160 
Roosevelt administration who said, “Is there any justification in 
law for doing this desirable thing?” and having sought and found 
a legal justification, does what the public good demands be done. 
As Mr. Pinchot expressed it in his New Orleans speech last No- 
vember : “It is the first duty of a public officer to obey the law, 
but it is his second duty, and a close second, to do everything 
the law will let him do for the public good.” 
It is on this point that the differences of opinion between Mr. 
Pinchot and Secretary Ballinger chiefly hinge, apart of course 
from any personal consideration that may have come in on either 
side. Mr. Ballinger is a strict constructionist who, while he de- 
clares himself to be strongly in favor of Conservation, holds that 
until there is specific law so to direct him, he may not legally take 
action, desirable though such action might be. Mr. Pinchot tak- 
ing the other stand, says that unless the present laws specifically 
forbid doing this desirable thing, which is admittedly for the pub- 
lic good, let us, while working to get new and better laws en- 
acted, take such action now, in line with the general intent of the 
whole body of the law, as will safeguard the public interests that 
are now in danger. Often it happens that to be effective such 
action must be taken without delay. While we are waiting for 
new laws to be enacted the land, the coal or the water powers 
* may be permanently lost to the people, beyond recovery. Are we 
not justified then in using such tools as we now have — presi- 
dential orders, temporary withdrawals and the like, until we can 
get better, provided always that the action taken is in lii)e with 
the spirit of the law and is for the public good. 
Third: And this is really the big question, for public opinion 
has now been so aroused that few thinking men are willing to 
be reckoned as countenancing the continued waste of our natural 
resources — and the second question is, in the last analysis, after 
all but a phase of this larger question — this third question is then, 
“For whom are the natural resources to be exploited?” Are 
they for the permanent benefit and continued use of all the peo- 
ple, or are they to go to swell the private fortunes of a few 
greedy corporations? On the control of the remaining natural 
resources, more especially of the coal and the water powers, is 
going to depend pretty largely the outcome of the question, who is 
to determine the future development of the country? Is the con- 
trol to rest with the people or with a merciless monopoly? This 
question therefore readily resolves itself into the still greater is- 
sue, Is this nation to be managed by men for human welfare, or 
by money for profit ? 
RECENT EVENTS. 
To return now to the events of recent history. Just prior to 
going out of office Secretary Garfield set apart under an order 
of temporary withdrawal some 3,670,000 acres of public land con- 
