22 million acres in seven 

 states, be created. President Cleveland, having 

 had the report orally communicated to him 

 before it was made public, complied with im- 

 mediate proclamations of February 22, 1897 

 (29 Stat. Proclamation 19-31). 



The furor that arose over these forest reser- 

 vations led directly to the enactment of the 

 Act of 1897. The proclamations were sus 

 pended until March 1898 and the lands re- 

 stored to a status by which they were subject 

 to entry. 



The Act of 1897, presented by Senator 

 Pettigrew of South Dakota as an amendment 

 to a civil appropriations bill, contained the es- 

 sential elements of an earlier bill that had 

 twice passed the House. 16 Interpretations of 

 the legislative history of the act vary. In view 

 of pressures by Western opponents of the 

 proclamations, McCloskey (1961, p. 58) 

 places strong emphasis on the provisions that 

 limit the purposes for which reserves might be 

 created. Gates (1968, p. 570) dismisses them 

 as "too general to have any important limiting 

 effect." Gifford Pinchot (1947, p. 114) felt 

 that a compromise had been reached that left 

 open the question of priorities. There is con- 

 siderable room for historical debate on the 

 actual intent of the Congress. Any interpreta- 

 tion must reckon with the fact that the bill 

 was passed under conditions of considerable 

 anger and consternation. As pointed out 

 below, judicial interpretation prior to 1969 

 failed to clarify the issue. 



Judicial Interpretation 



The interpretation of the 1897 Act by the 

 courts prior to 1969 failed to provide specific 

 guidelines that would settle conflicts that may 

 arise between uses, except for the fact that any 

 and all of the various forest resources, prod- 

 ucts, services, and uses were subject to the 

 condition that no depredation of the forest 

 was to be allowed. 



The direct issue of priority versus equality 

 in the resource uses was not generally raised 



16 McRae Bill, H. R. 16, 55th Congr. 1st Sess., 

 (1897). See Rogers (1969), p. 123-124. 



11 



