164 
sources. In the past we have admitted the right of the individual to 
injure the future of the Republic for his own present profit. The time 
has come for a change. As a people we have the right and the duty, 
second to none other but the right and duty of obeying the moral law, 
of requiring and doing justice, to protect ourselves and our children 
against the wasteful development of our natural resources, whether that 
waste is caused by the actual destruction of such resources or by making 
them impossible of development hereafter. 
Any right thinking father earnestly desires and strives to leave his 
son both an untarnished name and a reasonable equipment for the strug- 
gle of life. So this Nation as a whole should earnestly desire and strive 
to leave to the next generation the national honor unstained and the 
national resources unexhausted. There are signs that both the Nation 
and the states are waking to a realization of this great truth. On 
March 10, 1908, the Supreme Court of Maine rendered an exceedingly 
important judicial decision. This opinion was rendered in response to 
questions as to the right of the legislature to restrict the cutting of trees 
on private land for the prevention of drought and floods, the preserva- 
tion of the natural water supply, and the prevention of the erosion of 
such lands, and the consequent filling up of rivers, ponds and lakes. 
The forests and water powers of Maine constitute the larger part of 
her wealth and form the basis of her industrial life, and the question 
submitted by the Maine Senate to the Supreme Court and the answer of 
the Supreme Court alike bear testimony to the wisdom of the people 
of Maine, and clearly define a policy of conservation of natural re- 
sources, the adoption of which is of vital importance, not merely to. 
Maine, but to the whole country. (Applause.) 
Such a policy will preserve soil, forests, water power as a heritage 
for the children and the children's children of the men and women of 
this generation; for any enactment that provides for the wise utiliza- 
tion of the forests, whether in public or private ownership, and for the 
conservation of the water sources of the country, must necessarily be 
legislation that will promote both private and public welfare; for flood 
prevention, water power development, preservation ot the soil, and im- 
provement of navigable rivers are all promoted by such a policy of for- 
est conservation. 
The opinion of the Maine Supreme bench sets forth unequivocally 
the principle that the property rights of the individual are subordinate 
to the rights of the community, and especially that the waste of wild 
timber land derived originally from the State, involving as it would the 
impoverishment of the state and its people and thereby defeating one 
great purpose of government, may properly be prevented by state re- 
strictions. 
The court says that there are two reasons why the right of the 
public to control and limit the use of private property is peculiarly ap- 
plicable to property in land: "First, such property is not the result of 
productive labor, but is derived solely from the state itself, the original 
owner; second, the amount of land being incapable of increase, if the 
owners of large tracts can waste them at will without state restriction, 
the state and its people may be helplessly impoverished and one great 
purpose of government defeated. * * * Wle do not think the pro- 
posed legislation would operate to 'take' private property within the in- 
hibition of the Constitution. While it might restrict the owner of 
wild and uncultivated lands in his use of them, might delay his taking 
some of the product, might delay his anticipated profits and even there- 
by might cause him some loss of profit, it would nevertheless leave him 
his lands, their product and increase, untouched, and without diminution 
of title, estate or quantity. He would still have large measure of con- 
trol and large opportunity to realize values. He might suffer delay but 
not deprivation. * * * The proposed legislation * * * would be 
within the legislative power and would not operate as a taking of private 
property for which compensation must be made.'' 
