20 



nore tlie importance of tlie i)reservatiou of tbe timber, aud iuvite, in a measure, groat 

 waste and greedy speculation by individuals and corporations. It is impolitic aud 

 unjust in not j^reserving timber for tbe use of future settlers and inbabitants, aud 

 permitting it to be taken in large quautities witbout consideration and proper re- 

 strictions. It, bowever, is still tbe law, aud so long as it remains on tbe statute book 

 it can be enforced. 



Tbe act of June 3, 1878, gives tbe timber to tbe miner and settler, but if tbe saw- 

 mill men can come in and cut and sell it, tbey, aud not tbe settlers, will get tbe ben- 

 efit of tbe timber. Tbe interest of tbe settlers and lumbermen in tbis matter are uofc 

 identical. 



Bat a later circular (August 5, 1886) permits the sale of timber or 

 lumber to bona fide residents for the legitimate use of thei)urchasers in 

 compliance with the provisions of the act, which means for actual per- 

 sonal consumption. In this circular the right of existence of saw-mills 

 using timber cut on Government land is recognized^ aud while it is im- 

 posed upon the saw-mill men to keep such records as will show where 

 the timber they manufacture comes from, and to obtain an agreement 

 from the purchaser that he will use the timber legitimatelj^^ according 

 to the spirit of the act, the door is opened to circuoivent the law. 



It is also stated that " there exists no authority of law for granting 

 the privilege of cutting timber on the public lands and paying stump- 

 age therefor that "there is no authority to dispose of burned timber 

 separately from the land." 



In 1887 : 



Sucb a record of crime as tbat sbowu by investigations made by special agents 

 during tbe last two years is rarely to be found. Bold, reckless, aud gigantic scbemes 

 to rob tbe Government of its lands bave been discovered aud exposed in every State 

 aud Territory containing jjublic lauds. 



Tbe uuavoidable continuance, on account of tbe early exbaustion of tbe ajipropria- 

 tion to pay witnesses in United States courts, of tbe important cases against tbe Sierra 

 Lumber Company, in California, involving over |2,000,000, aud in wbicb two special 

 agents of tbis office devoted nearly tbeir entire time for a year in securing evidence 

 and preparing for a successful prosecution, aud of tbe cases against tbe Montana Im- 

 provemeut Company and Nortberu Pacific Railroad Company, in Montana aud Idabo 

 Territories, involving an equal, if not greater, amount, is greatly to be regretted. 

 Tbe delay in tbese cases can not fail to be exceedingly detrimental to tbe public in- 

 terests. Tbe Government, so far as tbe office is concerned, was fully prepared, and 

 bad every reason to expect tbat bad said cases come to trial judgments would bave 

 been secured for nearly tbe entire amounts sued for. 



During tbe delay in tbe prosecution of tbe above and otbor important pending cases 

 tbe defendants are by no means idle. Tbey not only continue tbeir unlawful depre- 

 dations ou public timber in defiance of all efforts of tbis office to prevent tbat course, 

 but tbey avail themselves of every sucb opportunity to destroy tbe evidence of tbeir 

 X)ast transgressions and to nullify tbe efforts of tbis office. 



By tbe time tbese cases can again be brougbt to trial many of tbe witnesses will 

 bave disappeared aud mucb of tbe evidence depended upon by tbe Government will 

 bave been destroyed, necessitating a re-iuvestigation aud tbe securing of additional 

 evidence in nearly every case, tbereby duplicating tbe expenses of tbe special agents 

 in x)repariug tbe cases for trial, exbausting tbe appropriation, and rendering it im- 

 l^ossible for tbis office to cause tbe investigation of tbe many new and flagrant cases 

 of trespass wbicb are brougbt to its atteution. Tbe appropriation for tbis braucb 

 of tbe public service is altogether inadequate for the purpose. 



