*)
2 ¥
, 4g
‘,
4 ¥
i
¥
w
\
vw

4

ED STATES FOREST POLICY ,

ra
he,
«
£
\
. ae
;
.

cee mestape nee os enh ioctl aero ts

‘ae
ae a oe

Sh MPL MNS APR

mt s

onion

panes

eA a Ree Tt SEES LIONEL SLO,

a

we taness

ER

LM OM SI SR NP A TT ILM OLED OAT OO ie A

}

Sede

:
ener

Ieee roe RPE

— Nias SOME carsenniy chenee tome anita iyi
. settee

ony wyatt oe) perenne ws liste ag: memati esa
~ — tee em Sees > Ree Ne oe A wen
;
% '
: : .
4 sd

TTIid SYAHM AHL NO ALOA ASNOH

sonar ns meen cote -

lia ae tac —

bes

ALOA FALLVOAN

ONILOA LON ee
a
ALOA AALLVNUAAV A

a THE Ro
TED STATES ©
3T POLICY

ISE, Pu. D., LL.B.

\TE PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS

aan

gosh

[> NEW HAVEN
-YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS

\! McKEAN BROWN. MEMORIAL
~ PUBLICATION FUND é

. is the second work published by the Yale Uni-

sity in memory of William McKean Brown, of
ania, who was not only a leader in the develop-
nun nity, but who also served the commonwealth as

PREFACE

‘Tue history of the United States is fundamentally a history of rapid
exploitation of immensely valuable natural resources. The possession
and exploitation of these resources have given most of the distinctive
traits to American character, economic development, and even politi-
eal and social institutions. Whatever preéminence the United States
may have among the nations of the world, in industrial activity, effi-
ciency and enterprise, in standards of comfort in living, in wealth, and
even in such social and educational institutions as are dependent upon
great wealth, must be attributed to the possession of these great nat-
ural resources; and the maintenance of our preéminence in these
respects is dependent upon a wise and economical use of remaining
resources. Thus the question of conservation is one of the most impor-
tant questions before the American people, and if the present study
throws even a weak and flickering light upon that question, its
publication will be abundantly justified.

The writer acknowledges a heavy obligation to some of his teachers,
friends and colleagues for helpful criticism and suggestions. The work
was begun under the direction of Professor Charles J. Bullock of Har-
vard University, and thanks are due him for searching criticism and
suggestions, and for kindly help and encouragement. The writer owes
much also to Professor Frederick J. Turner, Professor John M. Gries,
and Dean E. F. Gay, of Harvard University, and to colleagues at the
Iowa State College—Professor L. B. Schmidt, Professor John E.
Brindley, Professor G. B. McDonald, and Professor J. J. Reighard.
Professor F. H. Hodder of the University of Kansas offered valuable

' suggestions regarding some points in American history, and Doctor
R. M. Woodbury read several chapters and submitted many able
criticisms.

The writer wishes also to acknowledge valuable suggestions from
Mr. R. S. Kellogg, regarding points touching the lumber industry,

12 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

and from Gifford Pinchot, William L. Hall, and Herbert A. Smith,
regarding the work of the Forest Service. Thanks are due particularly
to Editor Herbert A. Smith of the Forest Service for a careful read-
ing of the manuscript, and for many suggestions and criticisms of the
greatest value. Others to whom acknowledgment is due for advice and
help, are Doctor Charles Walcott of the Smithsonian Institute,
Doctor B. E. Fernow of Toronto University, and Senator Petheen,
of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

In making acknowledgment to those who have assisted in the pre-
paration of this book, the writer ventures the hope that these friends
will not have to share in the responsibility for any faults that may
appear in the work.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: OUR FORESTS PRIOR TO 1878: THE PERIOD

OF BEGINNINGS . ; 19
The Early Settlers and the Forests: The United States N aval ‘hsanieien: Gen-
eral Indifference in the Early National Period: Early Conservation Sentiment:
Interest Shown by Government Officials: State Action: Action of the Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science: Early Interest in Timber Culture: State
Timber Culture Laws: Tree Planting by the Railroads: Congressional Action;
Factors at Work: Conservation Activity in Congress: The Timber Culture Act:
The First Forest Reserve Bill: Unfavorable Legislation not Applying Spe-
cifically to Timber: Swamp Land Grants: Other State Grants: The Preémption,

- Commutation Homestead, and Desert Land Laws: Public Sale: Railroad Land
Grants: Unfavorable Legislation Applying Specifically to Timber: The Free
‘Timber and Timber and Stone Acts: Conclusion.

CHAPTER. II: THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891: FROM
‘THE PASSAGE OF THE TWO TIMBER ACTS TO THE
FOREST RESERVE ACT: WHOLESALE TIMBER STEAL-

ING : 62
The Free Timber Act, Pidvisions and iiterpivtanin Evil Effects: Eatenslon of
Free Timber Privileges: The Timber and Stone Act; Provisions: Frauds under
the Timber and Stone Act: Extension of the Provisions of the Act: Extensive
Timber Stealing: Trespass by Railroads: Efforts to Protect the Public Timber:
The “Bill to License Timber Thieves”: Difficulties in the Way of Timber Pro-

tection: Growth of Conservation Sentiment: Forestry Associations: State Action:

_ Other Indications of Conservation Interest: Congressional Action not Specifi-
cally Relating to Timber Lands; the Public Lands Commission and the Genera]
Revision Act of 1891: Failure of the Timber Culture Act: Appropriations to
Prevent Fraudulent Entries: Abolition of Private Sale in the South: Indirect
Encouragement to Timber Stealing: The Failure to Forfeit the Railroad Grants:
The Railroad Attorney Bill: Timber on Indian Reservations: Appropriations for
Timber Protection: Efforts to Secure Land Grants for Forestry Schools: Appro-
priations for Forestry Investigations: The Forest Reserve Act: Early Advo-
cates of Forest Reserves: Congress and the Question of Forest Reserves: The
Passage of the Forest Reserve Act.

’ CHAPTER III: THE FOREST RESERVES FROM 1891 TO
1897: NEED OF PROTECTION AND ADMINISTRATION 119

' The Situation in 1891: The Creation of New Reserves: The Need for Pro-
tection of the Reserved Lands: Efforts in Congress to Secure Better Protec-

14 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

tion: The McRae Bill: The Commission of the National Academy of Sciences;
and Cleveland’s Proclamations of February 22, 1897: Previous Hostility toward
the Reserves: The Attack of 1897: The Forest Lieu Section: The Act of 1897.

CHAPTER IV: THE FOREST RESERVES SINCE 1897: THE
PERIOD OF CONSERVATION ACTIVITY ; : 143

The “Golden Era” of Forest Conservation Activity: Public Opinion and Conia
vation: State Conservation Activity: Education in Forestry: Forestry Journals
and Forestry Societies: Other Indications of Conservation Sentiment: Broaden-
ing Scope of the Conservation Movement: The Public Lands Commission: The
Waterways Commission and the Conference of Governors: The National Con-

- servation Commission: Increase in Appropriations for Forestry Purposes: Trans-
fer of the Reserves to the Department of Agriculture: Opposition to Increased
Appropriations: Creation of New Reserves: Improvement of the Forest Fire
Law: Authority to Arrest Trespassers without Process.

CHAPTER V: THE FOREST RESERVES SINCE 1897 (con-
' tinued): ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY . ; 164

Anti-conservation Activity: Factors Tending to Arouse Western Hostility;
Agricultural Lands in the Forest Reserves: The Lacey Bill: Grazing in the
Forest Reserves: Efforts to Open the Reserves to Grazing: The Public Lands
Convention at Denver: Aggressive Policy of Roosevelt and Pinchot: The Forest
Lieu Act: Efforts to Repeal the Forest Lieu Act: Lieu Selection in the San
Francisco Mountains Forest Reserve: Lieu Selection and the Mount Ranier
National Park: The Oregon Timber Land Frauds: Inefficiency of the Early
Forest Administration: Other Causes of Western Hostility: An Expression of
the Western Attitude: Efforts to Overturn the Reservation Policy: Senator Hey-
burn and the Reserves: The Anti-conservation Attack of 1907: The Act of 1907:
Anti-conservation Attacks since 1907: The Ballinger-Pinchot Controversy: The
Alaska Forests.

CHAPTER VI: FOREST RESERVES IN THE APPALA-
CHIAN AND WHITE MOUNTAINS . j 207
Early Agitation for Appalachian Reserves: The Deaiina for Forests in the
White Mountains: Increasing Scope of the Movement: The Weeks Bill: Argu-
ments in Favor of the Bill: Arguments against the Bill: Influences Favoring its
Passage: Opposition to the Bill: Analysis of the Final Vote: Provisions of the
Weeks Law: Later Changes: Results of the Law.

CHAPTER VII: THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND
SINCE THE PASSAGE OF THE FOREST RESERVE ACT 224
The Timber and Stone Act Once More: Further Extension of Its Provisions:
Unsuccessful Efforts to Repeal or Amend the Timber and Stone Act: The
Suspension of Timber and Stone Entries in 1906: Sale of Burned Timber: Tim-
ber Sales Without Legislative Authorization: The Free Timber Acts Again:
Further Extension of Free Timber Privileges: Unsuccessful Efforts to Curtail

CONTENTS 15

2 Free Timber Privileges: Conservation Activity in Congress; Increasing Appro-
priations for Timber Protection: Other Helpful Legislation: Railway Land
rents Once More: The Act of 1916: The Northern Pacific Lands. ;

: ‘CHAPTER Vill: HOSTILITY TO THE NATIONAL EOR-
ESTS IN RECENT YEARS: OPPOSITION TO THE GEN-
_ERAL POLICY OF RESERVATION . , 254
_ Opposition to the General Policy of Reservation; baidh relies with the Serlip-
_ ment of the West: Inclusion of Agricultural Lands: Efforts to Eliminate Agri-
cultural Lands; The Nelson Amendment: Justice of the Complaints Regarding
the Inclusion of Agricultural Lands: The Question of Ranger Stations: Grazing
in the National Forests: Mining in the National Forests: Water Power Develop-
- ment in the National Forests: Withdrawal of Other Resources: Opposition to
Saving for Posterity: Discrimination against the West: Opposition to Game
Preservation: Loss of Taxing Power: Justice of Complaints Regarding Loss of
Taxing Power: Inclusion of State Lands in the National Forests: Robbing the
Weners Forests for the Eastern Forests: Objection to an “Alien Government.”

3 CHAPTER IX: HOSTILITY TO THE NATIONAL FORESTS
IN RECENT YEARS natepeopacamld CRITICISM OF THE
FOREST SERVICE . ‘ 284

_ The “Insolvency” of the National Wonca neh Alleged Ritiacaguned of the

_ Forest Service: Justice of These Complaints: The Timber Sale Policy of the
Forest Service: The Forest Lieu Act Again: Heyburn’s Criticisms: The Real
Attitude of the West: Safety of the National Forests.

CHAPTER X: THE WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE . 299

Advice and Assistance to Private Owners: Codéperation with States: Protection

of Fish and Game: Recreational Uses of the Forests: Assistance to Grazing

Interests: Investigative Work: Silvicultural Investigations: Forestation: Inves-
tigation of Forest Influences: Other Silvicultural Investigations: Investigations
in Forest Products: Forest Products Research and the War.

CHAPTER XI: RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY: CON-
_ CENTRATION IN THE OWNERSHIP OF STANDING
TIMBER . A , . 815

Concentration of Ownership in Terms “of Board Feet: ‘Ketcies Figures: Con-
centration of Ownership in the Northwest: The Three Big Holdings of the
Northwest: Ownership in the Southern Pine Region: Ownership in the Lake
_ States: Comparison of Ownership’ in the Different Regions: Timber Ownership
_ outside the Investigation Area: Factors Augmenting the Power of Large Hold-
_ ers; Large Holdings Proportionately More Valuable: Large Holders Have the
Most Valuable Lands: Large Holdings Include the Most Valuable Species:
Causes of Concentration of Ownership; Railroad Land Grants: Swamp Land
Grants: Other State Grants: The Cash Sale Law: Lieu Selections and Large
Holdings: Large Holdings Normal in Timber Ownership: Speculation.

16 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

CHAPTER XII: RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY (con-
tinued): CONDITIONS IN THE LUMBER INDUSTRY. 3884

The So-called Lumber Monopoly: Lumbermen’s Associations: The National Lum-
ber Manufacturers’ Association: Scope and Influence of Organizations: Efforts
to Fix Prices: Pools in the Lumber Industry: Open Price Associations: Other
Efforts to Fix Prices: Price Activities Among Retailers: Effectiveness of Efforts
to Fix Prices: Effectiveness of Curtailment Campaigns: Possibility of Future
Trouble: Instability of the Lumber Market: The Lumber Industry and Timber
Speculation: Cost of Timber Ownership: Waste of Timber: Failure to Reforest
Lands: The Question of Remedies: Goyernment Regulation of Lumber Prices:
Increased Government Ownership of Standing Timber.

CHAPTER XIII: CONCLUSION. . . " Pibe Bao
European Influences in the Conservation Movement: The Attitude of Congress:
The Ethics of Timber Stealing: Waste and Theft of Other Resources: A
Rational Policy for the Future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY : . A ; : . : . 878

INDEX ; : ‘ : ; é : : : . 887

Hey

ED STATES FOREST POLICY —

*

CHAPTER I

OUR FORESTS PREVIOUS TO 1878; THE PERIOD OF
* BEGINNINGS

THE EARLY SETTLERS AND THE FORESTS

‘Tue attitude of the early settlers toward the timber resources of the
country was generally one of indifference. This was only natural and
inevitable, since in most regions the land was covered with forests,
which had to be cleared before agriculture was possible, which pre-
sented only an obstacle to the spread of settlement. Toward a resource
which at first seemed inexhaustible and only a bar to progress, there
could at least be no general attitude of conservation.

The British policy of reserving the timber lands was regarded with
considerable hostility. The British government early adopted the
policy of reserving timber for her future supply of naval stores, par-
ticularly the large pine trees available for ship masts. Thus the char-
ter granted the province of Massachusetts Bay in 1691 reserved to
the Crown all trees two feet in diameter, and forbade anyone to cut
such trees without a royal license. In 1704, the British parliament

& passed an act imposing a fine of five pounds upon anyone who should

cut a pitch pine tree or a tar tree under twelve inches in diameter three
feet from the ground. This act applied to several of the colonies ; and
similar enactments were made at various subsequent times. Very nat-
urally the colonists strongly resented this policy.*

The British regulations showed some of the elements of a conserva-
tion policy on the part of the ruling country, and the attitude of some

1In order to secure enforcement of the law of 1704, John Bridger was commis-
sioned surveyor general of the woods, one of his duties being to mark with the
broad arrow of the British navy all trees that were to be reserved for the Crown
and keep a register of them. Edward Randolph had been surveyor of woods and
timber in Maine in 1656, and Adolphus Benzel was appointed inspector of his
Majesty’s woods and forests in the vicinity of Lake Champlain in 1770. Fox, “His-
tory of the Lumber Industry in New York,” 16: Bul. 370, Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp.
Station: Ford, “Colonial Precedents of our National Land System,” 145.

20 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

of the officials showed that there was a real concern for the future
supply, at least of ship timber. Thus, in 1701, the Governor of New
York expressed his fear that the sawmills would destroy all the timber
in that colony, and recommended that each person who removed a tree
should pay for planting four or five young trees. Still earlier than
this, in 1696, the attention of the French governors of Canada had
been directed to the wasteful destruction of the forests.”

There appeared in a few instances, even on the part of the early
settlers themselves, indications of some regard for the future timber
supply.* In 1626, an ordinance was passed in Plymouth Colony recit-
ing the inconveniences that are likely to arise in any community from
a lack of timber, and declaring that no man should sell or transport.
any timber whatsoever out of the colony without the approval of the
governor and council. Perhaps this was the first conservation statute
passed in America. The ordinances of the Plymouth Colony, as re-
vised and published in 1636, forbade any person to sell out of the
colony any boards, planks, or timber cut from the lands reserved for
public use, without leave from the public authorities. A Plymouth
order of 1670 stated that several towns of the colony were already
much straitened for building timber, and granted such towns the
privilege of obtaining it from towns having plenty. In 1682, the
Court of Boston ordered that no one should fell any wood on public
grounds for paling, except such as had been viewed and allowed by
the proper public official. An order of the Providence Plantations
in 1688 required that two men should view the timber on the Common
and determine what was best suited for the use of each person. Various
statutes were early enacted in Rhode Island and in other colonies,
regulating the export of lumber. In 1639, the General Court of the
New Haven Colony forbade anyone to cut timber from common

2 Fox, “History of the Lumber Industry in New York,” 16: Phipps, R. W.,
“Report on the Necessity of Preserving and Replanting Forests,” Toronto, 1883.

3 Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, 1885: Bul. 370, Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp.
Station: Fernow, “Economics of Forestry,” 369: Kinney, “Forest Law in America,”
Ch. I. It is recorded of the Pennsylvania Germans that they were economical in the
use of wood, even where it was abundant. They did not wantonly cut down forests
or burn them, and, when using wood as fuel, they built stoves, in which there was
less waste than in open fireplaces. The German of the nineteenth century likewise

proved himself a friend of the trees. Through his early training at home, he under-
stood the value of forests. Faust, “The German Element in the U. S.,” II, 56-58.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 21

j ground except where assigned by the magistrate, and during the next
decade this General Court, as well as the Court of Connecticut at
Hartford, passed several laws regulating the cutting of timber.
_ __- In 1640, the inhabitants of Exeter, New Hampshire, adopted a gen-
eral order for the regulation of the cutting of oak timber. In 1660, at

_ Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a fine of five shillings was imposed for
every tree cut by the inhabitants, except for their own buildings,
fences and firewood; and in the towns of Kittery and Dover, strict
limitations were put on the number of trees that a person could have
at any one time, the limit at Dover being ten.

The General Assembly at Elizabethtown, East New Jersey, imposed
a penalty of five pounds in 1678 for every tree cut from unpatented
Jands. In a council held at Elizabethtown in 1683, a resolution was
adopted, reciting that much timber trespass and waste was being com-
mitted, and authorizing the Governor to issue a proclamation and
__ enforce the law against timber trespass. In 1681, William Penn stipu-
lated in his ordinances regarding the disposal of lands, that for every
five acres cleared of forest growth, one acre should be left to forest.
_ Strict laws against forest fires were passed by many of the colonies
_ soon after they were established—by several of the New England colo-
"nies previous to 1650. A Massachusetts act of 1743 specifically recog-
nized the damage caused by fire to young tree growth and to the soil,
__ and a North Carolina act of 1777, imposing penalties for the unlawful
firing of the woods, declared forest fires “extremely prejudicial to the
soil.”
The first legislative recognition in America of the principle of tim-
__ ber conservation through the imposition of a diameter limit for cut-
_ ting, except the parliamentary acts directed at the maintenance of a
_ supply of mast timber, was the statute passed at Albany, New York,
_ in 1772. This act forbade any person to bring into Albany any wood
__ below certain specified diameters—six inches for pine. In 1783, the
_ General Court of Massachusetts passed an act forbidding the cutting
_ or destroying of white pine trees above a certain size, from any lands
_ of the state, without license from the Legislature. This law was strik-
_ ingly similar to the one that had aroused such opposition on the part
__ of the colonists of New Hampshire, when imposed by England during
the colonial period.

22 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

In 1795, the Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, Arts and
Manufactures published a report on the best method of preserving
and increasing the growth of timbers, recommending that lands least
valuable for agriculture be devoted to forests. This society evinced
considerable interest in timber in various ways. In 1818, a Massachu-
setts act authorized agricultural societies of the state to offer pre-
miums to encourage the growth of oaks and other trees necessary to _
the maintenance of a supply of ship-building material.*

This early interest in forestry does not of course represent a very
- common sentiment among the people. It is probable that some of this
colonial legislation was inspired, or in some cases even imposed, by the
royal governors. Also, some of the colonial laws which are sometimes
referred to as illustrations of an early conservation sentiment, have
probably very little to do with conservation. Thus, there were many
statutes forbidding the cutting of timber on the lands of other per-
sons, but these statutes seem to have meant merely that timber had
come to have a value, rather than that the colonies were in general
particularly apprehensive of a future scarcity of timber.°

Nevertheless, the illustrations given doubtless have some signifi-
cance. There was some interest in forest conservation even in this
early period, an interest due to the fact that the settlers had come
from Europe where scarcity of timber was already felt, to the fact
that the extent of the forest domain was entirely unknown, the popu-
lation confined mainly to the Atlantic coast, and to the fact that, in
the absence of railroad communication, only supplies of timber adja-
cent to rivers and sea were available. Furthermore, as in Europe, the
fuel question was becoming acute in some places, since coal had not
yet been brought into use, and location of timber supplies close to
centers of civilization was of great importance.

THE UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVES

The first action of the United States government regarding timber
lands had no connection with these early signs of conservation inter-
est, but was concerned rather with the matter of national defense.

4Fernow, “Economics of Forestry,” 369 et seq.: Proceedings, Am. Forestry

Congress, 1885, 58.
5 Bul. 370, Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Station.

' THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 23

_ The repeated depredations of Algerian pirates upon American mer-
chant vessels during the first years of our national life, led to a demand
; or a navy, and in 1794 Congress authorized the President to provide
for several vessels. Aggressions of the French navy upon American
_ merchantmen led to further legislation in 1798, authorizing the Presi-
a dent to provide for twelve more war ships.
_ The building of the vessels authorized by these early acts served to
oo upon government officials the necessity of making provision
- for a future supply of timber for defense, and, by an act of 1799,
ongress appropriated $200,000 for the purchase and reservation of
timber or timber lands suitable for the navy.* Florida and Louisiana
ntained most of the oak timber then known to exist, oak being recog-
_ nized as the most valuable timber, and, as that region was in foreign
: _ hands, little was done for some time, only two small purchases being
_ made on the Georgia coast. These were Grover’s Island, comprising
_ about 350 acres, purchased for a consideration of $7,500, and Black-
| beard’s Island, with an area of 1600 acres, bought for $15,000.”
In 1816, after the second war with Great Britain, the United States
_ entered upon a policy of naval expansion, and this again brought up
_ the question of material for construction. The result was the act of
817, authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to explore and select
‘acts of land producing oak and red cedar, and imposing a penalty
for cutting such timber from these lands or any other public lands of
the United States.®
In 1819, Florida was ceded to the United States by Spain, and, it
presently appearing that the valuable stands of live oak in the new
a territory were being wasted and destroyed by trespassers, an act was
_ secured in 1822, empowering the President to use the land and naval
q forces of the United States to prevent these depredations. Three
q years later, however, an agent of the government, appointed to in-
ae vestigate the timber resources of Florida, reported that live oak was
_ being exported in considerable quantities from the eastern coast of the
peninsula, and recommended the purchase and reservation of timber

6 Stat. 1, 622.

_ 7Hough, Franklin B., “Report on Forestry,” made in pursuance of the act of
_ Congress of August 15, 1876. Three volumes, published in 1877, 1878 and 1882
_ respectively. Vol. I, pp. 9-11: Kinney, “Forest aie in America,” Ch. VII.

| 8 Stat. 8, 347.

24 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

land, and the planting of trees on land already owned by the govern-
ment.°®

In connection with a naval appropriation act of 1827, the Presi-
dent was authorized to take proper measures to preserve the oak tim-
ber on the public lands, and to reserve such lands anywhere on the
public domain. Not only was provision made for the reservation of
these lands, but in Florida a system of cultivation was undertaken,
with various experiments in transplanting—the first efforts at experi-
mental forestry on the part of the United States government. An act
passed in 1828 authorized the use of $10,000 of the naval appropria-
tion of 1827 for the purchase of lands bearing live oak or other
timber.*°

The need of protection for the reserved timber was apparent, and
in 1831, a law was passed forbidding the removal of oak, red cedar, or
any other timber from these reserved lands, or from any other lands
of the United States. The act of 1817 had prohibited the cutting of
oak or red cedar from all the public lands of the United States, but
the act of 1831 was the first general act apply aie to the entire ——
and to all kinds of timber.”*

One of the sections of an appropriation bill in 1833 required “all
collectors of customs within the territory of Florida, and the states of
Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, before allowing clearance to any
vessel laden in whole or in part with live oak timber, to ascertain sat-
isfactorily that such timber was cut from private lands, or if from
public ones, by consent of the Navy Department.”” Such vigilance as
this indicates considerable interest in the preservation of a certain
kind of the public timber.

Under authority of these various acts, a small amount of timber
land was-reserved in separate parcels in Georgia, Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi and Louisiana; but the government experienced great diffi-
culty in preventing trespass by timber thieves and encroachments by
settlers, and it presently appeared that there was no navy timber of

® Kinney, “Forest Law in America,” 236-239.

10 Hough, “Report on Forestry,” ITI, 330: Stat. 4, 242, 256.

11 Stat. 4, 472. In U. S. vs. Briggs (9 Howard, 351), the Supreme Court of the
United States held that this statute applied to all of the public lands of the United

States, whether reserved for naval purposes or not.
12 Stat. 4, 647.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 25

‘on some of the tracts. The result was that in 1848 Congress
some of the lands to settlement, and in 1853 the cedar lands
had been reserved in Clarke County, Alabama, were opened to

“The eveldpment of iron ships subsequent to the Civil War rendered
| almost obsolete for shipbuilding, and in 1879 Congress author-
the restoration of all reserves in Florida which were no. longer
ed for naval purposes. A similar act affecting all tracts in Ala-
1 and Mississippi was passed in 1895. Certain small tracts in
siana are still held by the national government in the status of
val reserves.**

While t these were thus naval reservations, related to the king’s forest
Lic cy of colonial times rather than to the forest reserve policy of
ater years, yet they are of sufficient importance to merit brief treat-
nt for several reasons. In the first place, they showed a disposition
conserve a natural resource of which future scarcity was appre-
nded. If naval construction had not, in the sixties, turned to iron
ips, these early reservations might now be recognized as marking
a policy of the greatest importance. In the second place, it was
connection with these reserves that the first laws were passed for
: protection of timber on the public domain, the law of 1831 being
» ruling statute on the subject of timber depredations down to the
esent time. Furthermore, the first appropriations for protecting
aber lands were closely connected with these naval reserves, for in
72 the first appropriation, of $5000, for the protection of timber
ids, was made in the naval appropriation act.*®

GENERAL INDIFFERENCE IN THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD

; These early forest reserves are thus seen to have been of little i impor-
nce and of little significance as to the attitude of the country toward

18 Stat. 5, 611; 10, 259. Mr. Hough, in his report, states that a total of 244,452

es of timber land was reserved under these acts, but Mr. Kinney puts the figure

_ at approximately 25,000 acres. The writer is unable to account for so great a dis-

_ erepancy, and is unable, from any sources at his disposal, to ascertain whether Mr.

was correct in his figures or not. (Hough, “Report on Forestry,” I, 11:
ey, “Forest Law in America,” 240.)

_ 14 Stat. 20, 470; 28, $14. See also S. 196; 50 Cong. 1 sess.

15 Stat. 17, 151.

26 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

forest conservation. It is even true that the period during which they
were being created, 1817 to 1858, was a period when destruction
of timber was going on with least opposition from conservation forces.
There had been, as already seen, some interest in timber preservation
in the colonial period, and later, but with the rapid growth of the
country, the development of new means of transportation, and with
the use of coal as fuel, the apprehensions regarding timber —
seem almost to have vanished.

Between 1820 and 1870, the population more than quadrupled; a
vast number of farms were carved out of the forest, the timber, in the
absence of a ready market, being largely burned. “Pines and oaks were
remorselessly felled, and every settlement showed what Flint called a
‘Kentucky outline of dead trees and huge logs lying on all sides in the
fields.” Underbrush was fired with wanton carelessness, and thousands
of acres of valuable timber went up in smoke.” Hunters sometimes
fired the woods to drive the game into the open. Lumbering became
more of a commercial business, with larger mills operating. In 1870,
there were in the United States 26,945 lumber manufacturing estab-
lishments, employing 163,637 hands, who, using capital aggregating
$161,500,278, produced a total product valued at $252,839,029—a
greater product than any other manufacturing industry except flour-
ing and grist mills, All this indicates a very effective exploitation of
the country’s timber resources.”°

EARLY CONSERVATION SENTIMENT

A few warning voices protested against forest destruction, even
during this period. As early as 1819, the French naturalist, the
younger Michaux, in his work on “The North American Sylva,” spoke
warningly of the rapid destruction of trees. “In America,” he said,
“neither the Federal Government nor the several states have reserved
forests. An alarming destruction of the trees proper for building has
been the consequence, an evil which is increasing and which will con-
tinue to increase with the increase of population. The effect is already

16 Coman, “Economic Beginnings of the Far West,” II, 50: Fernow, “Economics
of Forestry,” 371: Flint, “Recollections of the Last Ten Years,” 232: Levering,
“Historic Indiana,’ 480: Trollope, “Domestic Manners of the Americans,” 23:
Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1894-95-96, 81: Thwaites, “Early Western
Travels,” III, 327.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS . 27

-yery sensibly felt in the large cities, where the complaint is every year
becoming more serious, not only of excessive dearness of fuel, but of
the scarcity of timber. Even now inferior wood is frequently substi-
‘tuted for the White Oak; and the Live Oak so highly esteemed in ship
eeding, will soon become extinct upon the islands of Georgia.”**

In 1889, a very interesting paper was issued by Romero, minister
of the interior at Mexico, on the subject of forestry. He said that the
Te public had for some years suffered from droughts, that harvests
failed and cattle died; and that reason, tradition and experience
: pointed to the devastation of the forests and denudation of the hills
and mountains as influential causes of such calamities. In 1845, a
series of regulations were adopted for California to prevent the indis-
_ eriminate destruction of wood and timber, and restricting cutting to
+4 e owners of the land.*®

_ A book published in Boston in 1830 contains the following: “The
ie eictiminate clearings of the agricultural settlers and the conflagra-
_ tions which occasionally take place, are the causes which in a few
| # ae may render North America no longer an exporting country
for timber.”** In 1832, J. D. Brown, in his “Sylva Americana,” wrote:

ough vast tracts of our soil are still veiled from the eye of day by
val forests, the best materials for building are nearly exhausted.

| Bland this devastation is now become so universal to supply furnaces,
: glass houses, factories, steam engines, etc., with fuel, that unless some
- auspicious expedient offer itself and means speedily resolved upon for
a future store, one of the most glorious and considerable bulwarks of
_ this nation will within a few centuries be nearly extinct. With all the
_ projected improvements in our internal navigation, whence shall we
_ procure supplies of timber fifty years hence for the continuance of
our navy? The most urgent motives call imperiously upon our Gov-
_ ernment to provide a seasonable remedy for such an alarming evil.’’”°
__In 1887, Massachusetts provided for a special survey of the state’s
_ forest resources, and after several years’ work, George B. Emerson

17 Michaux, F. Andrew, “The North American Sylva,” p. 4.
18 Hittel, “History of California,” II, 364.

_ 19*“Library of Entertaining Knowledge; Vegetable Substances, Timber Trees,” |
. 67. ;

20 Brown, “Sylva Americana,” Preface, p. v.

28 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

published his “Report on the Trees and Shrubs Naturally Growing in
the Forests of Massachusetts.” Professor Emerson was one of the
earliest advocates of forest conservation in America.”* An ordinance
passed in 1851 by the General Assembly of the newly formed “State of
Deseret,” the Mormon settlement later called Utah, imposed a pen-
alty of $100, in addition to the liability for all damage, on anyone who
should waste, burn, or otherwise destroy timber in the mountains. In
1855, Mr. R. U. Piper of Woburn, Massachusetts, in his book on “The
Trees of America,” made an extended appeal for forest protection
and for the planting of trees. “It seems that the supply of many kinds
of wood which are necessary for mechanical purposes is becoming so
uncertain as to make it a matter of serious inquiry what is to be done
in our own day to meet the demand,” he complained. “When Canada
has exhausted her supply, which she must at some time do, where are

we to go? In our enjoyment of the present we are apt to forget that | |

we cannot without sin neglect to provide for those who are to come
after us. It is a common observation that our summers are becoming
dryer and our streams smaller, and this is due to forest destruction,
which makes our summers dryer and our winters colder.” Piper quoted
from William Cullen Bryant to show that the rivers in Spain were

drying up because of the destruction of forests. In 1855, André

Michaux bequeathed $12,000 to the American Philosophical Society
in Philadelphia for forestry instruction.

Five years later, Harland Coultas spoke of the “formidable scale”
on which the woods were disappearing. “In America we are in danger
of losing sight of the utility of the woods,” he said. “ ... If we
remove trees from the mountain side, from a low, sandy coast, or
from an inland district only scantily supplied with water, there is no
end to the mischievous consequences which will ensue. By such igno-
rant work as this the equilibrium in the Household of Nature is fear-
fully disturbed.” In 1865, the Rev. Frederick Starr discussed fully
and forcibly the “American Forests, their Destruction and Preserva-
tion.” In this treatise he made the following prophecy: “It is feared
it will be long, perhaps a full century, before the results at which we
ought to aim as a nation will be realized by our whole country, to wit,

21 Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, 1885, 62: Kinney, “Forest Law in
America,” 3.

ae ee ee

—

i

Sea ee a

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 29

_ that we should raise an adequate supply of wood and timber for all
_ our wants. The evils which are anticipated will probably increase upon
_us for thirty years to come, with ten-fold the rapidity with which
_ restoring or ameliorating measures shall be adopted.”

In 1867, the committee appointed by the legislature of Michigan to

' investigate forest destruction reported: “The interests to be sub-
" served, and the evils to be avoided by our action on this subject have
_ reference not alone to this year or the next score of years, but genera-
_ tions yet unborn will bless or curse our memory according as we pre-
_ serve for them what the munificent past has so richly bestowed upon
5 us, or as we lend our influence to continue and accelerate the waste-
ful destruction everywhere at work in our beautiful state.”** In 1868,
_ George P. Marsh published his famous work on “Man and Nature,”

which he discusses at great length the effects of forest destruction
upon climate, rainfall, and floods.** This book had a very great influ-
_ ence, and was frequently cited by the early conservationists. A few
_ years later the Overland Monthly published an able article by Taliesin
_ Evans on the relation of conservation to lumber exports ;*° and about
_ the same time N. U. Beckwith wrote in the Canadian Monthly of the
_ “habitual, wicked, insane waste of lumber” in Canada.” As early as

_ 1873, Verplanck Colvin was urging the legislature of New York to buy

_ the forests at the sources of the Hudson; and in the same year, Gover-
nor Hartranft of Pennsylvania, in his message to the legislature,
_ called attention to the importance of forest preservation.

The year 1872 marks the date of several events of importance in

_ the forestry movement. In that year, $100,000 was given to Harvard
_ College by the will of James Arnold to establish in the Bussey Institu-
tion a professorship of tree culture, and maintain an arboretum,‘
_ while in a western state, arbor day was celebrated for the first time at

22 Coultas, Harland, “What May be Learned from a Tree,” 179: H. Doc. 181;

55 Cong. 3 sess., 168.

23 Michigan, House Documents, No. 6, 1867.

aa Marsh, “Man and Nature,” 128-329.

25 Overland Monthly, March, 1871, 224.

26 June, 1872, 527.

27 In 1835, Benjamin Bussey of Roxbury, Massachusetts, had provided for a
~ school of agriculture and horticulture as a department of Harvard College, and in

_ 1870, the school had been opened.

— ee Oe ee

30 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

the instance of Governor Morton of Nebraska.” In the following year,
F. B. Hough wrote at considerable length regarding the “growing
tendency to floods and droughts,” asserting that it could “be directly
ascribed to clearing of woodlands, by which the rains quickly find
their way into the streams, often swelling them into destructive floods,
instead of sinking into the earth to reappear as springs.” Leonard B.
Hodges, one of the foremost of the early conservationists, did more
than preach, for in 1874 he issued his “Practical Suggestions on
Forest-Tree Planting in Minnesota,” and, as superintendent of tree
planting for the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, he did a great deal to
stimulate timber planting on ‘the prairies. In 1876, James Little of

Montreal, one of the earliest writers on forestry, called attention to |

the rapid destruction of timber in Canada and in the United States,
and presented a vast array of statistics to prove that a single decade

would “make a clean sweep of every foot of commercial wood in the _

United States east of the Pacific slope.” The Centennial Exhibition
at Philadelphia in 1876 had an exhibit in the interests of forestry. It
was in 1876 also that the first forestry associations were formed—the
American Forestry Association at Philadelphia, and a state associa-
tion at St. Paul, Minnesota. The American Forestry Association
never thrived, and was later (1882) absorbed into a new association.

In 1877, F. L., Oswald wrote in the Popular Science Monthly con-
cerning the sanitary influence of trees: “Forests exhale oxygen, the
life-air of flames and animal lungs, and absorb or neutralize a variety
of noxious gases. Scirrhous affections of the skin and other diseases
disappear under the disinfecting influence of forest air. Dr. Brehm
observes that ophthalmia and leprosy, which have become hereditary
diseases, not only in the valley of the Nile, but also in the tablelands
of Barca and Tripoli, are utterly unknown in the well timbered valley
of Abyssinia, though the Abyssinians live more than a hundred geo-
graphical miles nearer the equator than their afflicted neighbors. . . .
Since the Portuguese have felled their glorious forests (those on the

28 According to some accounts, the arbor day idea originated in 1865, with B. G.
Northup, secretary of the Connecticut Board of Education. Dr. Fernow thinks per-
haps the institution of arbor day hurt the forestry movement by leading people into
the misconception that forestry consists in tree planting. (Forestry and Irrigation,

Apr., 1908, 201: Fernow, “Economics of Forestry,” 379: Proceedings, Am. Assoc.
for the Advancement of Science, 1873, 2.)

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 31

a Islands) for the sake of the ‘madeira,’ (building material),
islands have become hotbeds of disease. The valley of the Gua-
juivir, as late as a century before the discovery of America, sup-
ted a population of 7,000,000 of probably the healthiest and hap-
t men of Southern Europe. Since the live oak and chestnut groves
the surrounding heights have disappeared, this population has
ink to a million and a quarter of sickly wretches, who depend for
ir sustenance on the scant produce of sandy barrens that become
jier and drier from year to year.”””® A book on “Forests and Mois-

, or Effects of Forests on Humidity of Climate,” by a Scotch
iter, John C. Brown, appeared in Edinburgh in 1877 ; and this book
‘contained an elaborate discussion of the effects of forests on climate,
citir g certain observations made in Central Park, New York. These
ervations did not show any decrease in rainfall with the decrease in
he surrounding forests. This book also referred to the claim made by
rtain commissioners in Maine, that the water in streams was dimin-
hing, and that the amount of snow and rain was decreasing with the
struction of the forests.

INTEREST SHOWN BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

9, the report of the Commissioner of Patents contained the proph-
: “The waste of valuable timber in the United States will hardly
in to be appreciated until our population reaches 50,000,000.
an the folly and short-sightedness of this age will meet with a
ee of censure and reproach not pleasant to contemplate.’*° The
ort of the same office for 1860 contained an article by J. G. Cooper, .
hich the effect of forests on climate and health was discussed at
h.** This, it may be noted, was a favorite theme with conserva-
sts of the time, the effects of forests on climate, and especially on
fall, being often exaggerated.

1866, the Commissioner of the Land Office, Joseph M. Wilson,
ared that the supply of timber in the Lake states was “so dimin-
29 Popular Science Monthly, Aug., 1877, 385.
30 on of Patents, 1849, Pt. II, 41. Cited in Fernow, “Economics of
"81 Report, Com’r of Patents, 1860, 416.

32 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

ishing as to be a matter of serious concern.”’ Commissioner Wilson was
especially interested in the matter of tree planting on the plains, and
in both succeeding annual reports he devoted considerable attention
to this matter. In his report for 1868 he gave a long and detailed
account of forest conditions in various countries of the world; point-
ing out warningly the climatic changes which in Spain, Southern
France, Italy, Asia Minor, and other regions, were supposed to have
resulted from the destruction of the forests. He predicted that within

forty or fifty years our own forests would have disappeared, while

those of Canada would be approaching exhaustion. “Our live-oak, one
of the best ship-timbers in the world,” he said, “abundant enough at
one time to have supplied, with prudent management, our navy yards
and ship builders for generations, may be for all practical purposes
considered as exhausted. Our walnut timber . . . will soon share the
same fate. . . . Next we may expect a scarcity in our ash and hick-
ory so much sought after by the manufacturers of agricultural
machines and implements.” Like other writers of this period, Com-
missioner Wilson put considerable emphasis upon the climatic influ-
ence of forests, claiming that in several of the eastern states the
destruction of forests had brought such extremes in climate that fruit
raising, and even the raising of wheat, had become a very uncertain
business.”

In 1870, R. W. Raymond, United States Commissioner of Mining
Statistics, wrote in forcible terms of the wanton destruction of tim-
ber in the mining districts of the Rocky Mountain and Pacifie Coast
states.** Two years later Willis Drummond, Commissioner of the Land
Office, called attention to the importance of protecting the forests of
the public domain from waste and spoliation, and his appeal for help
against the timber thieves was repeated each year, as long as he
remained in office.** In 1872, also, C. C. Andrews made a report to the
Department of State on the forests and forest culture of Sweden. In
1873, John A. Warder, commissioner of the United States at the
Vienna International Exposition, prepared his “Report on Forests
and Forestry,” which was printed two years later. It contained an

382 Reports, Land Office, 1866, 33; 1867, 131, 135; 1868, 173-199, 190, 191.

88 H, Ex. Doc. 207; 41 Cong. 2 sess., 342.
34 Report, Land Office, 1872, 26, 27.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 33

Beeount of the forestry exhibit at the exposition, and an w cbeit for
via methods in the United States.

STATE ACTION

Several of the states early evinced an interest in forest problems.
1 1867, commissioners were appointed in Wisconsin to “ascertain
nd report in detail to the legislature certain facts and opinions
lating to the injurious effects of clearing the land of forests upon
ie climate; the evil consequences to the present and future inhabi-
nts, the duty of the state in regard to the matter; what experiments
ould be made to perfect our knowledge of the growth and proper
“management of forest trees; the best methods of preventing the evil
effect of their destruction; what substitutes for wood can be found
‘in the state, and generally such facts as may be deemed most useful to
ersons desirous of preserving and increasing the growth of forest
al d other trees in the state.” In fulfillment of this modest duty, the
commission made some investigations and submitted a report, point-
ing to Palestine, Egypt, Spain, and Southern France as dreadful
examples of national ruin due to forest denudation. Somewhat
_ strangely, this commission expressed a very reasonable and judicious
opinion as to the effects of forests on rainfall. From some writings of
_ this time, one might almost believe that forest denudation was the
ost common cause of the fall of nations.

Early in the same year that the Wisconsin commission was making
investigations, T. T. Lyon and Sanford Howard sent a memorial to
the legislature of Michigan, i in which they claimed to have noticed
. nfavorable changes in climate due to the destruction of the forests.
ie response to this memorial, the legislature appointed a committee of
‘investigation, and this committee made a report in February, 1867, in
_ which, like the Wisconsin commission, they put great emphasis on the
climatic influence of forests. They also prepared and introduced into
legislature a bill providing for timber culture.

In 1869, the Maine Board of Agriculture appointed a committee
present to the legislature suggestions as to a forest policy, and to
ll the attention of Congress to the subject.*° The question of forest
mservation had been discussed in New York even during the time of

85 Hough, “Report on Forestry,” I, 207.

34 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

DeWitt Clinton, but the first action came in 1872, when a law was
passed naming seven citizens as a State Park Commission, and
instructing them to make inquiries with a view to reserving or appro-
priating the wild lands lying northward of the Mohawk. This com-
mission, of which Verplanck Colvin was a member, recommended a law
forbidding further sale of state lands.** Minnesota appropriated
money to aid the Forestry Association formed in St. Paul in 1876. In
1877, Connecticut provided by law for a report on forestry, and an
agent was sent to Europe to get the material for this report.’ In
1864, California passed a law forbidding the cutting of trees on state
lands, but rendered the law practically inoperative by a proviso that
it should not apply to timber cut for manufacture into lumber or
firewood, for tanning or agricultural or mining purposes. In 1872,
California passed a law against setting fire to forests, and in 1874, a
law to protect the big trees—applying only to trees over sixteen feet
in diameter. Other states had, of course, preceded California in the
protection of forests against fire. In 1876, Colorado included in her
constitution a section relating to protection of forests.”*

ACTION OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF
SCIENCE

More fruitful of immediate results than most of this state legis-
lation was the adoption in August, 1873, by the American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science, of a resolution providing for the
appointment of a committee to memorialize Congress and the several
state legislatures on the importance of forest preservation, and to
recommend needed legislation.*® The committee appointed was com-
posed of F. B. Hough of New York, George B. Emerson of Boston,
Professor Asa Gray of Cambridge, Professor J. D. Whitney of Cali-

36 Am. Forestry, Dec., 1910, 695: Fernow, “Economics of Forestry,” 386:
Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1894-95-96, 145.

37 Hough, “Report on Forestry,” I, 205.

38 Jbid. The same constitutional convention that drew up the Colorado consti-
tution also adopted a strongly conservationist memorial to Congress, asking for
the transfer to the state of all the timber lands on the public domain within the
state. The motive behind this is betrayed by Colorado’s later energetic opposition
to the Federal forest policy.

39S, Ex. Doc. 28; 43 Cong. 1 sess.

_ THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 35

ofessor J. S. Newberry and Lewis Morgan of New York,
yx William H. Brewer of New Haven, Charles Whittlesby of
Ohio, and Professor E. W. Hilgard of Ann Arbor. At a
lary meeting in Boston, a sub-committee composed of George
son and F’. B. Hough was appointed to give personal atten-
the matter. After much deliberation and consultation with sev-

mbers of Congress, with the Secretary of the Interior, the
uissioner of the Land Office, and even with the President, this sub-
ee adopted a memorial to Congress, calling for a commission
ry. The response to this memorial will be noted later. (See

EARLY INTEREST IN TIMBER CULTURE

y seem strange that interest should have developed regarding
ting of new trees before there was any general interest in the
ation of forests already grown; but without doubt the matter
lanting was of greater interest in the early seventies than any
subject relating to forestry.
In forested states and regions, interest in timber protection was
urally slow to develop. In those sections of the country where most
the timber was gone, as for instance in New England, considerable
tt had arisen, but even here forest preservation occupied a less
spicuous place than forest planting, in the minds of many conser-
nists. Thus the prizes offered by the Massachusetts Society for
Promotion of Agriculture very early in the century, were for
st plantations, not for conspicuous service in the preservation of
sts. ‘R. U. Piper’s appeal referred to above was mainly for the
; of trees rather than for protection. So also was the appeal
issioner Wilson, and the most of the agitation during the

¢ ee ‘ance in the West and in some parts of the Lake states, there
us, of course, very little general interest in forest preservation; and
or Ov where the supply of timber was observed to be disappearing
idly and some public interest was aroused, timber companies were
enough politically to block any important protective legisla-
rthermore, much of the forest land still belonged to the Fed-

36 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

eral government, and stealing from the Federal government has fre-
quently been regarded with indifference or approval by the public
land states. For all these reasons, interest in the protection of the
forests was slow to develop, and legislation was generally impossible.

Interest in tree planting, on the other hand, was stimulated by sev- —
eral factors, and there were no commercial forces opposed to legisla-
tion. The central western states were being rapidly peopled, and here
the scarcity of timber was immediately felt as a hardship, while periods -
of drought in some of the prairie states led to a great interest in the
question of the relation of forests to rainfall. As has already been sug-
gested, this question of the relation of forests to climate, and espe-
cially to rainfall, was one of the most popular topics with writers on —
forestry during this period. So much had the question been discussed,
indeed, that President Loring, in his opening address at the Ameri-
can Forestry Congress in 1888, announced: “The influence of forests
on rainfall has been so exhaustively discussed that little of value can
here be added.” .

Nevertheless, this was a live question for many years after. Fuller’s
“Practical Forestry,” appearing in 1884, begins with a treatment of
the influence of forests on climate. In the Proceedings of the Ameri-—
can Forestry Congress in 1885, the influence of forests on climate
was mentioned first of all among the considerations noted as actuating
the forestry movement; in fact, a great many of the forestry associa-
tion meetings in the eighties and early nineties were to some extent
devoted to discussions of this question. As late as 1897, Representative
Bartholdt of Missouri expressed his opinion that there was an intimate
connection between forest destruction and cyclones. “Is it not a fact,” —
he asked in Congress, “that cyclones and inundations were compara-
tively unknown before the wholesale destruction of our forests?” This
exaggeration, by some writers, of the effect of forests on climate no
doubt had an influence on public opinion. In the states once timbered
but now largely barren of merchantable timber, observers claimed to
note climatic changes and were demanding reforestation ; and since no
commercial forces were opposed to this demand, it was easily enacted
into law.*°

40 Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, 1883, 15; 1893, 45, 58: Cong. Rec., May
11, 1897, 1007: Bul. 24, Bureau of Forestry, Vol. II, 66.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 37
STATE TIMBER CULTURE LAWS

Biliitecots act of 1867 appropriated three hundred dollars to
nable the state agricultural society to offer premiums for the best
e acres of cultivated timber or for the best continuous half mile of
V ve hedge fence; but Kansas passed the first general timber culture
et in 1868, offering a bounty of $2 per acre for timber successfully
f tivated for three years. Wisconsin followed with a similar law the
2 year, while Iowa passed a law providing for a tax exemption for
n years for every acre so planted. During the following decade, laws
oviding either bounty or tax exemption were passed in the follow-
4 pkates : Nebraska and New York (1869) ; Missouri (1870) ; Min-
sota (1871); Maine (1872); Nevada (1878); Illinois (1874) ;
a cota, Connecticut, Wyoming and Washington (1877) ; Massachu-
% s and Rhode Island (1878). During the same period a number of
te laws were passed to foster the planting of trees along highways.
Bnet result of all timber culture was very small, however, and many
* laws were soon repealed.**

“TREE PLANTING BY THE RAILROADS

terest in the subject of tree planting is shown, not only by the
tate legislation, but also by the activity of various railroads in such
xperiments. In 1870, the Kansas Pacific Railroad began experiments
t three stations, but soon gave them up.“ In the same year, the St.
aul & Pacific Railroad began experiments in the prairie districts
long its course. In 1872, the Burlington & Missouri River Railroad
mpany of Nebraska planted trees along the Platte River. In 1878,
e St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad began experiments, and in the
: me year the Santa Fé established three nurseries in Kansas. In
875, the Northern Pacific, and two years later the Southern Pacific,
* on a similar policy. The Illinois Central, the Kansas City,
Scott & Gulf, the Missouri Pacific, and other roads also con-
ed experiments in tree planting.** The purpose of the railroads
Hough, “Report on Forestry,” I, 205, 206, 213: Proceedings, Am. Forestry
$8, 1885, 61: Kinney, “Forest Law in America.”
Hough, “Report on Forestry,” I, 118-122.

ee % Fourth Biennial Report, Cal. State Board of Forestry, 1891-92: Forest
Bu 2.

38 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

in this work was to demonstrate the value of their land, to test the —

value of certain woods for railroad purposes, and to remove the sterile

appearance of railroad stations; and, while direct results were gen- —
erally disappointing, the experiments helped to give a knowledge of —
the adaptability of different trees to various soils and climates, and at —

least taught many people what not to expect from prairie forestry.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION: FACTORS AT WORK

Attention has now been called to the growth of public interest, and
even state activity in regard to forestry. Before entering into a dis-
cussion of the action of the Federal Congress, it will be necessary to
point out some of the various influences at work there during the

seventies. The government officials having charge of the forests on 7

the public lands, the Secretaries of the Interior, and the Commission- ~

ers of the Land Office, although many of them western men, with the —

western bias on public land questions, were generally awake to the
dangers of forest destruction, and called out insistently for better
laws and better means of enforcement. In 1878, the annual message

of President Hayes called special attention to the need for forest :

preservation.** An increasing number of scientific men were working
toward the same end, either alone or with commissions or forestry
associations, or with learned societies, such as the American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science; while slowly following these
leaders, a public opinion was developing, stimulated by the disappear-
ance of forests in many parts of the country, particularly in the East.
Possibly, too, the general moral tone of the country was rising from
the low level to which it had sunk in the years following the Civil War.
Fernow says timber prices were rising,*’ but they were not rising very
rapidly ; and even if they had been, it is a debatable question whether
this would have been a factor favorable to conservation. It might
have had influence in arousing public interest, but it would also have
made timber stealing more profitable.

Factors hostile to conservation were at work at all times, and they
developed strength rapidly. The timber interests had been fattening

44 Cong. Rec., Dec. 2, 1878, 6.
45 Fernow, “Economics of Forestry,” 459, Appendix. See also Compton, “Organi-
zation of the Lumber Industry,” 77.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 39

on government lands, and had become a power in Congress, especially
since they were allied with some of the land-grant railroads. Through-
out the West, the miners also needed timber in their business, and were
therefore opposed to conservation, while even agricultural settlers
near the timber districts always felt that they were entitled to free tim-
ber, and opposed any restriction on its disposal. Stockmen had no par-
ticular interest in the timber lands at this time, but they could be de-
pended upon to line up with the other western men. These four classes
included a working majority in most of the western states, and the
admission of several new states had strengthened the forces naturally
opposed to conservation. In 1850, California had been admitted; in
1858, Minnesota, and during the next decade, Oregon and Nevada,
while Colorado was admitted in 1876. These new states gave the forces
opposed to conservation somewhat greater strength, especially in the
Senate, a strength out of all proportion to mere numbers; first,
because these forces, having interests at stake, were active, while the
conservationists in Congress, having no pecuniary interests in the
matter, were usually half-hearted; and secondly, because western men
were usually well represented in the Committee on Public Lands, and
thus exerted a disproportionate influence in all land legislation. A
further factor opposing conservation was the great railway develop-
ment in the early seventies. It not only called for considerable timber
in construction, but by the vast grants of lands, in some cases timber
lands, gave the railroads an interest hostile to conservation. Further-
more, it opened up vast tracts of timber lands previously safe from
spoliation.

These were the factors at work. It should be pointed out, however,
that there were no definite conservation and anti-conservation parties
in Congress as early as this. Perhaps it is accurate to speak of “con-
servation forces” at this time, but these forces were never strong
enough to make a clear issue of the question of conservation until near
the end of the century; and the “conservation movement,” embracing
_ this conservation of all natural resources, did not develop until still
later—aunder President Roosevelt. It would be entirely misleading to
speak of “anti-conservationists,” or perhaps even of “anti-conserva-
tion forces” in this early period. There were, however, certain forces
favorable to rapid and unhindered appropriation and exploitation of

40 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

the resources of the country and opposed to conservation; and when
other forces became strong enough to attempt legislation, these forces
united in opposition.

CONSERVATION ACTIVITY IN CONGRESS

Probably little significance is to be attached to the grant of $10,000
in the annual appropriation bill of 1868, for various purposes, includ-
ing the purchase of trees, vines, and bulbs.** This item appeared each
year thereafter, but doubtless the purchase and distribution of seeds,
bulbs and vines among the people is significant rather of the quality
of American statesmanship than of any great interest in forestry.

The first appropriation for the protection of timber lands, in the
Naval Appropriation Act of 1872, has been mentioned. There had
been some effort to protect the timber lands long before this. A system
of timber agencies had been established very early, but discontinued
in 1854, when the supervision was transferred to the Department of
the Interior.** In 1855, however, a circular had been issued by the
Department of the Interior directing the land officers to investigate
any reports of spoliation of public timber lands, and to seize all tim-
ber cut from such lands and sell it at public auction; while they were
to notify the proper officers so that the trespassers might be arrested.
No compromise was permitted.

The circular of 1855 remained the basis of regulation down to
1877, when Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz inaugurated the
system of special agents for the detection of timber trespasses ;*°
but a lack of effective enforcement is indicated by the fact that the
total net revenue to the government for millions of dollars worth of
timber taken, from the beginning of records to January, 1877, was
only $154,373. Before 1872, it was a general rule that the expenses
incurred should be limited to the amount realized from the sale of the
timber seized, and of course this prevented any effective prosecution
of timber trespassers.”

46 Stat. 13, 155.

47 Hough, “Report on Forestry,” I, 12: Report, Sec. of Int., 1877, 16-20.
48 Hough, “Report on Forestry,” II, 8.

49 Tbid., I, 13.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 41

| Even if there had been an abundance of funds for the prosecution
_of trespassers, little could have been accomplished, because of the diffi-
; culty of securing, in the forest regions, any sentiment favorable to
_ timber protection. Stealing timber was-hardly regarded as: a serious
offense. Thus, when a certain timber owner in Wisconsin tried to get
_a lawyer to prosecute a trespasser for stealing some choice timber
from his own private land, he received the suggestive answer: “Now,
don’t try that. All of those fellows have had ‘some of them hams,’ and
"you can’t get a jury in all that country that will bring you in a ver-
dict of guilty, no matter how great and strong the evidence.”
_ Complaints from the timbermen would, however, indicate that the
efforts of the government were not entirely ineffective, at least in the
region of the Lake states. Thus, as early as 1852, Represéntative
Eastman of Wisconsin spoke bitterly of the manner in which “the
whole power of the country, in the shape of the United States mar- .
-shals, and a whole posse of deputies and timber agents appointed by
the President without the least authority of law,” had been “let loose
_upon this devoted class of our citizens” (the timbermen). “They have
been harassed almost beyond endurance with pretended seizures and
_ suits, prosecutions and indictments,” he said, “until they have been
_ driven almost to the desperation of an open revolt against their perse-
_cutors.” Representative Sibley of Minnesota also complained of the
“unrelenting severity” with which timbermen were pursued ; although
he admitted that the timber operators in the states farther west were
little molested.
Of course, the $5000 appropriated for timber protectiqn in 1872
_ was a mere bagatelle, wholly inadequate to the needs of the situation,
but it was a beginning, and each year following, a like amount was
appropriated, until 1878, when it was raised to $25,000." While the
‘appropriation of 1872, and likewise that of 1873 and 1874, was made
in connection with the navy, its use was not restricted to the naval
reserves; and that there was in Congress some purpose to protect
timber in general, is shown by several extra appropriations made in

50 Warren, “The Pioneer Woodsman as he is Related to Lumbering in the
_ Northwest,” 58.

51 Cong. Globe, 32 Cong. 1 sess., Appendix, 851, 486.

52 Stat. 20, 229.

42 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

addition to the annual sum provided—$10,000 being thus given in —

the Sundry Civil Act of 1872.°°

In the years. beginning with 1872, a number of bills appeared in

Congress for the protection of timber. In that year, Senator Windom
of Minnesota introduced a bill into the Senate,’* while Representative
Haldeman of Pennsylvania introduced two bills into the House, one
of which was a comprehensive forestry bill, and was debated at con-
siderable length.*® This latter measure provided that all land grants
should be made upon the express condition that the grantee should
preserve ten per cent of the grant in trees, and it failed in the House
by the surprisingly small margin of only seven votes. The debates on
this bill indicate that conservation had a few champions in —
even at this early date.”®

In 1874, Representative Herndon of Texas, following up the work —
-of the American Association for the Advancement of Science pre- —

viously referred to (see page 35), introduced a bill “For the appoint-
ment of a commission to inquire into the destruction of forests and
the measures necessary for the preservation of timber.*” Representa-
tive Dunnell of Minnesota, of the Committee on Public Lands, made a
long report favoring the proposition,”® but the bill made no progress
during the Forty-third Congress.

In 1875, Dunnell introduced a bill for the appointment of a com-
mission for inquiry into the destruction of forests.°® The bill was
pigeonholed, but in August of that year he succeeded in hanging a
rider on the seed distribution bill, granting $2000, to be spent by
the Commissioner of Agriculture for a report on the consumption,
importation and exportation of timber, probable supply for the
future, best means of preservation and renewal, influence on climate,

te.°° This appropriation was a result of the agitation by the Ameri-

58 Stat. 17, 359.

54 §. 795; Cong. Globe, Mar. 12, 1872, 1588.

55 H. R. 2197; Cong. Globe, Apr. 3, 1872, 2140: H. R. 3008; Cong. Globe, Dec. 3,
1872, 15.

56 Cong. Globe, Apr. 17, 1872, 2504; Apr. 30, 2925-2929.

57 H.. R, 2497; 43 Cong. 1 sess.

58 H. Rept. 259.

59 H. R. 1310; 44 Cong. 1 sess.

60 Stat. 19, 167.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 43

ean Society for the Advancement of Science, and Dr. F. B. Hough of
4 that society was the appointee. In February, 1877, Dunnel secured an
amendment to the Sundry Civil Bill, appropriating $2000 to com-
_ plete the report which Hough was working on," and late the same
year, the first volume was completed.®* Congress evinced further in-
terest in the matter by ordering 25,000 copies of the report for dis-
__ tribution.**

THE TIMBER CULTURE ACT

The Timber Culture Act of 1878," although it had little effect on
forest conditions in the United States, must be classed with conserva-
tion measures, because some of the motives behind its enactment were
sincerely favorable to the conservation policy. Just as state action on
_ the subject had begun early, so national interest was shown at an
early date, and was fostered generally by men from the prairie states.
_ In 1866, Senator Brown of Missouri introduced a bill donating public
lands to the “American Forest Tree Propagation and Land Com-
_ pany,” for conducting experiments.” The same year, Senator Harris
e of New York introduced a bill “to promote the growth of forest trees
on public lands” ;** and this bill was reported from the Committee on
Public Lands. Senator Cole of California, in 1867, introduced a bill
into the Senate providing for timber culture, and Senator Ross of
_ Kansas brought in several bills in 1869 and 1870.*7 In December,
1871, Senator Wright of Iowa submitted a resolution: “That the
_ Committee on Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the expe-
_ diency of requiring homestead settlers on prairie lands to cultivate
__acertain number of trees,” and this resolution was agreed 10."*

It was a Nebraska man, Senator Hitchcock, who introduced the

61 Cong. Rec., Feb. 23, 1877, 1881.

aR 62 F, B. Hough, “Report on Forestry.” Professor Sargent criticised this report
_ severely. Nation, Jan., 1879, 87.

- 68 Cong. Rec., Apr. 3, 1878, 2255.

_ 64 Stat. 17, 605.

65 S, 228; 39 Cong. 1 sess.; Cong. Globe, 1588.

66 S. 396; 39 Cong. 1 sess.; Cong. Globe, 3427, 3782.

ag 67 S. 110; 40 Cong. 1 sess.; Cong. Globe, 292: S. 876; 40 Cong. 3 sess.; Cong.

Globe, 814: S. 50; 41 Cong. 1 sess.; Cong. Globe, 29: S. 394, S. 650; 41 Cong. 2 sess. ;

Cong. Globe, 413, 1819.

ie 68 Cong. Globe, Dec. 12, 1871, 68.

44 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY.

bill, “To encourage the growth of timber on western prairies,” on
February 20, 1872.°° This bill, as introduced, required that 120 acres
of each 160 acres should be kept timbered for five years, and provided
that any settler fulfilling this requirement should have title to the
land. It was favored by the Commissioner of the Land Office, Willis
Drummond, who, however, thought the amount of timber required
was too great, so this was reduced to forty acres, while the time was
lengthened to ten years. As finally passed,’® this act provided that
persons planting and maintaining in a healthy condition forty acres of
timber on any quarter section of land, might receive a patent for the
same. Homestead settlers also might receive patents, if at the end of
three years they had for two years kept timber growing on one
sixteenth of their claims.

A real conservation purpose is indicated by the debates on this bill,
and also by the vote in the House, but the law had been in effect only
a short time when certain defects were recognized.” First of all, it
required that the trees be planted the first year, the same year the
ground was broken. Furthermore, the entire forty acres must be
planted the first year—an initial outlay too great for a poor man.
Less objectionable was the fact that it did not permit the entry of less
than 160 acres. The law had been in force less than a year when efforts
at amendment were made by the author of the original bill—Senator
Hitchcock, and by Representative Dunnell—the stalwart defender of
timber culture at all times.” Amendment was accomplished the ~
following year, covering the defects above noted.” |

Even as amended, the Timber Culture Act failed to produce the
results which had been hoped for. It was found impossible to stimu-
late tree growth by any such means, and settlers who had entered —
claims under the act were unable to comply with the conditions pre-
scribed. Relief acts of various kinds were passed. In 1876, an act

69 S, 680; Cong. Globe, Feb. 20, 1872, 1129.

70 Stat. 17, 605. It may be noted that several years later Ontario, following the
recommendations of the American Forestry Congress at Montreal, also passed a
law to encourage the planting of forest trees, and voted money for the purpose.
Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, 1882, 29.

71 Cong. Globe, June 10, 1872, 4463, 4464: H. R. 66; 43 Cong. 1 sess.

72 Cong. Rec., Dec. 10, 1873, 122; Dec. 15, 1873, 207.

73 Stat. 18, 21.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 45

provided that the planting of seeds, nuts or cuttings should be deemed
compliance with the act, and in 1878, the entire measure was over-
hauled in detail,’* the chief amendment being a reduction in the
_ amount of timber required from forty to ten acres—a ‘considerable
4 reduction from the 120 acres required by the bill as originally intro-
- duced. The results of the law as thus amended will be treated in a
Br — later connection. Suffice it to say here, that the law never had any
i : B eppreciable effect in stimulating forest growth.

THE FIRST FOREST RESERVE BILL

In connection with conservation measures we may note that even
_ during the seventies, there appears a suggestion of the national for-
ests of later years, in a bill introduced in 1876 by Representative
Fort of Illinois: “For the preservation of the forests of the national
a adjacent to the sources of the navigable rivers and other
streams of the United States.””® Nothing was done with the bill, and it
indicates no special interest in the matter, even on the part of Fort
himself, who introduced it “by request,” but it was a precedent, and
shows that the idea of forest reserves had been conceived.

UNFAVORABLE LEGISLATION NOT APPLYING SPECIFICALLY
TO TIMBER

It is now clear that Congress had, in the period ending with 1878,
taken important steps in favor of conservation. The policy of annual
appropriations to protect timber had been inaugurated, and in 1878,
the appropriation greatly increased; while in 1876, a direct appro-
priation had been made for forestry investigations; and the creation
of forests on the prairies had at least been in good faith attempted.
Finally, the policy of forest reserves had been suggested.

There was not, however, an unbroken advance, and while in the
above we see the germs of future development along the lines of forest
nservation, during the same time other factors of a different variety
_ appeared, factors whose pernicious influence can only now be fully
appreciated.

14 Stat, 19, 54; 20, 113.

75H, R. 2075; 44 Cong. 1 sess.

46 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY
SWAMP LAND GRANTS

In the first place, certain acts had been passed, not directly relat-
ing to timber lands, yet of great importance in promoting forest
destruction. Of these, one of the most important was the Swamp Land
Act of 1850, granting swamp lands to the various states, on condi-
tion that the states would drain and reclaim them.’® This act, with
subsequent enactments, was the means of divesting the United States
of over 68,000,000 acres of land—much of it timber land. Florida
received over 20,000,000 acres under this act—over half the entire
area of the state; Michigan received over 5,600,000 acres ; and Minne-
sota over 4,000,000 acres.”

The immense swamp land grants were secured largely by fraud,
for the advantage of private individuals having political influence
with the officials of the various states. Some of the states hired agents
to make surveys, giving them as much as 50 per cent of the land
they could secure from the Federal government. A great deal of the
land was not really swamp land and never needed drainage. Thus, of
Florida’s vast grant, a great deal was not in the southern part of the
peninsula, where the lands were in fact swamp. Instances were even
found in which swamp land claims and desert land claims appeared
side by side.*®

Almost none of the swamp land granted to the states was ever
reclaimed, and most of it was soon improvidently disposed of and
taken up by private holders. Thus, Florida disposed of 4,000,000
acres of her swamp land in one sale, at twenty-five cents per acre. -
In all, about 16,000,000 acres of the Florida grant were taken up by
railroad, canal, and drainage companies. Michigan offered her tim-.
bered swamp lands for sale in unlimited quantities, at $1.25 per acre,
and granted much of the land which remained unsold to railroad,
canal, wagon-road and drainage companies. Nearly 900,000 acres in
the Upper Peninsula found its way into the hands of one company—
the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company; and most of the rest was taken

76 Stat. 9, 520.

77 Report, Public Lands Commission, 1905, 156: Report, Commissioner of Cor-
porations on the Lumber Industry, I, 253, 254; III, 206-236.

78 Reports, Sec. of Int., 1885, 198, 199; 1890, XIV, XV: Reports, Land Office,

1886, 38, 39; 1888, 42-45; 1889, 29: Proceedings, Society of Am. Foresters, Nov.,
1905, 56, 57: Donaldson, “Public Domain,” 220, 221.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS. AT

vy bther large companies. Very little reclamation was ever accom-
lished, and railroad and canal construction was often only “color-
able,” the grants being secured, not by bona fide fulfillment of the
ms of the grant, but fraudulently, through control of the state
islatures.”®

OTHER STATE GRANTS

_ All grants to the states operated in much the same way, and under
the various grants for education, internal improvements, etc., nearly
00,000,000 acres, some of it timber land, found its way into the
ids of private owners and beyond the reach of conservation meas-
ss. In at least one state, there seems to have been a lack of good
th in the selection of some of these educational grants. California
thus selected approximately 40,000 acres of school indemnity lands
for which no valid bases were assigned, and as late as 1908, had failed
to adjust the matter properly.*® Some of the states sold direct to the
bermen, without limitation as to amount. Others allowed entries
y in limited amounts to persons alleging intent to settle and taking
th that they had made no agreement to transfer the land to others.
Yet, even in such states, either by the looseness of the laws or by the
olation of them, large holdings of timber lands were built up from
te lands. Of course, such of the state lands as were real agricul-
lands were, for the most part, taken up by bona ee settlers,
t that has not been the usual history of timber lands.**
7“Tumber Industry,” I, 244, citations in footnotes; III, 198-207, 223-236:
mer, “Swamp Land Drainage,” Univ. of Minnesota, “Studies in the Social
‘ -4) eS,” No. 5.
y 80 Report, Land Office, 1908, 16. See also Orfield, “Federal Land Grants”; Univ.
Minnesota, “Studies in the Social Sciences,’ No. 2.
81 In California one holder, Thomas B. Walker of Minneapolis, in later years
uired about 100,000 acres of state lands, while three other holders together
ured 65,000 acres. In Idaho the Potlatch Lumber Company acquired the timber
its on over 77,000 acres of state lands. In Oregon two large timber holdings
e later found to consist almost entirely of state school lands in sections 16 and
A few of the states, it should be said, displayed some traces of wisdom in deal-
with their lands. Thus, Minnesota retained nearly one third of her total grant
f 8,150,000 acres, and, from the sale of part of the other two thirds, and from
timber and ore leases, the state finally received about $27,000,000; while the mineral
ights on the ore lands will, it is estimated, bring the state a very large sum—just
y much no one knows. The state of Washington still retains from its grants a

y large body of valuable timber lands, and Montana and Idaho hold smaller
ounts. (“Lumber Industry,” I, 252-255; II, 92, 125; III, 214.)

48 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Agricultural college scrip was often sold outright in large blocks. —
One company claimed to have bought over 8,000,000 acres of the —
scrip issued to Kentucky, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—two fifths of the ©
entire amount of scrip granted to these states.

os

THE PREEMPTION, COMMUTATION HOMESTEAD, AND DESERT
LAND LAWS

Some of the general land laws of the Federal government proved —
quite as iniquitous as the grants to the states. The Preémption Law
and the commutation clause of the Homestead Act were both used a
great deal by timbermen; and in 1877, the Desert Land Law gave one
other means of securing timber.*’ .

Preémption rights had been recognized in certain cases even as
early as 1799, but the general Preémption Act dates from 1841.*
Originally this system, by allowing title to go to actual settlers, had
put a premium on home making; but when the Homestead Act was
passed in 1862, there was no further need for the Preémption Law,
and since, under its provisions, no permanent residence was required,
it was used extensively by timbermen and others to gain title to public
lands.

In recognition of the fact that misfortune or change of circum-
stances might befall a settler, Congress provided by a clause in the
Homestead Act that any claimant, after six months’ residence and
cultivation, might “commute” his entry, that is, purchase the land
at $1.25 per acre instead of getting it free at the end of five years
of residence and cultivation. There was no such thing as a separate
and distinct law allowing entry with intent to commute. The appli-
cant had to swear that he was taking the land in good faith, for the
purpose of making a home; but the commutation clause allowed him
to buy the land if his original plans should change. Like the Pre-
emption Law, the commutation clause of the Homestead Act was
often, perhaps generally, used fraudulently. (See pages 79, 80.)

Less important than the Preémption Law and the commutation
clause of the Homestead Act, in promoting the alienation of timber

82 Stat. 19, 377.
88 Stat. 1, 728; 5, 453.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 49

ds and the destruction of public timber, was:-the Desert Land Act
1877, yet it must be mentioned here because it was sometimes used
timbermen. The process under this act was to make entry, with no
ntion of acquiring title, strip the land of its timber, and move on
other fields.™ .
_ Another factor of considerable influence upon the public timber.
land was the system of land bounties for military service. Under vari-
acts, warrants were issued for a total of over 61,000,000 acres of
By the provisions of the earlier acts the warrants were unassign-
, but in 1852 Congress passed an act making them assignable,
warrants for nearly 35,000,000 acres were issued after this.
These warrants were bought up in large quantities by speculators,
and in this way large tracts of land, some of it timber land, were taken
B by private holders.*°

PUBLIC SALE

. _ Public sale was from the earliest times a common method of land
disposal, and in the period of nearly a century during which sale was
permitted, considerable areas were taken up, particularly in the
8. jouth. Since there was no limit to the amount of land which could be
equired under the laws for public sale and private entry, those laws
3 were > used a great deal by se giana wherever timber sis was obtain-
ble under their provisions.*° |
In some of the southern states, timber lands were for a time very
effectually locked up from sale, if not from theft. At the close of the
Ci vil War, in order to preserve homesteads for the negro freedmen,
vongress had passed a law providing that in Alabama, Mississippi,
Li uisiana, Arkansas and Florida, lands should be disposed of only
under the provisions of the Homestead Act.*’ This law affected much
of the finest timber in the country, since much of ‘the southern land
; va s wholly unfit for cultivation, and therefore could not be taken up.
under the Homestead Act. Of course, such a provision could not long
stand the demands of the timbermen.
Report, Land Office, 1881, 377.
“Lumber Industry,” I, 258.
ae 80 Ibid., I, 185, 256-258; II, 147-149; III, 197, 213, 214: Report, Land Office,

68, 93; 1872, 26; 1873, 12.
“St Stat, 14, 66, 67.

50 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

In 1871, Representative Boles of Arkansas tried to secure the
repeal of the act of 1866, but failed. In 1875, Senator Clayton of the
same state brought in a similar bill, and after considerable debate,
succeeded in getting it through Congress.** Since the Clayton bill was
_ to determine the fate of some of the finest timber in the United States,
it is pertinent to note some of the points urged in the debates.

Several reasons were advanced why the southern timber lands
should be offered for sale. In the first place, the southern men felt
that the South should be treated like the rest of the country, should
be opened up to exploitation or “development,” like the other tim-
bered sections in the North and West. “What we ask, Mr. President,”
said Clayton, “is that the people of Arkansas, of Alabama, of Missis-
sippi, of Louisiana, and of Florida may have the privilege of develop-
ing the timber resources of their states the same as the other Western

States have. . . . The passage of this bill will add to the wealth of ©

the citizens of the states, furnish productive labor to their citizens,
bring immigration to these states, open up a means of supplying the
vast prairie land west of us with lumber, and allow the states the
privilege of levying a tax on these lands, which are now of no benefit
to them, but rather an obstacle in the way of their development.”
It was argued by several men in the Senate that these lands would
be better protected from fire and from trespass if they were sold and
taken up by private owners. “Let the lands go into the hands of indi-
viduals,” said Clayton, “and they will have an interest to prevent the
destruction of the timber by fire and otherwise.” Senator Windom of
Minnesota likewise thought that only private ownership would ever
secure protection for the forests. Senator Clayton showed how the
Homestead Act was used fraudulently, how entrymen would go to the
land office and upon payment of a five dollar fee would enter the land
and despoil the timber, with no intention of proving up for a home-
stead. “Our criminal legislation is for rogues and criminals,” he
declared. Senator Jones of Florida likewise pointed out how the sys-
tem prevailing favored the “trespasser, and the trespasser alone.”
Even as early as this, Alabama was developing the manufacture of
iron and steel, and Representative Hewitt favored the sale of lands
because he thought it would stimulate the development of this indus-

88 Cong. Globe, Feb. 11, 1871, 1157: S. 2; 44 Cong. 1 sess.

at

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 51

“Tron men will not invest their money in furnaces, unless they
rst secure large bodies of coal lands, and they cannot be had
e unless Congress passes the bill now under consideration.”

50 Sesbition to the bill came largely, of course, from the eastern
4 ites, although a few scattered voices were heard from various parts
f the country. Senator Edmunds of Vermont, one of the earliest
ons¢ vationists in Congress, was strongly opposed to the policy of
‘ling valuable timber lands in unlimited quantities for $1.25 per
cre. “That sort of thing,” he declared, “does not do the community
lw oe the lands are, any sort of good; it does not do the public any
od, because the actual amount of revenue derived from these public
s is, of course, very small.” The bill, as first proposed, provided
Ee sale at $1.25 per acre, but Senator Edmunds offered an amend-
ent providing that the land must first be offered at public auction.
e idea of this amendment was, of course, to secure something like
e real value of the land, but several of the southern men opposed it
n the ground that the offering of lands at public auction involved a
onsiderable expense and loss of time, while the price realized was
ever more than $1.25 per acre, anyhow. This amendment was finally
oc ; however. Senator Ingalls of Kansas pointed out a rather
li ng inconsistency in the attitude of the southern men, who were
rging upon the great need for this law, and upon the great
anand there was for the land to be opened up, while in the next
eath they stated that the land would never be worth over $1.25
er acre.

" Th ‘he opposition was based on various grounds. Senator Edmunds
ight that the price was too low, and probably he did not favor
‘ e, anyhow. Senator Oglesby of Illinois, and Representatives Hol-
jan of Indiana and Brown of Kansas clung to the idea of settlement
mder the Homestead Act, as representatives of prairie states nat-
ra py might. They did not see that timber lands and agricultural
ls present two entirely different problems and that their dispo-
iti m involves entirely different principles. The Homestead Act was
enly law which should ever have been passed for the disposition of
rdinary agricultural lands; but it was wholly unsuited to timber

C ae

Phe danger of promoting monopolistic control of the timber sup-

52 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

ply, by selling the land thus in unlimited amounts, was clearly pointed —
out in both houses of Congress. Representative Holman was particu-—
larly apprehensive on this point; in fact, in his fear of lumber monop-
olies he failed to appreciate the advantages of large units in the
lumber industry, and thus failed to foresee clearly the line of develop-
ment which that industry was going to follow in succeeding decades.
“T may be told,” he said, “that this wealth, which may be monopolized, ©
consisting in boundless regions of timbered lands, will not be made
available unless these lands are sold in large tracts. I do not think,
however, that the argument can be sustained. It is very possible for
these lands to be held in smaller quaritities and still be made available
by the energy of the single citizen. This policy would make no great
fortunes. It would give capital no opportunity to rapidly multiply
itself; but it would do what is infinitely better, it would give multi-
tudes of men an opportunity by their own labor to improve their
fortunes.” Just what kind of a lumber business Holman had in mind
here, it would be rather difficult to say, but it certainly was not what
we now recognize as the most efficient type of lumbering operations.

Perhaps the most advanced stand yet taken in Congress on the con-
servation question, was that of Senator Boutwell of Massachusetts.
Senator Boutwell offered an amendment to the Clayton bill, providing
for the appraisal and sale of the timber without the land, at not less
than appraised value, in tracts of not over 320 acres. The timber was
to be removed within three years, and no one was to get a second
assignment until he had exhausted his first 8320 acres. A small amount
of each species of timber was to be left standing on each plot, and all
live oak and red cedar was to be reserved unless opened to exploita-
tion by special order of the President. Thus, as early as 1876, at
least one man in Congress had grasped clearly the principle which
was later to govern our forest policy—sale of the timber with a
reservation of the land.

In his defense of his amendment, Senator Boutwell used some argu-
ments which sound very much like other conservation arguments of ©
the period, but some of his ideas sounded unusual depths of economic
philosophy for his time. “It is perhaps too early in the life of the
country,” he said, in closing his speech before the Senate, “to suggest
that in two particulars we are moving in that clear path which is

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 53

ked on every page of the history of the effete and extinct nations
f the world; in the impoverishment of the land, and in the waste of
a 2 resources of nature for the support of animal life, which goes on
day in every section of the country. . . . I am of those who believe

rat B avihing which has been granted by bart is more essential to
1e comfort, to the health, to the prosperity, and to the increase of
human race, except the preservation of the soil itself, than the
eservation of the forests. This bill is a proposition to invite all the
a culators and adventurers of the appt to enter upon the work
of destroying the forests of the country.”

Senator Boutwell’s amendment was attacked on all sides. Senator
Howe of Wisconsin frankly admitted that he was not interested in the
s of posterity. “Mr. President,” he announced, “I am, as well
s my judgment informs me, ready to labor by the sjde of the Senator
fre om Massachusetts for the welfare of the government today, and of
the generation now existing; but, when he calls upon us to embark
ery heavily in the protection of generations yet unborn, I am very
D much inclined to reply that they have never done anything for me,
d I do not want to sacrifice too much.” Senator Windom of Minne-
ota thought that only sale of the lands could ever secure their pro-
e ion, and that Boutwell’s amendment would hasten forest destruc-
tion, while the appraisal would be too expensive. As he expressed it,
there would have to be “as many appraisers as there were locusts in
Sgypt.”

_ After some debate, Senator Boutwell’s amendment was rejected,
é nc the bill itself passed both houses, the South voting almost unani-
n usly in favor of it.*® Thus Congress opened up to sale vast tracts
of the rich yellow pine forests of the South, and during the latter
ighties these lands were rapidly taken up by timbermen and specu-
lators.

q RAILROAD LAND GRANTS

ig - While the history of the railroad land grants is too vast and com-
plicated a matter for such a treatise as this, some account of it must
ie Bisex, for the railroad land grants were the most important factor

_ 89 Stat. 19, 73. This bill was not signed by the President, probably because he
did not approve it.

54 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY >

in producing the concentration in timber ownership which character-
izes the present situation. Railroad grants have been far more impor- —
tant than any of the other public land laws in their influence on timber ~
lands.

The era of Federal land grants for railroads covered the period —
from 1850 to 1871, and during that time the government granted a ~
total of 190,000,000 acres of land for the encouragement of railroad —
construction—an area greater than that of France, England, Scot- —
land, and Wales—greater than the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
and Michigan combined; greater than the New England and North —
Atlantic states, with Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and Ohio ~
thrown in—almost an empire. These figures cover only Federal land —
grants to railroads. They do not include Federal grants of about —
9,000,000 acres for wagon roads, canals, and river improvements ;
nor the grants made by the state of Texas, amounting to over ©
33,000,000 acres; nor do they include the millions of acres given to ©
railroads, wagon roads, and canal companies by the individual states.

It is true that much of the land granted was in the non-timbered
regions, but some of the grants traversed important timbered regions. —
The Northern Pacific grant crossed the timber belt of western Mon-
tana, northern Idaho and northeastern Washington, and also the ~
great Pacific coast fir belt in western Washington. The grants later
controlled by the Southern Pacific, before their forfeiture in 1915, —
swept through the Pacific coast fir and pine belts from Portland —
southward to Sacramento. The Atlantic and Pacific grant in northern —
Arizona and New Mexico included considerable areas of western pine; _
and the Union Pacific had smaller timbered areas in Wyoming, Colo-
rado, and Utah. The grants in Michigan from about the forty-
third parallel northward were in the white pine belt. So, also, were —
many of the grants in Wisconsin, and in the northern and north- —
eastern part of Minnesota, covering perhaps a third of the granted —
area in that state. In the southern yellow pine belt were all the grants
in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida, and most of those in Arkan-
sas and Alabama. A few of the grants were in hardwood regions.”

The importance of the railroad grants as a means of timber land
alienation was augmented by the passage of the Indemnity Act of

|
90 “umber Industry,” I, Ch. VI. } 4
}
3

4

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 55

: 4 1874, which provided that if land included in a railroad grant was
found in the possession of settlers, the railroad might select other
lands in lieu of it.** This was an equitable and innocent enough pro-

vision, apparently, but it enabled some of the railroads to acquire

more valuable lands than their grants really entitled them to.

_ UNFAVORABLE LEGISLATION APPLYING SPECIFICALLY TO
TIMBER

_ The various measures above discussed did not apply specifically to

timber lands. Of legislation applying specifically to timber lands, and

__ injurious thereto, perhaps the earliest example was the grant of mate-

_ rials, including timber on the public domain, for the purpose of rail-
road construction. In 1822, Illinois was granted the right to use
materials for the construction of a canal, and in 1885, a railroad,
from Tallahassee to,St. Marks, Florida, was given materials for
100 yards on each side of the track. In 1838, another Florida railroad
was given materials within twenty rods of the track, while a general
right-of-way act, in 1852, gave to any railroad chartered within ten
years, materials without any distance restriction ; and an act in 1872,
granting a right of way to the Denver & Rio Grande, gave mate-
rials for construction and repair. Here we can see increasing Congres-
sional generosity. Several acts in 1873, 1874, and 1875, gave mate-
rials for construction, and in 1875 that privilege was made general.”
It is true that in some cases this generosity was perhaps wise, but

_ great abuses arose, and a great deal of public timber was destroyed
under cover of these provisions.

THE FREE TIMBER AND TIMBER AND STONE ACTS

The year 1878 marks the passage of two acts of great importance
in promoting the destruction of timber—the Free Timber Act, and
_ the Timber and Stone Act. In order to understand the passage of
_ these acts, however, it will be necessary to note briefly the status of
the public lands laws as they related to timber.

_ Previous to the year 1878, no distinction was made between timber
lands and other lands, so that timber lands could be acquired from the

91 Stat. 18, 194,
92 Stat. 3, 659; 4, 778; 5, 253; 10, 28; 17, 339; 18, 482.

56 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

government in several different ways; by public sale, by private sale,
under the Homestead Act, under the Preémption Law, and by the use
of military bounty warrants or other forms of land scrip. Public sale,
as above pointed out, had been one of the earliest methods of land
disposal, but after the adoption of the Homestead Act, in 1862, pub-
lic sale was not favored, and at this time very little land had been
offered for sale except in the South—in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Louisiana, and Mississippi, where all of the surveyed public lands
were offered under the act of 1876. No land could be entered at
private sale unless it had first been offered at public sale, so that
about the only lands available at private sale, were in the southern
states.°* The Homestead and Preémption laws had been devised for
agricultural lands, not for timber lands, and the acquisition of
-timber lands under their provisions was often fraudulent—indeed
the acquisition of much of the timber land of’ the West was neces-
sarily fraudulent, since it was not fit for agriculture when cleared.

There was always a considerable amount of land serip of various
kinds, which could be used in acquiring title to public lands, but much
of this was, of course, in the hands of speculators, and so was obtain-
able generally only upon the payment of a speculative price. In secur-
ing land in this way it was necessary also to hunt out the holders of
the scrip; and finally, some of the scrip, as for instance the military
bounty warrants, was available for location only upon public land
which was subject to private cash entry, and for this reason was of no
value in many sections of the country.”*

Thus, there was in 1878 no general legal and honest way of acquir-
ing public timber lands, or the timber itself, in many parts of the
United States; and when appropriations for the suppression of tim-
ber depredations became available, and under Carl Schurz, the admin-
istration began a policy of law enforcement sufficiently vigorous to

93 Somewhat later than this, considerable land seems to have been offered at
public sale in various parts of the country, and in some sections, as, for instance,
Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, large tracts were taken up at
public and private sale. (Report, Public Lands Commission, 1905, 199 et seq.:
“Lumber Industry,” I, 185, 256-258; II, 147-149; III, 197, 213, 214: Donaldson,
“Public Domain,” 206, 207, 415, 1159.)

94 Donaldson, “Public Domain,” 223, 232-237, 289, 290, 950, 958, 959, 1276:
“Lumber Industry,” I, 258.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS BY

ourage timber stealing, those wanting timber sought other means
acquiring it. The result was the passage of the Free Timber Act
the Timber and Stone Act. The former provided free timber for
ers, and the latter provided for sale of the lands.
s long as the law against timber cutting was not enforced, there
been no need for a free timber law, but when the policy of law
reement was inaugurated, the response of the West was fairly
mpt. As early as 1869, Representative Johnson of California had
itroduced a bill for the relief of persons taking timber from the pub-
lic lands,” but the bill made no headway, and Congress gave little
evidence of interest in the matter for several years. In 1876 and in
‘8, Chaffee of Colorado introduced bills into the Senate: “Author-
¢ citizens of Colorado, Nevada and the Territories to fell and
ove timber on the public domain for mining and domestic pur-
poses”’;*® and in the latter year, by the help of Senator Sargent of
California, got one of his measures through the Senate without diffi-
lty. In the House, Patterson of Colorado, Page of California, and
zinnis of Montana pushed the bill through, although not until
of Illinois compelled them to agree to an amendment giving the
etary of the Interior control over the licenses to cut timber. As
amended, Chaffee’s bill passed with very little opposition, and
me a law on June 3, 1878.°° Some time before Chaffee’s bill was
ed, Representative Wren of Nevada introduced a similar bill into
e House, but it received no attention.”*
I fore this bill reached the House, however, a provision had been
acted as a rider to a special appropriation bill, which accomplished,
e territories of the United States, practically the same thing, for
¢ year. To the clause appropriating $7000 for investigating land
ntries, a proviso was attached, that where timber lands were not sur-
ed and offered for public sale, none of the money appropriated
d be used to collect a charge for timber cut for the use of actual °
lers.°* Much of the land had not been surveyed, and very little in
West had been offered for sale, so that the appropriation made for

95 H. R. 563; 41 Cong. 2 sess.; Cong. Globe, p. 98.
S. 1078; 44 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 20; 45 Cong. 1 sess.
Cong. Rec., May 9, 1878, 3328: Stat. 20, 88.

8 Cong. Rec., Mar. 11, 1878, 1646.

99 Stat. 20, 46.

58 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

timber protection was very closely circumscribed in its use. The effect
of the proviso was clinched by another provision, that all moneys col-
lected for depredations should be covered into the treasury like other
public land receipts. Money thus collected from the sale of stolen
timber had long been a fund for the prosecution of trespassers.
There was much justice in the demand of the western states for free
timber. In many parts of the West there were apparently inexhaust-
ible forests, some of the timber ripe or rotting, and with no apparent
probability that the government would soon, if ever, make any use of
it. In some sections, too, coal was not mined and was very expensive.
Under such circumstances there was little apparent justice in deny-
ing the miners and settlers the use of some of the timber. Further-
more, the people of the West felt that the timber growing in the West
was their own timber, and many of them were unable to see why they

should not do with it as they pleased, just as the people of the East

had done in an earlier period.

Had there been a law permitting the sale of timber on the public
lands, by means of a system of licenses, there would have been no real
need for legislation at this time; but no such policy had ever received
serious consideration in political circles in the United States, and
when Congress acted, it produced on the same day, June 8, 1878, the
Free Timber Act just described, and the Timber and Stone Act, the
latter of which launched the United States definitely upon the policy
of turning over timber lands to private ownership.

Considering public sentiment, and even scientific opinion, as it was
in 1878 and previously, it is not surprising that Congress should have
provided for the sale of timber lands. It seems strange rather that the
law should not have been passed sooner, for the policy of sale had been
recommended by almost all writers on the subject. In 1870, R. W.
Raymond, Commissioner of Mining Statistics, in his complaint re-
‘garding timber depredations, said: “The entire standing army of the
United States could not enforce the regulations. The remedy is to sell
the lands.’ In 1874, the Commissioner of the Land Office, S. S. Bur-
dett, recommended in his annual report that the lands should be sold;
and in this recommendation the Secretary of the Interior concurred.”

100 H, Ex. Doc. 207; 41 Cong. 2 sess., 343.
101 Report, Sec. of Int., 1874, XVI, 6.

:

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 59

' The Public Lands Commission of 1880 favored the sale of timber
lands, like Secretary Delano, on the ground that private ownership
g _would provide the best protection.’ Even the committee of the Asso-
_ ciation for the Advancement of Science appointed in 1873, reported:

pw e do not recommend the undertaking of this industry by the gov-
_ ernment;” although they added qualifications that could fairly be
_ interpreted to favor a system of national forests. F. B. Hough of
that society, in his first report on forestry in 1877, also said that our
vernment could not undertake the management of forests, because
e officers would be politicians instead of foresters; yet he spoke
vorably of the Canadian system of retaining the land and selling
stumpage.*”* In the debates on the bill for opening up the lands of the
South, almost everyone favored sale of the lands, as the best means of
securing protection. Secretary Schurz was always in favor of gov-
ernment reservation, of timber lands, but he said little about it, per-
haps realizing that there was no possibility of such a policy being
adopted.

It is not really surprising that in the seventies, sale should have
seemed the only practicable policy in dealing with timber lands. The
public domain covered an immense area of over a billion and a quarter
acres, more than a billion acres of it unsurveyed.*”* No surveys having
_ been made, there is no record of the amount of timber land included
in this total, but the fact that about 150,000,000 acres of forest
_ reserves were later carved out, after private individuals had taken the
best land, indicates that there was a vast area of timber land at this
_ time. The wisdom of government management of such an enterprise
- might well be questioned, especially since Congress had never evinced
the capacity to deal efficiently and intelligently with the lands, while
_ yarious scandalous exposures since the Civil War had shown a low
_ standard of political morality which promised little for Federal man-
_ agement of anything. With public opinion almost everywhere favor-
ing the policy of sale, and only a few doubtful voices opposing, a law
_ to carry out that policy was inevitable.

, 102 Donaldson, “Public Domain,” 542.

103 Hough, “Report on Forestry,” I, 194.

104 Cong. Rec., Feb. 2, 1876, 816-818; Feb. 7, 906; Feb. 8, 936; Feb. 15, 1083-

1090; Apr. 13, 2461; Apr. 19, 2603 et seq.: Report, Sec. of Int., 1877, XVI, XIX.
105 Report, Sec. of Int., 1878, 5.

60 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

As early as 1865, Senator Conness of California introduced a bill
for the sale of timber lands in that state, but the Committee on Public
Lands asked to be discharged from its consideration. In 1871, Dele-
gate Garfielde of Washington and Representative Sargent of Cali-
fornia introduced bills for the sale of timber lands in the coast states,
and one of these measures passed the House, as did also a bill intro-
duced by Slater of Oregon, proposing to give settlers the right to buy
forty acres of timbered lands for each 160 acres of untimbered land
occupied by them. Several timber sale bills appeared in the next few
years, most of them fathered by western men—Representatives Page
and Pacheco of California, Maginnis of Montana, Patterson of Colo-
rado, and Kelley of Oregon. Measures were also introduced, however,
by Dunnell and Averill of Minnesota, and even by men from farther
east—Representative Sayler of Ohio and Senator Boutwell of Massa-
chusetts.*°* Some of these bills provided sale at appraised value, or at
a fixed minimum, and in the debates on Senator Kelley’s bill, an amend-
ment was offered providing that lands must be offered at public sale
before they could be bought otherwise; but this amendment was
defeated in the Senate by a vote of 36 to 9, its meager support coming
mainly from the eastern states.*”" :

As already stated, Sargent’s bill of 1871, and Slater’s measure of —

the following year passed the House of Representatives. Two years
later the bill originally introduced by Page of California, providing
sale at $2.50 per acre, also passed the House without opposition; and |
in 1878, a bill was introduced by Sargent, providing for sale in Cali-
fornia, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada. This bill was intended as
a supplement to the Free Timber Act, which did not apply to the
coast states, California having been omitted from the provisions of
the latter act at the request of Sargent himself; and it passed both
houses with scarcely an opposing voice.*”*

106 S, 379; 38 Cong. 2 sess.; Cong. Globe, Feb. 16, 1865, 811: H. R. 2930, H. R.
3005; 41 Cong. 3 sess.: H. R. 274; 42 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Globe, Feb. 11, 1871, 1158:
H. R. 3101; 42 Cong. 3 sess.: H. R. 410, S. 471; 43 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 4430; 43
Cong. 2 sess.: H. R. 323, H. R. 660, H. R. 1191, S. 6; 44 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 797,
H. R. 1154; 45 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 2658, H. R. 3981; 45 Cong. 2 sess.

107 Cong. Rec., Feb. 16, 1876, 1101; Feb. 21, 1187-1189.

108 Cong. Rec., Feb. 22, 1875, 1591, 1598; Apr. 18, 1878, 2640; Apr. 25, 1878,
2842; May 11, 1878, 3387, 3388.

THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 61
CONCLUSION

‘Thus it appears that at the end of the year 1878, most of the fac-
; which were to determine the fate of our American forests were
eady at work. Some steps had been taken in the direction of con-
ation. A few private individuals, associations and societies had
nced considerable interest in the matter. Some of the states had
en a few wobbly steps in the direction of forest protection and for-
planting; while the Federal government had appropriated funds
protection and investigation, and had made an unsuccessful
empt at timber culture. These factors must not be given too much
phasis, however. Conservation sentiment, although destined to grow
influence within the next few decades, had as yet acquired little
entum; and in 1878, it seemed to be developing less rapidly than
anti-conservation spirit which had arisen to meet it. State action
ad been generally ineffective, Federal efforts vacillating and often
tile, and all tree planting worse than a failure.
Forces unfavorable to conservation had on the other hand attained
srmidable power. Swamp land grants, grants for education, military
bounties, and the whole hydra-headed system of grants and conces-
_ sions to the railroads had provided for the alienation of several hun-
dred million acres of land—some of it timber land. The Preémption,
Commutation Homestead, Desert Land, Public Sale, and Private
intry laws were available to timbermen for the acquisition of remain-
ing tracts; and there was no reason to expect that any of these laws
would soon be repealed. The Free Timber and Timber and Stone acts
ompleted the category of iniquitous statutes. The manner in which
these various factors operated to accomplish the destruction or alien-
ation of most of the valuable public timber during the following years,
_ and the manner in which the conservation forces finally saved to the
American public a frazzled remnant of their original magnificent
heritage, will constitute the subject-matter of the following chapters.

CHAPTER II

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891: FROM THE PASSAGE
OF THE TWO TIMBER ACTS TO THE FOREST
RESERVE ACT: WHOLESALE TIMBER
STEALING

Brrore entering into a discussion of the operation of the timber land
laws during this period, it will be necessary to examine carefully the
two laws of June 8, 1878—the Free Timber Act and the Timber and
Stone Act. They were not only passed the same day, but may be
regarded in some respects as a single act with two parts, each pro-
viding timber disposal on a different section of the public domain.’

THE FREE TIMBER ACT, PROVISIONS AND INTERPRETATION

The Free Timber Act of 1878? provided that residents of the Rocky
Mountain states—Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah,
Wyoming, Dakota, Idaho, and Montana—might cut timber on min-
eral lands, for building, agricultural, mining, or other domestic pur-
poses, subject to such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior
might prescribe.

The main purpose of the act seemed clearly to be the granting of
free timber to miners, although settlers were included. Beyond this gen--
eral purpose, however, very little in the act was perfectly clear. It was.
loosely and unskillfully drawn, and abounded in unnecessary and
indefinite phrases and clauses of the “and-so-forth” character. The
privilege conceded by it was limited to citizens of the United States,
‘and other persons,” resident in certain states, “and all other mineral
districts of the United States.” It allowed “timber and other trees”
to be cut for building, agricultural, mining, “or other domestic pur-
poses,” subject to such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior

1 Nevada was the only state to which both acts applied.
2 Stat. 20, 88.

a THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 63

“might prescribe for the protection of the timber, “and for other
re. as

Considerable litigation soon arose concerning the meaning of the
phrase, “all other mineral districts of the United States,” certain
mining companies in Oregon and California claiming that this phrase
_ extended the provisions of the act to mining districts anywhere in the
. United States. Secretary of the Interior Teller ruled that mineral
districts anywhere were included within the provisions of the act, but
the courts held that, while the phrase was some evidence of an inten-
j tion on the part of Congress to extend the operation of the act beyond
the limits of the states and territories named, yet, since: there was
§ -nowhere any district known as a “mineral district,” nor any method
_known to the law by which such a district could be established, the
"provisions. of the law could not be so extended.*
_ The law was not only ambiguous but, strictly interpreted, would
have applied to a very small portion of the public timber lands.* It
permitted the removal of timber from mineral lands. Perhaps not one
acre in 5000, in the states and territories named, was mineral, and
hardly more than one acre in 5000 of what was mineral was known to
be such.® The lands must be mineral, and furthermore, “not subject
to entry under existing laws of the United States except for mineral
_entry.” Interpreting this, the Supreme Court of the United States
| held that in order that mineral lands should be excepted from pre-
-emption and settlement, “the mineral must be in sufficient quantity to
_add to their richness and to justify expenditure for its extraction,
: og known to be so.”® In a later decision of the Supreme Court, Justice
Peckham said: “The right to cut is exceptional and narrow. . . . The
b oad general rule is against the right. The SEesaEAptiON in the
q bsence of evidence is that the cutting is illegal.’
_ These decisions were made later than the period under considera-
ti tion, so, of course, were not yet binding, but they differed little from

_ 8 “land Decisions,” I, 600: U. S. vs. Smith; 11 Fed. Rep., 487; U. S. vs. Benja-
ss nin; 21 Fed. Rep., 285.

4 Report, Sec. of Int., 1878, XIII.

5 Donaldson, “Public Domain,” 543.

Davis vs. Weibold; 139 U. S., 507, 519. :

_ TNo. Pac. R. R. Co. vs. Lewis; 162 U. S., 366, 376. See also U. S. vs. Reed; 12
eee: 99, 104; and U. S. vs. Plowsxan: 216 U. S., 372.

64 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

the instructions issued by Secretary Schurz in 1878, in which he
stated: “This act will be enforced against persons trespassing upon
any other than lands which are in fact mineral or have been withdrawn
as such.”®

The Free Timber Act would thus have been of extremely limited
effect if it had been strictly applied and its limitations enforced, but
it was not so applied and its provisions were not enforced. Secretary
Schurz’s regulations seem sufficiently severe. He not only interpreted
the term “mineral” very strictly, but also directed that no trees less
than eight inches in diameter should be taken.*° Doubtless, too, he
enforced his regulations as vigorously as funds permitted. In 1882,
however, H. M. Teller of Colorado became Secretary of the Interior,
and his enforcement of the timber land laws was such as might have
been expected of a western man, with a strong western bias on land
questions. His effort to broaden the scope of the Free Timber Act has
been noted ;*° and his general policy was to allow lumber dealers, mill
owners, and railroad contractors to cut timber even for commercial
purposes, and for sale as well as for use.”*

With the inauguration of President Cleveland, a new spirit entered
the Land Department, and, under Secretary Lamar and Commissioner
Sparks, the policy of Teller was completely reversed. Another circular ©
of instructions regarding the Free Timber Act was issued, perhaps
even more strict than that of Schurz.”’ This circular directed that the
“land must be known to be of’a strictly mineral character” in order
to be included in the provisions of the act. This, it will be observed,
anticipates the decision in Davis vs. Weibold by nearly five years.
Also in its regulations regarding sawmills operating under the act,
this circular evinces the most explicit care. Every manager of a saw-
mill was required to keep a record showing when and by whom all tim-

8 Report, Land Office, 1878, 119.

— 9 Ibid.

10 Cross Reference, p. 63.

11 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 235: “Land Decisions,” I, 597. Secretary Teller was
himself the owner of a number of mines in the West, and so was in a position to
profit by the loosest possible interpretation of the Free Timber Act. It has been
stated that he got title to some of his mining lands while Secretary of the Interior,
but the writer has no absolute proof of this statement. (Cong. Rec., Jan. 29, 1906,

1883; Feb. 26, 1909, 3227.)
12:Report, Sec. of Int., 1887, 552: “Land Decisions,” IV, 521.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 65

was cut, describing the land carefully and stating the evidence
| which it was claimed to be mineral, etc. The manager was for-
n to sell any timber or lumber without taking from the purchaser
ritten agreement that it would not be used except for the purposes
wed by the act. Every purchaser was required to file a certificate
er oath that he was purchasing the timber or lumber exclusively
or his own use, and for the purposes enumerated. To make enforce-
; 1er t easier, the books, files, and records of the mill men were required
be open to the inspection of the officers and agents of the depart-
t; while, to prevent waste and fire destruction, mill owners were
ired to utilize all of each tree that could profitably be used, and
remove the tops and brush.

EVIL EFFECTS

Unfortunately, the enforcement of these regulations was generally
lax. A force of from fifteen to fifty-five special agents** could not
ect several hundred million acres of timber land, even when the
inistration favored law enforcement, and in years when the admin-
tion did not favor that policy, very little could be expected.
lealthy companies employed large forces of men to cut and remove
the timber, little if any attention being paid to the character of the
nd, or to the size of the trees. Millions of dollars worth of timber was
ried to have been used in the Comstock mines between 1870 and
93, some oi it taken under the provisions of the Free Timber Act.
n 1887, suit was pending against one man in Colorado for 39,000
s of wood alleged to have been cut from non-mineral lands. Timber
EMaken, not only by lumbermen and by mining companies, but by
: me ting companies, which found charcoal combined with coke a
; et means of smelting than coke alone, and cleared vast tracts,
30r netimes, it is stated, burning over large tracts in order to get the
de * timber, and then selling charcoal in the public market. Along the
olorado Midland Railway, long stretches of mountainsides were
red of their forests, and later the charcoal kilns in the vicinity
deserted because of the exhaustion of the supply of wood.“

Reports, Sec. of Int., 1879, 26; 1890, 80.

ag Report, Land Office, 1888, 54: Forestry Division, Bul. 2, 1889: Proceedings,
. Forestry Assoc., 1891-92-93, 132: Report, Sec. of Int., 1887, 566, 567: Arbori-
ult e, Mar. 3, 1903, "91-93: Bird, “A Lady’s Life in the Rocky Mountains,” 226. In

66 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

The iniquitous effects of the law were pointed out from the very
first. Even before its passage, Commissioner Williamson wrote to Sec-
retary Schurz: “This bill is equivalent to a donation of all the timber
lands to the inhabitants of those states and territories. The machinery
of the Land Office is wholly inadequate to prevent the depredations
which will be committed.”*® Secretary Schurz foresaw the same results.
“Tt will stimulate a wasteful consumption beyond actual needs and
lead to wanton destruction,” he said, “for the machinery left to this
department to prevent or repress such waste and destruction through
enforcement of the regulations, will prove entirely inadequate, and as
a final result, in a few years the mountainsides in those states and
territories will be stripped bare.””**

In his annual report the following year, Secretary Schurz said:
“The predications made last year by myself and the Commissioner of
Land Office have already, in many places, been verified by experience.
I repeat my earnest recommendation that the act be repealed.”

While Schurz thus complained of the disastrous effects of the law
on the public timber, his successor, Samuel J. Kirkwood, like the
Public Lands Commission of 1880, seemed concerned rather because
the act was not more general in its scope,** and the next Secretary of
the Interior, H. M. Teller, usually favored timber concessions of
every kind.

EXTENSION OF FREE TIMBER PRIVILEGES

Although the preservation of the public timber demanded the
speedy repeal of this act, there was, during the decade or more fol- _

January, 1900, Secretary of the Interior Hitchcock ruled that the use of timber
for smelting was not permissible under the Free Timber Act; but only a few months
later Commissioner Richards ruled that smelting was “manufacturing,” and that
therefore timber might be taken under the Permit Act of 1891—a second “free
timber” act, extending the provisions of the act of 1878. Thus it seems that, but for
a few months during the year 1900, free timber was available for use in smelters,
although the writer is not absolutely certain as to the status of the matter during
this time. A decision of a Secretary of the Interior would not ordinarily be reversed
by a later Commissioner of the Land Office. (“Land Decisions,” X XIX, 572: Com-
pilation of Public Timber Laws, 1903, 91-93.)

15 Report, Sec. of Int., 1878, XIII.

16 Jbid., XIV.

17 [bid., 1879, 28.

18 H. Ex. Doc. 46; 46 Cong. 9 sess. XXXII, XXXIII: Report, Sec. of Int.,
1881, 13.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 67

y its passage, no change in Congress to justify a hope that it
d be repealed. It is true that the idea of forest conservation was
ding, but in Congress, especially in the Senate, the opposing
s gained considerable strength in the late eighties and 1890 by
admission of several new western states: North and South Dakota
9), Montana (1889), Washington (1889), Idaho (1890), and
ming (1890). Most of these new states could usually be counted
to vote against conservation measures.
ring the eighties there was little agitation regarding this par-
r act, Congress being largely engrossed in a general overhaul-
f other public land laws, particularly the Preémption, Timber
Julture, Desert Land, and Commutation Homestead laws; yet a few
relating specifically to free timber appeared, and all of them
avored a more liberal policy. In 1880, Representative Downey of
Vyoming introduced a bill to extend the Free Timber Act to all pub-
¢ lands regardless of their mineral character, but the bill was never
orted.*® Several years later, Representative Symes of Colorado
pted to amend the Free Timber Act, and Senator Teller (for-
‘ly Secretary of the Interior) made several similar efforts, one of
§ measures passing the Senate in 1888.*°
0 a type entirely different from these bills was the conservation
sure introduced by Representative Holman of Indiana in 1887."
‘his bill contained a provision that all timber lands should be classi-
ec _as such, and the timber sold to the highest bidder at not less than
raised value, in tracts of not more than forty acres. This provision
AS s intended to secure for the government something like the real
alue of the timber, but Smith of Arizona immediately offered an
ner dment providing free use of any timber not of commercial value,
> parently fearing that the bill would curtail free timber privileges ;
d this amendment passed without opposition. It was fairly clear
t free timber was not likely to be taken from the “poor settler”
| miner until Congress experienced a change of heart.
While it was thus clear that Congress would not abridge the privi-
H.R. 6340; 46 Cong. 2 sess.
H. R. 6709, S. 2510, S. 2877; 50 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 1394; 51 Cong. 1 sess. See

teport, Land Office, 1890, 82.
H. R. 7901; 50 Cong. 1 sess.

Ls

as

:

68 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

leges given by the Free Timber Act, and even that it might extend —
these privileges somewhat, there was scarcely reason to expect such
an extension of free timber privileges as came in the Permit Act of
1891. In 1890, in connection with the debates on the “annual” bill,
“To repeal the Timber Culture and Preémption laws,” Senator San-
ders of Montana offered an amendment providing free timber in
Colorado, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and
the gold and silver regions of Nevada, “for agricultural, mining,
manufacturing or domestic purposes.”*” This amendment, it will be
noted, not only provided for free timber in the entire public domain
of the states and territories named, without regard to its mineral
character, but it included manufacturing among the purposes for
which timber might be taken, being thus a practical legalization of
timber cutting for almost any purpose whatever, provided only that
the timber was not taken out of the state. Senator Edmunds of Ver-—
mont declared that the amendment turned “all the timber on all the
public lands of the United States in these States described, as open
and common loot for every miner, for every railroad, for every saw-
mill, for everybody who thinks that he can make money out of cutting
down the forests and selling their products.””* Senator Reagan of
Texas suggested that Sanders’ amendment be changed, so that it
should apply only to timber cut for domestic use and not for sale or
speculation, but Sanders objected even to this limitation, and it was —
not pressed.

There can be no doubt that Sanders, and most of the other western —
men, felt perfectly justified in asking for free timber for manufactur- —
ing purposes. As Sanders explained: “If I understand the Senator —
from Vermont [Edmunds], he objects to permitting the citizens liv- —
ing in those States, and to whom we thus deny the privilege of buying —
timber lands, the right to manufacture timber at all. I should think —
it would not be undesirable to permit manufacturing on the limited ~
scale on which it is carried on in such States and Territories to be so ©

22 §. Journal, Sept. 16, 1890, 524: Cong. Rec., Sept. 16, 1890, 10087 et seq. Some
of the western men not unnaturally felt that since the timber was in their vicinity, —
it was theirs to use for any purpose whatever. ‘

23 It will be remembered that Edmunds had shown his interest in timber con- —

servation fourteen years before, in the debates on the bill for the sale of southern
lands.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 69

rried on. That manufacturing consists principally in manufactur-
g lumber which is made into cradles to rock the children, shingles
id roofs to cover the heads of the citizens, coffins in which to bury
e dead, and lumber in the various forms which the necessities of
vilized man have through considerable experience designated as wise —
-and useful and comfortable and convenient. . . . There is not the
‘remotest desire on the part of the citizens of the State which I repre-
sent, or of the neighboring States and Territories that topographi-
ly are like my own, to get timber land or timber for nothing; but
2 simple fact is that they cannot get it; they cannot buy it unless
they go up to Oregon or to Minnesota, distant from 700 to 1100 or
: 9s miles. Now it is wise, I say it is just, it is beneficent that these
needs that exist there and that must be supplied shall be supplied and
om ay be supplied and provided for by law, may be supplied without
subjecting the persons to a criminal prosecution or to civil action.”
s enator Sanders was very bitter in his denunciation of the efforts of
‘the government to suppress timber stealing, and he spoke of the
g overnment as “represented by a very small, and very narrow-minded
and very malignant representative who grabs a citizen of the United
States and says: ‘We will wreak upon you some imagined and pent-up _
ngeance that we owe to this entire community for having cut this
aber.’ ”
_ One reason why the western men felt that they were entitled to free
mber, even for manufacturing purposes, was that forest fires were
estroying 1 immense amounts of timber each year anyhow, and there
a yas no apparent reason why this timber should not be used rather
than allowed to go up in smoke. Sanders also claimed that the settlers
in the West had earned the right to generous free timber privileges
( ‘ their services in helping to put out fires; but it is doubtful whether
ost people in the West had performed any very important function
protecting the forests in this way.
Sanders’ amendment encountered very little opposition in the
nate, except that of Senator Edmunds, and finally passed with
y three opposing votes, those of Edmunds, Quay of Pennsylvania,
d Spooner of Wisconsin. In the next session, the amendment was
reed to by the House, but President Harrison refused to sign it
il provision was made for the regulation of timber cutting by the

70 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Secretary of the Interior; and a separate bill, providing for such —
regulation was introduced.** Upon its passage, the original amend- —
ment became law on March 38, 1891.”° 4

The history of the Free Timber Act has now been traced through —
the period from 1878 to 1891. It has been pointed out that it was —
poorly drawn, ambiguous, and most injurious in its effect on the —
public timber ; that its faults were perceived even before it was passed, —
and afterward its evil effects repeatedly brought to the attention of —
Congress; that Congress, instead of eliminating some of the worst —
features of the law, left it upon the statute books untouched, and —
passed another free timber law even more vicious in its provisions. In —
order to understand more clearly the situation in regard to timber ~
lands, however, it will now be necessary to return to the other law a
of 1878—the Timber and Stone Act. ;

THE TIMBER AND STONE ACT: PROVISIONS

The Timber and Stone Act,”° applying to the coast states and —
Nevada, contained several important provisions besides the one per-
mitting the sale of timber lands, and these will first be briefly noted.
First of all, it provided (section 4) a lighter penalty for cutting —
timber on the public domain than had been imposed by the act of |
1831,”" and abolished the provision of the earlier act which had —
allowed informers or captors one half of all penalties or forfeitures ~
collected. The penalty now imposed—$100 to $1000—was altogether
inadequate, and did not include the costs of prosecution, which were
often greater than the penalty to be collected.”*

24 Cong. Rec., Sept. 16, 1890, 10094: S. 5129; Cong. Rec., Mar. 3, 1891, 3804.

25 Stat. 26, 1095.

26 Stat. 20, 89.

27 Stat. 4, 472.

28 Report, Sec. of Int., 1878, XV. Perhaps the influences behind the passage of
this law are indicated by the manner in which the various penal provisions are
arranged. Thus in section 4 there is a proviso that the “penalties herein provided
shall not take effect until 90 days after the passage of this act.” In the next section,
part of the law of 1831 is repealed, and in the last section a general repeal clause
sweeps away “all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this —
act.” This last clause seems to have intended the repeal of the act of 1831, for that —
act (Revised Statutes, 2461) provided a penalty for trespassing entirely different
from the penalty provided by the act of 1878, and so was apparently “inconsistent”
with it. The evident intention was to repeal the act of 1831, and leave a period of

— SE in ae ines | 2 etre tonne

pC eR AED re NITE a aI Nis

nt lt

ae es

Gomi tire, "ARS ay

i a aa a

Sr, * Selly
Sete ae

ee ee ee

ee

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 71

Free timber was granted in certain cases by the following proviso:

“Nothing herein contained shall prevent any miner or agriculturist

from clearing his land in the ordinary working of his mining claim or
preparing his farm for tillage or from taking the timber necessary
to support his improvements.” Interpreting the phrase relating to
the clearing’ of the land, the United States Circuit Court held that
the clearing must be incidental or subordinate to the cultivation,”
but the agents of the Land Office, always lacking funds, and some-
times lacking honesty, were not likely to probe carefully into most
cases to determine whether the clearing was incidental to the mining
or cultivation, or whether it was the only object of the entry—a
difficult question under some circumstances. This section was certain
to result in fraud.

Section 5 of the act provided relief for trespassers, those who had
not exported their booty from the United States being relieved from
prosecution on payment of $2.50 per acre for the timber. This pay-
ment, it is true, did not give them title to the land, but the privilege
of thus cutting timber worth often $5 or more, for a charge of some-
times less than one half its value seems eens enough, without the
additional gift of a patent to the lands.*°

Unnecessary to the accomplishment of the purposes of this act was

a final proviso directing that all moneys collected should be covered

into the treasury of the United States. Such a provision had already
been enacted on April 30.**

Concerning the main provision of the act, the provision author-
izing the sale of timber lands, several limitations must be noted. In

90 days during which there should be no law for the punishment of trespassers in
these states. It is true the Attorney-General decided that the general repeal clause
did not repeal the act of 1831, but in making this decision he seemed to doubt
whether he was following out the intentions which actuated Congress in passing the
act. (S. Doc. 396, Pt. 3, 245; 59 Cong. 2 sess.: Compilation of Public Timber Laws,
1903, 105, 106.)

29 U. S. vs. Williams; 18 Fed. Rep., 477.

80 Report, Sec. of Int., 1878, XV. This attempt on the part of Congress to le-
galize timber stealing was in some degree thwarted by the Federal courts, which
held that a party prosecuted was not discharged from liability by the payment
of $2.50 per acre, but was still liable to the United States for the value of the
timber cut. (U.S. vs. Scott; 39 Fed. Rep., 900. See also Cotton vs. U. S.; 11 How-
ard, 228: and U. S. vs. Cook; 19 Wallace, 591.)

81 Cross Reference, p. 58.

72 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

the first place it related only to surveyed lands in the states named,
and for that reason much of the land was not immediately available
under its provisions; although Congress showed a disposition to
extend its operation by appropriating $30,000 two weeks later, “for
a survey of timbered lands exclusively.”*’ In the second place, the
government was to sell only lands “chiefly valuable for timber but
unfit for cultivation,” which had “not been offered at public sale.”
The restriction to lands unfit for cultivation, had it been enforced,
would of course have eliminated some timber lands, while limiting
sale to wnoffered lands shut out practically all of the timber lands
of the South, which had been offered under the act of 1876.** A third
limitation forbade the sale of lands containing gold, silver, copper,
or coal. .

Subject to these limitations, the Timber and Stone Act provided
for the sale of 160 acres of timber land to any person or association, ~
“at the minimum price of $2.50 per acre.” The phrase, “at the mini-
mum price of $2.50 per acre,” should doubtless have been interpreted
to mean somewhere near the real value of the land, but not below
$2.50. It was not so interpreted, however, and timber lands of all
kinds were sold at this price. Secretary Schurz, in his circular of
instructions issued soon after the passage of the act, made no specific
reference to this section,’* apparently deeming its intent clear enough
without explanation, but the registers and receivers, lacking adequate
provision for the examination and valuation of the lands, found it
convenient to sell at the minimum rate provided; and this practice
was always followed until as late as 1908,°° when the timber lands
were practically all disposed of. It seems to have been generally
believed that the lands must be sold at $2.50, for so honest and aggres-
sive a public servant as Commissioner Sparks complained in 1885
of the inadequacy of the price, apparently believing that the remedy
lay with Congress, rather than with himself and the Secretary of the
Interior.*® .

It is true that some of the regulations provided in the act seemed

82 Stat. 20, 229.

83 Cross Reference, pp. 40-53.
34 Report, Sec. of Int., 1878, 134.
35 “Tuumber Industry,” I, 263.

36 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 225.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 13

indicate a desire to secure honest administration. The applicant
us required to file with the register a “sworn statement” that the
id was unfit for cultivation and valuable chiefly for its timber;
t it contained no deposits of gold, silver, cinnabat, copper, or
yal; that he had made no other applications under the act; that he
d not desire to purchase the land on speculation, and that he had
101 made any agreement or contract for sale to anyone else. Further-
10re, the testimony of two disinterested witnesses was required to
yport the allegations of the applicant. These witnesses were re-
red to swear that they knew the facts to which they testified, from
onal inspection of the land.**
iis limitation of 160 acres of land to iaek purchaser was a char-
istic sample of attempts by Congress to block the action of
Gixie law, and its failure was assured from the beginning. One
undred and sixty acres, the “one family farm,” is perhaps the most
icient unit in ordinary agriculture, but in the management of timber
s the most economical unit is a tract of thousands of acres, in
‘regions and under some circumstances, perhaps hundreds of
ands of acres. Such a tract permits the construction of efficient
ng equipment, insures a timber supply for the life of an efficient
thus making possible the most economical lumbering operations.
9 a single large tract of timber can be far more cheaply and effec-
ly protected from fire than a number of smaller tracts—a very
ortant consideration in view of the great expense involved in fire
ection. Congress was following out a very unwise policy in dis-
ing of timber lands under any circumstances, but doubly so in
ing thus to dispose of them in 160-acre plots.**

Report, Sec. of Int., 1881, 39.
It was not the western men alone who failed to see the folly of selling timber
id in 160-acre plots. Almost everyone in Congress thought that 160 acres was the
unit. Thus in the debates on the bill to open up the southern lands in 1876,
st no one seemed to have any clear conception of the economic principles that
eventually to determine the character of the lumber business and the size of
er holdings. Edmunds and Boutwell recognized that the land should not be
at all, but no one pointed out clearly that the 160-acre tract could never be
basis of an efficient lumbering business.
So in the debates on Holman’s bill of 1888, almost everyone seemed to cling to
* 160-acre plot for the sale of timber. Holman himself always favored small units
the lumber business and seemed to think that legislation could secure this con-
. Like almost all the men in Congress, he failed to see that large tracts of

74 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY
FRAUDS UNDER THE TIMBER AND STONE ACT

Since the land must be “unfit for cultivation,” no settler would buy
it for the purpose of cultivation, and, since 160 acres was too small
a plot for ecohomical lumbering operations, larger tracts must some-
how be obtained. Under the generally lax administration of the land
laws this was easily accomplished. Large operators had their em-
ployees and other persons make the necessary affidavits, enter the
lands, and then convey to their employers or principals. Irrespon-
sible persons—loggers, mill hands, sailors, ete.—could be hired for
from $50 to $150 or even less, and witnesses could usually be found
to swear to the proof of the entry for $25 or less. A special agent
reported finding records to prove that one such party had acted as
witness in thirteen final proofs in seven days, although he had prob-
ably never seen any of the land. The agent reporting this estimated _
that three fourths of the entries under the act were fraudulent.”

The annual report of Commissioner Sparks in 1886* gives an in-
teresting account of frauds perpetrated under this law among the
redwood lands of the Humboldt district in California. A large timber
firm in this district employed expert surveyors to locate and survey
the lands, and then hired a number of agents to go upon the streets
of Eureka and find persons to sign applications for land, and trans-
fer their interests to the company, a consideration of $50 being paid
for each application secured. No effort seems to have been made to
keep the matter secret and all classes of people were approached and
asked to sign applications. Sailors were caught while in port and
hurried into a saloon or to a certain notary public’s office. Farmers
were stopped on their way to their homes, and merchants were called

timber land were more valuable proportionately than small tracts, that 160 acres
was more valuable as part of a large tract than it was by itself, and that, there-
fore, when such lands once found their way into private hands, they inevitably
gravitated into large holdings. McRae of Arkansas was one of the first men in
Congress to point out clearly that the lumber business demanded tracts larger than
160 acres. “Any man who knows anything about operating a saw-mill,” he said in
discussing the Holman bill, “at least in the southern country, must know that no
man can afford to establish a saw-mill if he is limited to 160 acres of land. Such
a restriction would simply invite evasion of the law.”

39 Reports, Land Office; 1883, 9; 1884, 8; 1886, 79-97: Report, Sec. of Int., 1885,
213. ,
40 p, 94.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 75

om their counters and persuaded to allow their names to be used.
_ The lumber company’s agents presented the applications to the reg-
pa er and receiver in blocks of as many as twenty-five at one time,
id the fees, had the proper notices published, hired men to make
“a proofs, paid for the lands, and received the duplicate receipts.
The register and receiver seems to have been about the only person
_ in the vicinity who was ignorant of these frauds.
This case indicated that the ramifications of fraud extended into
the General Land Office at Washington, and illustrated some of the
“difficulties encountered by special agents when their discoveries im-
4 plicated wealthy and influential persons. In 1883, a special agent
a ‘reported that this company had procured a large number of fraudu-
lent entries, amounting to not less than 100,000 acres. The agent
peered the scheme in all of its details, indicating specific evidence
_ to support his allegations, with the further information that he had
Bihcen offered $5000 to suppress the facts and abandon the investiga-
tion. This agent was subsequently dismissed from the service because
of influence brought against him at Washington by men from the
acific coast. Although the report of this special agent was on file, _
containing, among other proofs, the affidavit of a former agent of
i timber company in whose interest, the entries had been made, dis-
sing the methods employed, and giving the names of thirty-six of
the entrymen hired by the company, with the amounts paid them for
eir services—in spite of all this, the official in Washington having
_ charge of these cases addressed a letter to the commissioner recom-
_ mending the entries for approval ; the commissioner, on receipt of
- this letter, issued patents in 157 cases that had been reported as
- fraudulent ; and 22,000 acres of timber land passed into the hands of
- the timber company. Other agents sent out to this district were ham-
_ pered by representatives of the timber company in every way possible.
_ Some of the witnesses were spirited out of the country; others were
_ threatened and intimidated ; spies were employed to watch and follow
~ one of the agents and report the names of all persons who conversed
_ with him, and, on one occasion, two persons who were about to enter
_his room for the purpose of conferring with him, were knocked down
and dragged away.**

41 For another interesting account of the difficulties encountered by govern-

76 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Even had the representatives of the Land Office always been honest
and possessed of sufficient funds to provide for careful inspection of
cases, proof of fraud under the law would have been very difficult to
sustain because of the stand taken by the Supreme Court of the
United States. In the famous case of Budd vs. United States, evidence

‘showed that a certain timberman had bought approximately 10,000
acres from various entrymen in a certain vicinity; that the deeds
recited a consideration of $1 given for lands worth $5000; that in
at least two instances land had been transferred to this timberman
before final payment had been made to the government ; that the same
two witnesses had served in twenty-one of these entries; and that one
of the witnesses had been engaged in examining the lands and report-
ing to the timberman; yet in the face of this evidence of bad faith

j ‘sie

the Supreme Court, Justices Brown and Harlan dissenting, held that _

since there was no absolute proof of a prior agreement in regard to
the particular tract in question, the government suit for cancellation
of patent must fail. The court even went so far as to add the dictum:
“Montgomery [the timberman] might rightfully go or send into
that vicinity and make known generally or to individuals.a willingness
to buy timber land at a price in excess of that which it would cost to
obtain it from the Government, and any person knowing of that offer
might rightfully go to the land office and make application and pur-
chase a timber tract from the Government.” Whatever may be said of
the judicial logic of this decision, the result was to render the sup-
pression of frauds under the Timber and Stone Act very difficult
indeed.*”

That the Timber and Stone Act would thus prove an instrument
of fraud was foreseen, even before it passed Congress, and thereafter
its evil effects were pointed out repeatedly. In 1878, Commissioner
Williamson, in a letter to Secretary Schurz, made the following pre-
diction: “Under the provisions of the bill the timber lands will, in
my opinion, be speedily taken up, and pass into the hands of specu-
ment inspectors see Conservation, Nov., 1908, 579-584. In one of the cases there
described, an attempt was made to poison the government agent by putting rough-
on-rats in his coffee at a special dinner to which he had been invited.

42144 U. S., 154, 162. See also U. S. vs. Williamson; 207 U. S., 425: Olson vs.
U. S.; 1383 Fed. Rep., 849, 852, 853: “Lumber Industry,” I, 266.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 "7

tors, notwithstanding the provisions to prevent such a result.”**
1 1883, Commissioner McFarland complained that the restrictions
F ‘and limitations of the act were flagrantly violated, and in 1884 he
said: “The result of the operation of the act is the transfer . . . of
aber lands, practically in bulk, to a few large operators.”** Sparks,
in 1885, complained in a similar strain, that the act had operated
“simply to promote the premature destruction of forests.”*° In each
of his annual reports, he called attention to the vicious effects of the
y, and asked for its repeal. The response of Congress to these
mplaints is characteristic of congressional legislation regarding

» public lands.

EXTENSION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT

For a correct understanding of the action of Congress in regard
the Timber and Stone Act, it will be necessary to recall the fact
at, at the time of its passage, sale of timber lands was the policy
ommended by almost everyone. Disposal of timber lands by means
the Homestead and Preémption laws had always resulted in frauds,
d, as protection of the lands had never been seriously undertaken
the government, and the idea of national forests had been only
guely suggested, sale seemed the only policy open to consideration.
e act itself had of course been dictated mainly by the timber in-
ests of the West, yet persons sincerely desirous of protecting the
blic timber had favored the policy of sale as the best means of
otection, and the act had passed with scarcely an opposing voice.
is thus clear that before the act could be repealed, or its provisions
iously altered, there must be a complete reversal in the attitude
Congress.

Aside from the very limited agitation in favor of forest reserves,
the creation of which would of course have involved the repeal or
limitation of the Timber and Stone Act, little effort was made during
1e eighties to change that law in any way. Representatives Strait and
nnell of Minnesota tried to amend the act to provide for sale only
48 Report, Sec. of Int., 1878, XV.

44 Report, Land Office, 1883, 9; 1884, 8.
45 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 225.

78 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

at appraised value, but without success.*° Representatives Browne
and Holman of Indiana and Payson of Illinois tried to secure the
repeal of the act, but Browne’s measure was never reported, one of
Payson’s was reported adversely by the Committee on Public Lands,
and Holman’s proposition, although debated at considerable length,
did not pass even the House.** More courteous treatment was accorded
a bill introduced by Senator Dolph of Oregon, to extend the act to all
timber lands regardless of their fitness for agriculture. This bill was
favorably reported by the Senate sabres on Public ke but
fortunately made no further progress.**

In the General Revision Act of 1891,*° the Timber and Stone Act
was not touched; and in the following year its provisions were ex-
tended to all public land states.”°

EXTENSIVE TIMBER STEALING

The two acts of 1878 have now been traced through, and somewhat
beyond, the period of the eighties. It has been pointed out how, in
spite of repeated protests regarding the evil effects of these two laws,
Congress, instead of repealing them, only extended their provisions.
However, while the action of Congress seems, in the light of later
developments, exceedingly unwise, yet any criticism of that action
should be tempered by a careful consideration of the laws applying
to timber during this period. A strict interpretation of the Free
Timber Act, as already pointed out, would have limited its appli-

46 H. R. 1164; 46 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 6997; 47 Cong. 2 sess.: H. R. 832; 48 Cong.
1 sess.

47 H, R. 1909, Cong. Rec., Jan. 7, 1884, 244: H. R. 7901; 50 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong.
Rec., Mar. 17, 1888, 2195: H. R. 379, Cong. Rec., Dec. 21, 1885, 378: H. R. 1300,
Cong. Rec., Feb. 29, 1888, 1594.

48 S, 2482, Cong. Rec., Jan. 12, 1885, 622. Later in the same session the House
voted favorably on Holman’s proposal to suspend all the public land laws except
the Homestead Law, pending legislation affecting lands, but in the Senate this
proposal was not considered. (Cong. Rec., Sept. 21, 1888, 8828.)

49 Stat. 26, 1095.

50 Stat. 27, 348. The act of 1889 (Stat. 25, 644), providing for the sale of Chip-
pewa pine lands, cannot be regarded as an extension of the Timber and Stone Act,
nor even of the general idea of sale, for in the case of the Indian lands the sale
was at an appraised value, and other legislation of the same period regarding
Indian lands indicates that the idea of sale was giving way to the idea of reserva-
tion. (Stat. 25, 673; 26, 146.)

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 79

cation to a very small fraction of the public timber lands; while the
_ Timber and Stone Act applied to only four states, and, even in those
_ states, provided for the sale of tracts too small for efficient lumbering.
_ Thus, after the passage of these acts, just as before, there was no way
_ by which timber for commercial uses could be honestly obtained from
a considerable portion of the public lands. Congress, in trying to
_ make timber available, cast aside the idea of selling the timber with-
- out the land, as making a great, unamerican land monopolist of the
government; and, following the dictates of the lumber representa-
_ tives, mining, and allied interests, extended the two laws of 1878.
The results of this action will be treated later, but the point to be
noted \ re is that from 1878 to 1891, just as before 1878, there was
no general law for the purchase of timber on the public lands. In-
_ evitably the timber which could not be secured honestly was secured
_ by fraud.

It is important to bear in mind that no attempt is made here to
_ measure the moral obliquity involved in these land frauds. From the
point of view of a conservationist writing in 1919, it would be very
_ easy to exaggerate the moral turpitude involved in stealing timber
lands in the seventies and eighties. As just pointed out, there was no
_ legal and honest way of acquiring timber lands in large enough tracts
_ for efficient lumbering. Furthermore, speculation and frauds have
_ always characterized the frontier, since the earliest years of the
_ nation, and moral values have corresponded to the environment. The
frontier has always attracted the adventurous element. In many
_ regions of the West, even within very recent years, it has not been
regarded essentially immoral to make a fraudulent entry with the
_ intention of transferring to some timber company, even to commit
_ perjury in making the entry. The practice has been too common to
_ be viewed seriously.

____ Besides the frauds practiced under the two acts of 1878, there was
a vast amount of stealing under other public land laws. The Pre-
- emption Law, the Commutation Homestead Law, and the Desert
_ Land Law were still in force during this period, and were often used

to obtain title to timber lands.
_* Millions of acres were taken up fraudulently under the Pre-

_ emption Law. Gangs of men were often employed to make entries, a

.

80 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

certain fee being paid for each fraudulent entry. In the redwood
district of California, large tracts of immensely valuable timber lands
were acquired under this act and under the Homestead Act, the sole
improvements consisting of huts or kennels totally unfit for human
habitation.** The head of a large lumber company at Duluth, Minne-
sota, once stated that he, with his associates, had acquired thousands
of acres of pine lands under the Preémption Act by simply filing the
names of persons found in the St. Paul and Chicago directories.
This man had a standing agreement with the local land officers
whereby they were to permit such entries for a consideration of $25
each.” ,
The Commutation Homestead clause was quite as effective an
instrument of fraud as the Preémption Law. During the course of some
fifty years, a total of over 35,000,000 acres of land was acquired by
commutation, the government receiving something over $50,000,000
for lands worth several times that much, and the profit going largely
to perjured entrymen and their employees. A prominent official in
the United States Forest Service once said of the operation of the act:
“Tt has been my experience and observation in ten years of field
service that the commutation homestead is almost universally an entry
initiated with a full intent never to make the land a home. Actual
inspection of hundreds of commuted homesteads shows that not one in
a hundred is ever occupied as a home after commutation. They become
part of some large timber holding or parcel of a cattle or sheep ranch.”
In the vicinity of Duluth, Minnesota, it was at one time a common
practice for persons desiring to commute to take an ordinary dry-
goods box, make it resemble a small house with doors, windows, and a
shingle roof. This box would be 14 x 16 inches, or larger, and would be
taken by the entryman to his claim. On date of commutation proof, he
would appear at the local office, swear that he had upon his claim “a
good board house, 14x 16, with a shingled roof, doors, windows,”
etc. The proof on its face would appear excellent, and was readily
passed by the local officers. Thus, in a variety of ways, the commu-
tation clause was used in the fraudulent acquisition of lands, often
valuable timber lands. Senator Patterson of Colorado declared in

51 Donaldson, “Public Domain,” 543.
52 “T_umber Industry,” I, 260, 261: Donaldson, “Public Domain,” 682, 1220.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 81

‘Senate in 1904 that “in Colorado and Wyoming, eight acres of
d out of ten to which title has been given in the last twenty years
> been obtained fraudulently and not for agricultural purposes

While there were a great many timbermen who used the various
blic land laws to gain title to lands, there were always other timber
ators who, with no pretense at land settlement or purchase,
ted mills on the public lands and sawed the timber. These men did
confine their efforts to any particular section of the country, but
* ge. e. ally most active where timber stealing was most profitable.
the early eighties, Wisconsin and Michigan were still the field of
extensive operations, the public lands in these states furnishing much
of the building material for the growing prairie states of the Central
West. Somewhat later, the neighborhood of the Rainy River, along
Canadian boundary line, was the scene of much activity. Men
from Canada built great roads into the forests on the American side,
and took the timber out on the river where steamers were engaged
n carrying it away. In 1890, the government sent an expedition to
s district, fitted for a winter campaign against the trespassers.”
Representative Wells of Wisconsin once gave a very interesting,
though perhaps exaggerated, account of the early conditions in the
ke states, describing how “men in the early days of Wisconsin and
chigan, so Jong as the timber lasted, would purchase 40 acres and
‘capture ’—they did not call it ‘stealing’—timber on 320 or 640
acres.” “It is a known fact,” he said, “that in Wisconsin and Michi-
yan the lumbermen, the pine-land thieves, have grown rich and pur-
chased seats in this house—yea, and wandered over into the other,
ind dangerously near some of them have wandered to the Interior
Department, and some of them, it is said, wandered even in there.”
4 Some of the western states presented newer fields. In Washington,
2 and around Puget Sound, famous for its magnificent forests,
bermen, mostly residents of San Francisco, erected large saw-
upon the public lands, and for years engaged in the manufacture
_ 58 Report, National Conservation Commission, III, 391: “Lumber Industry,” I,
25: aes : Donaldson, “Public Domain,” 540, 683, 1220: Conservation, Nov., 1908,
4: Cong. Rec., Mar. 31, 1904, 4032: S. Doc. 189; 58 Cong. 3 sess., 106.

: Report Land ‘Office, 1881, 370-377: Report, See. of Int., 1890, XVL
Cong. Rec., Dec. 7, 1894, 111.

Be

y. i

82 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

and export of lumber. Large quantities of timber in New Mexico were
cut from the public lands for delivery under contract to railroads
which were built in Mexico, notably to the Mexican Central, which
openly advertised in New Mexico for railroad ties to be delivered to
its agent in Mexico; and the Santa Fé Railroad transported much
of this material out of the territory, contrary to law. In 1885, the
United States instituted suit to recover the value of 60,000,000 feet

of lumber cut by the Sierra Lumber Company in California.” In 1887, —

a United States district attorney reported that in Nevada hundreds
of men were systematically engaged in cutting timber from the public
lands. He estimated that in the region about Eureka, Nevada, several
hundred square miles of land had been thus swept bare.” In Montana,
a trespasser was found to have 9400 cords of wood piled up on the

public lands along the Northern Pacific Railroad tracks, waiting —

shipment.”*

The Gulf states—Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana— _

with their vast forests of oak and pine, their convenient and acces-
sible harbors for shipment, their numerous streams, lakes, and lagoons

offering cheap transportation to market or mill, were for years in- —

fested with a class of non-resident plunderers, who shipped to various
parts of the world immense quantities of the finest ship timber, invad-

ing even the United States naval reserves with their sawmills.” One —

Italian firm working in western Florida was charged with receiving
4,512,000 feet of lumber taken from the public lands, and another
Italian firm was reported to have taken even more. Agents in Alabama
reported more than 17,000,000 feet of timber taken from public
lands in that state, transported to Pensacola, and there sold in the

market or shipped to foreign ports. Whole fleets of vessels entered —
the harbors of Pensacola, Sabine Pass, Atchafalaya, and other places —
along the shore, and carried away cargoes composed mainly of timber —

taken from the public lands.”

56 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 234.»

57S. Ex. Doc. 259; 50 Cong. 1 sess.

58 No. Pac. R. R. Co. vs. Lewis; 162 U. S., 366.

59 Report, Land Office, 1881, 376.

60 [bid., 1888, 54; 1880, 33. It was not Federal lands alone that were invaded by
timber thieves, for state lands suffered quite as much. Thus even as late as 1907,
Governor Hughes of New York was fighting timber thieves who had stolen large

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 83

addition to the mill owner, timber contractor, and speculator,
was a class of depredators whose operations in the South were
ps even more destructive—the turpentine distillers. To obtain
crude material to supply their works, these operators boxed the
s on thousands of acres, killing them in a few years.”*
t was difficult to get any sentiment for law enforcement in the
nber regions of the country. Senator Wilson of Washington once
scribed in the Senate the difficulties that always stood in the way
protecting the western timber from trespass. “I recollect very well
years ago,” he said, “a special agent of the General Land Office
ame to our town who said he was going over to investigate some
mber land depredations on Badger Mountain. I said to him, ‘When
u get over there, you will find a very beautiful valley of 300,000
re of land, and you can see that every farmhouse and all the build-
ss there are built of timber taken from Badger Mountain.’ I said,
ou go to the town of Waterville, with a thousand people, and you
ll find the courthouse and all the buildings there are built from
nber taken from Badger Mountain; and if you think you can get
dict, you had better try it.’ He did try it, but he did not suc-

TRESPASS BY RAILROADS

ng the most extensive depredations on the public timber were
by the railroads, in some cases under cover of their right to
materials for construction; in some cases relying on unsurveyed
grants ; sometimes through a fraudulent use of the indemnity
f 1870 and 1874; and often with no pretense of legality.

der a very liberal interpretation of the Right-of-Way Act, some
e railroads took vast amounts of timber for construction pur-
. Secretary of the Interior Teller ruled that the phrase, “adja-
n Ae the line of road,” applied to timber growing anywhere within
y miles of the track, and even beyond the terminus of the road.
h 1 Deailtoads assumed further that the phrase “construction pur-
unts of timber in the Adirondack Mountains. (Forestry and Irrigation, June,

07, 282: Outlook, Mar. 30, 1912, 729.)
_ 61 Report, Land Office, 1881, 376; Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1894-95-

Cong. Rec., May 6, 1897, 910.

84 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

poses” applied not only to the roadbed proper but to station houses,

depots, snowsheds, etc."* Some railroads went beyond all possible
cover of legality in their depredations. Thus the Union River Logging
Railroad Company in Washington was organized for the ostensible
purpose of engaging in ordinary railroad business, and application
was filed for benefits under the act of 1875, which the department

approved. The company built five miles of track into the thickest tim- —

ber, using government timber in construction, and engaged for years
in the logging business, with no pretense of carrying passengers, or
any freight but their own logs stolen from the government lands.™
Of timber trespass under cover of unsurveyed land grants, the
Northern Pacific furnished the most flagrant cases. The work was
sometimes done by a subsidiary company, owned by the railroad and

operating by special concessions. In 1883, the Montana Improvement —
Company, a corporation with capital stock of $2,000,000, mostly

Pea

owned by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, was formed for —
the purpose of monopolizing timber traffic in Montana and Idaho. |
Under a twenty-year contract with the railroad this company ex- —
ploited the timber on unsurveyed lands for great distances along the —
line of the road.” The government was always slow to survey the —

railroad grants, and, until they were surveyed, there was no way of —

distinguishing the alternate sections belonging to the railroad from
those reserved by the government.
Just what were the rights of the railroad in these unsurveyed lands

was not made very clear by the decisions on the subject. The Supreme -
Court of Montana seemed inclined to give the railroad unrestricted —
rights in these lands. In a famous case in that court, the United States.

brought suit for an accounting to recover $1,100,000 for timber and
lumber alleged to have been converted by the railroad, and for a
perpetual injunction restraining the railroad company from taking
more timber. The court, in a somewhat argumentative decision, held
that, although the United States and the railroad company had such

a common interest in the property as to enable either to protect it —

against a stranger, yet the United States had no beneficial interest ~

63 “T.and Decisions,” I, 610; Report, Land Office, 1889, 58, 59.
64 Opinions, Attorney-General, 19, 547. a
65 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 234. See also Opinions, Attorney-General, 20, 542, —

4
M
eS
“J
a
ay
oe
;

“

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 85

: odd sections, and therefore a suit for accounting would not lie.

msisted in the utilization of them, and that it was not waste for
me co-tenant to cut and utilize the timber, “for if the plaintiff could
in the defendant the defendant could enjoin the plaintiff, and the
aon property would be rendered useless.””*°

is decision seemed to deprive the government of all remedy in
cases of trespass upon unsurveyed lands, and it was often cited
as controlling on the point. The United States Supreme Court had
ong before held, however, that while the railroad grants were grants
azesenti, and vested the title in the grantee, yet a survey of the
and a location of the road were necessary to give precision to
itle and attach it to any particular tract,” and this doctrine was
1 enunciated by the same court in 1891.°° Furthermore, as early
76, a law had required that before any lands should be conveyed
o a railroad company, the company must first pay into the United
tates treasury the cost of “surveying, selecting and conveying the
ame.”*® The Northern Pacific made some surveys of its own and
nated certain lots as odd numbered, and even encouraged the
ing of timber on these lots, but of course these private surveys
not entitle the company to any of the land. It is doubtful whether
he surveys were honestly made anyhow.”

E An analysis of the above decisions and law indicates that while the

“|e

ilroad had no right to cut timber from the unsurveyed lands, the
ov ernment was helpless to prevent such illegal cutting; and this was
he position taken by the Land Office."* Mineral lands were of course

_ 660. S. vs. Pac. R. R. Co.; 6 Mont., 351, 355, 357. Whether, as has sometimes
een suggested, there was Northern Pacific influence behind this decision or not,

}a very delicate and difficult question. Certainly the general tone of the decision
altogether lacking in judicial poise, and, as above pointed out, somewhat out
f harmony with previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The
rthern Pacific, like some of the other land grant railroads, had great influence
eg of the western states, and this power was often wielded most unscrupu-

or Redvenworth R. R. Co. vs. U. S.; 92 U. S., 741.
8 Deseret Salt Co. vs. Tarpley; 142 U. S., 249.

69 Stat. 19, 121.

092 U.S., 741.

71 Report, Dand Office, 1892, 50.

86 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

excepted from the land grants, and therefore in no case open to ex- —
ploitation by the railroad, but this exception was of no consequence, —
since, the lands being unsurveyed, there was no way of telling what
particular lands were mineral. :

The Indemnity Act of 1874 was used by the railroad companies as —
a means of exchanging their worthless lands for valuable timber lands,
one method of procedure being to hire men to file claims on the worth-
less tracts and then choose valuable indemnity lands elsewhere.”* At
one time, this seems to have been unnecessary, for, prior to Secretary
Schurz’s administration, it was the practice of the Land Office to
allow selections of indemnity lands without any specification of losses,
but Schurz issued instructions requiring losses to be specified. Perhaps
an illustration of the influence which the Northern Pacific had in the ©
Land Office at Washington may be seen in the circular issued by the —
commissioner in 1888, allowing that railroad to make selections with- —
out designating any specific loss.”

ary & <

PIE a ae Oe

EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC TIMBER

During the administration of Secretary Schurz this wholesale —
timber stealing was in some slight measure checked. Secretary —
Teller, however, seems to have been little interested in timber preser- 4
vation. He never mentioned the subject in any of his annual reports,
and his later record as a staunch anti-conservationist gives good
ground for the belief that he probably did as little as possible to dis-
courage timber stealing.’” Commissioner Sparks, of the succeeding
administration, speaking of Teller’s policy, said: “The widespread
belief of the people of this country that the Land Department has
been very largely conducted to the advantage of speculation and
monopoly, .... rather than to the public interest, I have found —

SFT ey ee ee ee) Ce

72 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 41; 1886, 29 et seq. The Great Northern Railway
Company, through its subsidiary, the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba, now ~
holds a timber reserve of about 50,000 acres of heavily timbered land in Washing-
ton, which it obtained as indemnity for lands not secured under its Minnesota
grant. There is no particular imputation of fraud in regard to these lands, how-
ever. (“Lumber Industry,” I, 242.)

73 Report, Sec. of Int., 1893, XIV, XV.

74 Report, Land Office, 1877, 20.

75 See, however, S. 914; 54 Cong. 1 sess.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 87

supported by developments in every branch of the service. It seems
t nat the prevailing idea running through this office and those sub-
ordinate to it, was that the Government had no distinctive rights to
_be considered and no special interests to protect.”*° Two years later
‘Sparks announced that he had “no word to recall that has hitherto
sen uttered touching the aggravated misappropriations to which
e public lands have been subjected.”"’ Secretary Teller, as has been
reviously noted, seemed unduly favorable to the railroads. Not only
id he interpret the Right-of-Way Act with an unmistakable bias in
vor of the railroads, but it has been officially stated that in the case
certain unearned grants, he worked the clerical force of the Land
e over time during the last days of his administration to com-
ete the issue of patents before the new administration should enter.”
The administration of President Cleveland marks out a separate
period in the history of the public lands. President Hayes had called
for timber preservation as early as 1878,”° but Cleveland was the first
president to take an active interest in the public lands, and an uncom-
promising stand for enforcement of the laws. His Secretary of the
Pinterior, L. Q. C. Lamar, was likewise favorable to law enforcement;
= the great moving force in the department was Commissioner of the
Land Office William Sparks.

a Eight days after Sparks entered office, he issued an order suspend-
ing final action upon all entries on the public lands, with a few excep-
pene, 3 in Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Washington, New Mexico, Montana,
Wyoming, Nevada, and parts of Kansas and Nebraska, and eg sed
| og:all entries under the Timber and Stone Act without exception.*°

P This was the beginning of his campaign against land and timber
thieves, and he followed it up consistently. Perhaps he was rather
2 00 vigorous or too undiplomatic, or it may be that he was merely
16 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 155.

_. 1% Report, Land Office, 1887, I.

_ 78 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 43, 187-197.

It is true that during Teller’s administration a special division of the Land
_ Office was created to promote the prompt and effective disposition of cases in-
- yolving fraud, but whether this was the work of Teller or of his commissioner,
_ McFarland, does not appear. Commissioner McFarland evinced considerable inter-
_ est in the matter of forest preservation. (Report, Land Office, 1882, 11; 1883, 9.)

_ 79 Cong. Rec., Dec. 2, 1878, 6.
_ 80 Report, Land Office, 1885, 50: Report, Sec. of Int., 1889, XIX.

88 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

fighting a hopeless fight; at any rate he incurred the anijualligad
hatred of most of the congressmen from the public land states, who
never missed an opportunity to attack him in Congress, and in 1888
he was removed from office because, it was said, of a disagreement
with the secretary on the question of land-grant forfeiture. Even in
recent years, western men have referred to the way settlers were
“hounded”? by the Department of the Interior during Cleves
administration.**

Secretary Vilas (1888) followed out a policy similar to that of
Lamar and Sparks, but his successor, John W. Noble (1889-1893),
secretary under President Harrison, adopted a radically different
policy with regard to the timber lands. He found 105,000 cases piled
up in the Land Office awaiting final action, and proceeded to dispose
of them by “a more liberal interpretation of the land laws in favor

of the settlers.”*’ Although Secretary Noble seemed to judge his own ~

efficiency by the amount of land he was able to dispose of,* and al-
though his policy doubtless resulted in many fraudulent claims of all

kinds passing to patent,** yet he was sincerely interested in the public —

timber lands and later accomplished. much for their preservation in
connection with the law of 1891. This will be considered in connection
with forest reserves.*

THE “BILL TO LICENSE TIMBER THIEVES”

While most of the officials in the Land Department thus called
insistently for better law enforcement, a great many members of Con-
gress always thought the enforcement was entirely too vigorous.
The complaints of two of these timber congressmen in the early fifties
have already been mentioned ;** and in Schurz’s administration such
complaints became more numerous, until a law was actually secured

releasing some of the timber thieves from their difficulties. On May ~

81 Cong. Rec., Sept. 24, 1888, 8876.
_ 82 Report, Sec. of Int., 1889, XTX.

83 [bid., 1890, III.

84 In 1889, Secretary Noble reported a decreasing number of fraudulent entries,
but this may only have indicated laxity of administration. (Report, Land Office,
1889, 54.)

85 Cross Reference, pp. 115, 116.

86 Cross Reference, p. 41.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 89

10, 1879, Representative Herbert of Alabama introduced a bill to
4 relieve trespassers from prosecution for timber stealing done previous
7 to that date, on payment of $1.25 per acre for the land. This bill
“to “license thieves on the public domain,” as one of the opponents
called it, received the unanimous approval of the Committee on
Public Lands, composed of Representatives Converse of Ohio, Wright
of Pennsylvania, Steele of North Carolina, McKenzie of Kentucky,
Williams of Alabama, Hull of Florida, Ketchem of New York, Ryan
of Kansas, Sapp of Iowa, Washburn of Minnesota, and Bennett of
North Dakota. Dunnell of Minnesota at first opposed with char-
acteristic vigor, but later, after the bill had been somewhat amended,
changed his attitude. Conger of Michigan called it a bill “to make
easy trespass on the public domain,” and Hazelton of Wisconsin
j read a report from the Commissioner of the Land Office showing the
_yast amount of timber stealing which would thus be condoned, show-
ing that trespasses had been reported. during the two years previous,
amounting to 225,000,000 feet of lumber and 2,500,000 railroad ties,
besides a vast amount of other wood.** Poehler of Minnesota offered
_ an amendment requiring trespassers to pay double the government
price of the lands, but it failed by a vote of 50 to 82.

___ In the debates on this bill it was frankly admitted that no efforts
had been made to stop timber stealing before the time of Schurz, and
Herbert argued that “to commence suddenly a system of prosecutions,
_ to enforce them vigorously, exacting the extreme penalty of the law,
4 cruel and harsh.’’*°

4 There was much talk about the “spies and informers of the gov-
q Besment, ” “infesting all parts of the timber-growing regions,” “para-
_lyzing the great lumber industries” of certain sections by seizing stolen
lumber, and making themselves generally obnoxious to the “poor
Taborers” who had been working on the public lands.”°

: _ A certain element of justice there was, it is true, in ‘this bill. Dunnell
Seplained his change to a favorable attitude by saying that he had
learned of timber cut as early as 1863, found in the hands of purchas-

87H. R. 1846; 46 Cong. 1 sess.
+88 Cong. Rec., June 9, 1879, 1877.
ay 8e Ibid., Mar. 15, 1880, 1564.

90 [bid., May 20, 1880, 3580.

90 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY
ers and seized by the United States officers ; but it seems probable that

most buyers knew where their timber came from, and the debates

indicate that innocent purchasers were the objects of little more
solicitude than the timber trespassers themselves.

Robinson of Massachusetts offered an amendment limiting the con-
doning effects of the bill to cases of trespass “in the ordinary clearing
of the land, in working a mining claim, or for agricultural or domestic

purposes,” and this amendment, extended by Conger to cover also —
cases of unintentional trespass, passed by the rather close vote of
94 to 85.°* The vote on this amendment, which Converse said meant

the practical defeat of the bill, indicates a fairly clear division in the

House on the question of conservation. New England did not cast a :

single vote against the amendment. Pennsylvania, a conservation state

from early times, gave a heavy vote for the amendment, as did also
Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan; while the South voted almost at

unanimously against it.”
The bill, as amended, passed the House, but in the Senate various
other amendments were attached, and a conference committee was

necessary to adjust the views of the two houses.” As finally passed,” i

the act released trespassers from prosecution in any civil suit, for

trespass committed prior to March 1, 1879, on payment of the regu- Y |

lar price of the lands (usually $1.25 per acre). Thus it had been con-

siderably improved since its first presentation, the immunity being 3
limited to civil suits, and applying only to trespasses committed prior —
to March 1, 1879. Even as amended, it was clearly favorable to the . :
trespassers, and the final vote was cast with full appreciation of that —

fact.”

DIFFICULTIES IN THE WAY OF TIMBER PROTECTION

The Land Office was always handicapped in its efforts to protect the ~

public timber, not only by the evil character of the existing law, but
by the absence of certain other laws under which to proceed. For

91 Cong. Rec., May 21, 1880, 3627, 3631.

92 This, it must be noted, happened nearly a decade earlier than the abolition
of private sale in the South (Cross Reference, pp. 40-53), in which the southern
members of the other House of Congress showed a radically different attitude.

98 Cong. Rec., June 10, 1880, 4384; June 12, 4483.

94 Stat. 21, 237.

) geet?
7 oe,
bee Oe

eee Ais: cate fae Dep a

mat

eee
Pree e

% H <5
«
Are

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 91

ance, although forest fires were unquestionably the cause of far
e timber destruction than all other depredations combined,”* yet
e was no Federal law against setting fires on the public domain.
res were started by hunters, prospectors, tourists, grazers, and
hers, and the only remedy available to the government agents was
prosecute the offenders in the local courts under state laws. This
medy was practically valueless, because of the difficulty of appre-
nding offenders, the lack of effective state laws, and, in many
ons, the impossibility of securing any sentiment favorable to law
nforcement.”*

As early as 1880, Secretary Carl Schurz called the attention of
ngress to the need for legislation, but, although several bills were

95 Perhaps the final vote on this bill indicates more clearly than any other vote
cast where conservation had its strongest support.

? VOTES IN THE HOUSE AGAINST THE
BILL OF 1880

ee |

i

oe
7 eine at

~
: i a,

Cong. Rec., June 14, 1880, 4538

+6 In 1887, the Secretary of the Interior estimated the annual loss from fire
alone at over $7,000,000. In 1909, the National Conservation Commission estimated
ne loss from forest fires since 1870 at $50,000,000 annually. (Report, Sec. of Int.,
1887, 22: S. Doc. 676; 60 Cong. 2 sess., Vol. I, 20.)

97 Fountain, “The "Eleven Eaglets,” 75: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1891-
92-93, 123-126; 1894-95-96, 149, 150: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, 1885, 59,
60: Forestry and Irrigation, Feb., 1906, 93. For state laws regarding forest fires,
Hough, “Report on Forestry,” II, 30 et seq.

92 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

introduced,** nothing was accomplished. In 1890, President Harrison

sent a message to Congress asking for legislative relief, and Senator —

Paddock of Nebraska tried to secure this. Paddock’s bill passed the
Senate in spite of the opposition of Senator Teller, who argued that
the United States had no right to regulate the publte lands within the
states, but it was never reported in the House.*®

In their efforts to enforce the laws against timber dcpnedatae
government officers were hampered by the fact that the registers and
receivers had no power to subpoena witnesses. Citizens did not care to
testify, and often hardly dared to, especially in the most notorious
cases of fraud, where wealthy individuals or corporations were con-
cerned.*” "Timber operators usually had little difficulty in presenting
their witnesses, in numbers proportionate to their resources, but the
' government lacked the power to secure needed testimony.

Commissioner Sparks, in 1886, called for a law conferring this
power,” and later commissioners of the Land Office repeated his .
recommendation, but in vain. In 1887, Senator Plumb of Kansas
introduced a bill to confer this power, but it was lost in committee,
and the following year a similar bill was reported adversely by the
Committee of the Judiciary, on the ground that the “expediency and
constitutionality” of the proposed legislation were questioned.*””

GROWTH OF CONSERVATION SENTIMENT

It has now been pointed out that the public timber lands were being
stolen and plundered on a vast scale, and that most of the officers of
the Land Office between 1878 and 1891 constantly called for better
protection. Before treating further of congressional action in response
to this, it will be necessary to see what was the status of public opinion
in the matter, since Congress is usually more responsive to public
opinion than to departmental recommendations.

While there were, during the seventies, some signs of public interest
in timber preservation, the development of any general interest in the

98 H. R. 5556; 49 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 3279; 50 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 2647; 52
Cong. 1 sess.

99 S. 4156; Cong. Rec., June 26, 1890, 6533.

100 Report, Land Office, 1886, 101. ~

101 Ibid,

102 §, 3101; Cong. Rec., Jan. 10, 1887, 478: H. R. 848; 50 Cong. 1 sess.

_—s}PHE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 98

matter belongs rather to the decade of the eighties and later. In 1880,
_ Secretary Schurz spoke of the “wholesome sentiment growing up,”
_ and of the many letters that were coming to his office asking for better

_ timber protection. “There is scarcely a responsible journal in the

_ United States,” he said, “that has not during the last two years, . . .
_ published articles on the injury inflicted upon the country by rapid
_ and indiscriminate destruction of its forests.”” Without doubt, Schurz
exaggerated here, yet the next year Commissioner McFarland said:
_ “The special agents report that in many localities which have hitherto
been hostile to them, ... there at present seems to be a general
feeling in favor of the suppression of further depredations.”*°*
_. About this time several magazines began to publish articles relating
_ to forests and forest preservation. The Canadian Monthly Magazine
_ had shown an interest in the preservation of Canadian forests as early
_ as 1871, and that journal continued to bring out occasional articles
in subsequent years.** As previously stated, F. L. Oswald wrote in
5 the Popular Science Monthly in 1877 concerning the sanitary influ-
ence of trees ;*°° and two years later he wrote on the same subject for
the North American Review.” In the latter year, The Nation printed
_ an able discussion regarding the need of a system of forestry.**’ Other
4 _ magazines: followed, and the newspapers did ce. to help rouse
_ public opinion.
Inthe eighties, there was considerable newspaper writing regarding
forests and the tariff on lumber. In 1856, the treaty of reciprocity
103 Report, Land Office, 1880, 171; 1881, 376.
104 Aug., 1879, 136.
105 Aug., 1877, 385.
_ «106 “The inhabitants of Persia, Egypt and Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean
_ nations, who once enjoyed heaven on this side of the grave, have thus perished
together with their forests,” wrote Mr. Oswald, “leaving us a warning in the ruins
_ of their former glory, which nothing but a plea of religious insanity can excuse us

_ for having left unheeded for the last eighteen hundred years. The physical laws
_ of God can not be outraged with impunity, and it is time to recognize the fact that

_ there are some sins against which one of the Scriptural codes of the East contains
__ a word of warning. The destruction of forests is such a sin, and its significance is

4 preached by every desolate country on the surface of this planet. Three million
_ square miles of the best lands which ever united the conditions of human happi-

_ ness have perished in the sand drifts of artificial deserts, and are now more irre-

_ trievably lost to mankind than the island ingulfed by the waves of the Zuyder Zee.”
_ (No. Am. Review, Jan., 1879, 135.)
107 Jan. 30, 1879, 87.

94 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

with Canada had provided for the admission of free lumber into the —
United States for a period of ten years.'** In 1866, the agreement had
been terminated, and a tariff on lumber had immediately gone into
effect. During the early eighties, a considerable agitation arose for
the repeal of this “bounty on forest destruction.” Perhaps the higher
price of lumber and of lumber products, particularly paper, had as
much to do with this agitation as any desire to conserve the forests,
but conservation arguments were freely used and no doubt were given
a publicity of value in arousing public opinion, for they appeared in
some of the most influential journals in the country—the New York
Times, Sun, Evening Post, Daily Commercial Bulletin, the Boston
Herald, the Chicago Tribune, and the Kansas City Times.*” ‘

Besides this journalistic writing, a number of books on forestry
appeared. In 1878, Verplanck Colvin brought out his book on “Forests |
and Forestry,” dealing largely with the influence of forests on climate.
In the same year, B. G. Northup published his work on “Economic
Tree Planting,” and the following year, S. V. Dorrien finished his
treatise on “Forests and Forestry.” The following year, Hough com-
pleted the second volume of his “Report,” and in 1882, the third
volume.**® In the latter year, he also published his “Elements of For-
estry,” dealing with practical forestry and horticulture. In 1880,
B. G. Northup, secretary of the Connecticut Board of Education,
published his report on “Forestry in Europe,” a book of generalities.
H. W. S. Cleveland’s work .on “The Culture and Management of Our
Native Forests,” published in 1882, appealed for more conservative
use of American timber resources. R. W. Phipps’ “Report on the

Necessity of Preserving and Replanting Forests” was published in q

Toronto in 1883. Somewhat later a number of scientific papers
appeared. In 1885, Dr. J. M. Anders read before the Philadelphia
Social Science Association a paper on the “Sanitary Influences of
Forest Growth,” describing the manner in which germs of malaria
were supposed to be oxidized by the “ozone” produced by plants and
trees. In 1886, B. E. Fernow became chief of the Forestry Division at

108 Hough, “Report on Forestry,” IT, 513.

109 A collection of clippings relating to this matter was found in a compilation,
“The Spirit of the Press,” in the Boston Public Lares, See also Commercial
Gazette, Cincinnati, Jan. 5, 1883.

110 Dr. Fernow thinks Hough’s “Report” made little impression at first.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 95

Washington, while, in the same year, E. A. Bowers entered the gov-
ernment service as inspector in the Land Office; and in the following
_ years these two men issued a number of reports and articles of impor-
tance, these appearing not only in government publications and in
“magazines, but in scientific journals, Both men read papers relating to
forest preservation at the meeting of the American Economic Asso-
ciation in December, 1890."* _
_ Much of the valuable literature on forestry was written for special
forestry journals, of which several appeared during the eighties. In
_ 1886, the Pennsylvania Forestry Association began the publication of
a bi-monthly journal, Forest Leaves, which has persisted to this day;
and in 1888, Professor C. S. Sargent of Harvard University pub-
lished the first number of Garden and Forest, which for ten years did
“much to enlighten the public on forestry matters. Previous to this,
however, the first Journal of Forestry had appeared, edited by F. B.
Hough. This journal survived just one year, vanishing for lack of
readers,” but it was followed by irregularly appearing forest bulle-
_ tins, several of them written by Dr. Fernow.

FORESTRY ASSOCIATIONS

Several forestry associations were formed during this period. The
American Forestry Association had been organized i in 1876, but had
not prospered. In 1881, however, on the occasion of the centennial
celebration of the surrender of Yorktown, several descendants of
_ Baron von Steuben came to America, and to the influence of one of
_ these, an official in the Prussian Forest Department, can be traced the
4 meeting of the American Forestry Congress at Cincinnati the next
_ spring.’** This Forestry Congress lasted five days, among the spec-
tacular features of the occasion being a parade of 60,000 school
_ children to the tree-planting exercises.

_ Other associations were formed from time to time, more or less
under the lead of the national association. The same year that the
111 Am, Ee. Assoc. Publications, 6, 154, 158.

112 Fernow, “History of Forestry,” 432.

: 118 Dr, Fernow, in a speech delivered at Lehigh University in 1911, gives an
_ interesting sidelight on the influence of politics in the conservation movement. He

_ Says that the Forestry Congress at Cincinnati was part of a political movement to
boom the candidacy of a man who was seeking the office of mayor at that time.

96 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

American Forestry Association was formed, a similar organization —
was perfected at Montreal, although it never attracted a very large
membership, and never exerted great influence."* The next year, the

Ohio Forestry Association was organized***°—an outgrowth of the
Cincinnati Forestry Club. In 1886, the Pennsylvania Forestry Asso-

ciation was formed,"** always thereafter one of the most active of these —
associations. Somewhat similar to these was the Kansas Horticultural q

Society, which, at the time of the formation of the Pennsylvania asso-

ciation, was publishing its seventh annual report. A forestry conven-

tion was called in Maine in 1888 to discuss timber protection.

In the South, the development of conservation sentiment was very _
slow, yet some interest was shown during this period. In the late —
eighties, a forestry association was formed in Texas; two state for- _
estry congresses met in Florida; and the Southern Forestry Congress, _

an interstate association, was formed, and later affiliated with the
American Forestry Congress.***
STATE ACTION

As a result, in some measure at least, of this associated effor
many of the states appointed forestry commissions or commissioners.

Most of these were instituted to work out appropriate forest policies q

for the states, but some became permanent parts of the state organi-

zation with executive or merely educational functions.*” In 1880, and a
later in 1885 and 1889, temporary commissions were created in New —
Hampshire, and in 1882, one in Vermont; but of much greater impor- —

tance was the New York commission of 1884. The legislature of New
York appropriated $5000 in 1884 for the employment of experts to

114 Am. Jour. of Forestry, Dec., 1882.

115 First Ann. Report, Ohio State Forestry Bureau, 1885.

116 Pinchot, “Progress of Forestry”; Agr. Yearbook, 1899, 293-306, 304.

117 Report, Kansas State Horticultural Society, 1886: Proceedings, Am. For-
estry Congress, 1888, 7.

118 Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, Dec., 1888, 7, 34.

119 The American Forestry Congress at Cincinnati in 1882 had chosen a com-
mittee to memorialize the state legislatures in regard to the establishment of state
forestry commissions. (Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, Apr., 1882, 14; Aug.,
1883, 27.)

120 Agr. Yearbook, 1899, 299.

ge ; q

q
er
a
wl
}
q
3
i
4
ey

}
Va

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 97

work out a system of forestry for the state. This commission, com-
posed of Chas. S. Sargent, D. Willis James of New York, and two
others, submitted a report early the next year,’ and in March, 1885,
a in elaborate bill, prepared with the assistance of F. B. Hough, was
presented to the legislature. In passing this bill, the legislature of
New York created the most comprehensive forestry commission in the
U nited States, one which was later copied by various states. Three
years later, Michigan created a forestry commission to work out a
policy for that state.*”

California created a State oaed of Forestry in 1885, which was
two years later endowed with police powers, and granted the rather
generous sum of $29,500 for salaries and expenses.*** In the year
1885, Ohio established a State Forestry Bureau, while Colorado pro-
ded for a commissioner of forests. Kansas (1887) and North
Dakota (1891) also provided for commissioners, that in North
| eats being known as the superintendent of irrigation and forestry.
ven earlier than this, several of the Canadian provinces had fairly
a nelongannl forestry departments.”

| _ The various state forestry associations not only accomplished the
creation of these commissions, forestry boards, etc., but they secured
the passage of a great amount of other lodiblation dealing with
forest fires, tree planting, and other matters, forest fire laws being
¢ Re en modeled after the New York law of 1885.1*° The boom days of
a Beer culture had, of course, come before the year 1878, and during
he period following that, with the realization of the general useless-
rT oe of such laws,*** came the repeal of many of them; yet even down
to the present time some of the states have been experimenting with
bounties and tax exemptions.

_ 121 Report, Forestry Commission of N. Y., Jan. 23, 1885.

_ 122 Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, 1888, 7.

3 123 That California was not yet fully committed to a conservation policy is

sh ho mm by her neglect of the Yosemite forests, which had been turned over by the

deral government to the care of the state. (S. Ex. Doc. 22; 52 Cong. 2 sess.)

a 124 Hough, “Report on Forestry,” III, 15.

_ 425 Forest Circ. 13. State laws should, of course, not be taken too seriously, for,

is already stated, they were ineffective and seldom enforced.

4 126 Preliminary Report on the Forestry of the Mississippi Valley, etc., Dept.
‘ii 1882.

98 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY
OTHER INDICATIONS OF CONSERVATION INTEREST
Still other indications of interest in forest preservation appeared.

In 1888, the Carriage Builders’ National Association, at its eleventh a
annual convention, and the National Agricultural Convention of the

same year, adopted memorials to Congress calling for various conser-
vation measures. Several years later, the owners of about 93,000 acres

of forest lands in the southwestern part of the Adirondack region

formed the Adirondack League Club for the purpose of organized | q

‘management of their lands—perhaps the first attempt at scientific

private forest management in this country, on any large scale.’

It has now been shown that during the period from 1878 to 1891,
the public timber lands were being stolen and plundered on a vast _
scale; that government officials and scientific men repeatedly called
attention to conditions; and that a more vigorous sentiment in favor —
of conservation had developed. The response of Congress in regard to

the two most iniquitous laws on the subject, the Free Timber Act and

the Timber and Stone Act, has been indicated, but fortunately the

policy of Congress was not so unwise in all ways as it was inregard

to these two acts.

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION NOT SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO
TIMBER LANDS: THE PUBLIC LANDS COMMISSION AND |
THE GENERAL REVISION ACT OF 1891

During the latter seventies, there was a great deal of agitation +
regarding the administration and disposal of the public lands, partly
due to the influence of Schurz; and one result of this agitation was

the establishment of a commission in 1879 to codify the land laws, to
classify the public lands, and to make such recommendations as they
might deem wise in regard to their disposal.* The commission
appointed consisted of Thomas Donaldson, A. T. Britton, and J. Ww.
Powell; the Commissioner of the Land Office and the Director of the

Geological Survey being ex-officio members. They made a tour of the
West, visiting, either as a body or in detachments, all of the western ~

states except Washington, and early in 1880 presented a preliminary
report,’”® with a bill for the complete revision of the land laws. While ~
127 Am. Jour. of Forestry, 1883, 238: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1890, 31.

128 Stat. 20, 394.
129 H, Ex. Doc. 46; 46 Cong. 2 sess.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 99

results ever came of the bill proposed, the report itself, as later
Jed and revised,’ was a valuable storehouse of information
rel: g to the public lands, and doubtless it exerted some influence
Ste trend of legislation during the following decade, and even later.
\t an any rate, most of the legislation which was not clearly dictated by
timber interests and their allies, followed out policies strongly
sd by this commission.
oughout the period under consideration, conservation activity
ngress generally followed the precedent laid down in the bill
by the Public Lands Commission in 1880, in attempting a com-
e revision of the entire system of land laws. Since forest preserva-
tion was not the main object sought in these efforts, and was in fact
yen little attention in the debates, it will be unnecessary to trace the
y of the bills which appeared in every session of Congress, “To
2 to actual settlers the public lands of the United States adapted
agriculture, etc.” It suffices here to say that finally, in 1891, Con-
- $8 ee aaagien a fairly complete revision of the land laws, in-
ding the repeal of the Timber Culture and Preémption laws, the
mdment of the Desert Land Law to make frauds less easy, the
dment of the Homestead Law to allow commutation only after
een months’ residence and cultivation, the abolition of public
sales, and, most important of all, provision for setting aside
; reserves.'**

FAILURE OF THE TIMBER CULTURE ACT

e Timber Culture Act, it will be recalled, had been amended soon
its passage and entirely revised in 1878. It was predestined to
e, however, and in the early eighties this became generally recog-
The law was intended for the prairie, or so-called semi-arid
4 _. , and most of the entries were made there; yet, in many of these
cti ons, successful tree planting was not to be expected of settlers
> came from the humid regions of Iowa or Illinois, or further east,

feces from Europe. These settlers had no knowledge whatever of
e climate or soil or of the kinds of trees adapted thereto, were gen-

‘20 0H. Ex. Doc. 47; 46 Cong. 3 sess.: H. Misc. Doc. 45; 47 Cong. 2 sess. Donald-
n wrote the history of the origin, organization, and progress of the public land
tem, while Britton undertook the compilation of the land laws.

Stat. 26, 1095.

100 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

erally ignorant of practical arboriculture, and poor in purse. The ‘
law was a fraud on the government, and even sometimes on the settlers,
for no doubt some took up land in the belief that it must be good, since
the government considered that it would grow trees.*? There were —
some also who purposely used the law for the fraudulent acquisition
of land.*** a

Testimony regarding the act was almost unanimous in pronouncing —
it a failure and an instrument of fraud, and from 1884 to 1891 there —
were nearly always from one to a dozen bills before Congress providing .
for its repeal. Even the repeal of the act in 1891 did not end the diffi

ing that if trees were planted and cared for in good faith for eight |
years, final proof might be made without regard to the number of trees _
that survived; and thirteen years later the Commissioner of the Land
Office announced that nearly all the timber culture entries had been —
adjusted.**° |

APPROPRIATIONS TO PREVENT FRAUDULENT ENTRIES

The repeal of the Preémption Law and the amendment of the Home-

stead and Desert Land laws were steps in favor of a wiser disposition ©
of the public lands; but eight years previously Congress had shown a
disposition to suppress fraudulent entries, by appropriating $100,000 —
“for the protection of the public lands from illegal and fraudulent —
entry.’** This was in addition to the regular annual appropriatio ‘a |
to prevent timber depredations, and a sum of from $75,000 to |
$100,000 was provided annually until 1890, when the amount was
raised to $120,000.**7 Furthermore, the Sundry Civil Act of 1885*°°
contained an additional item of $20,000 for the expenses of hearing a
to determine fraudulent entries—an item which appeared regularly _
thereafter, bearing a sum of from $20,000 to $30,000. 3

132 The Nation, Sept. 13, 1883, 220. yi

188 Donaldson, “Public Domain,” 541, 681, 683, 1088, 1164, 1221: Report, Sec. of
Int., 1885, 203: Report, Land Office, 1885, 51. ea

1384 Stat. 27, 593.

135 Report, Sec. of Int., 1906, 376.

136 Stat. 22, 623.

137 Stat. 26, 389.

138 Stat. 23, 498.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 101
: ABOLITION OF PRIVATE SALE IN THE SOUTH

Perhaps more significant than these appropriations, and more
m portant than the abolition of public sale in 1891, was the abolition
of private sale in several of the southern states in 1889.’** It will be
embered that in 1876 Congress had provided for the sale of all the
jlic lands in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and
lorida—some of the greatest timber states in the United States.“
1 1888, Senator Walthall of Mississippi introduced a resolution pro-
ing that public lands in Mississippi should be subject to disposal
mly under the homestead laws until pending legislation relating to
public lands should be disposed of or Congress should adjourn. It
seems strange that a man from a public land state should have wanted
0 vation in his own state, but the committee reporting the reso-
1 ition added Alabama to the list of states, and also Arkansas, at the

rts

req est of Senator Berry of that state. As thus amended, the resolu-
tion was agreed to in both Houses, and a few weeks later another joint
es olution extended these provisions also to Florida and Louisiana."
Meanwhile Senator Walthall had introduced a bill to withdraw the
¢ lands in his state from sale at private entry. The Committee on
blic Lands reported it, with amendments broadening its applica-
n to all public land states,*** and as thus amended, Missouri being,
ever, excepted at the wish of a senator from that state, the bill
ssed the Senate without a comment, and later became a law. Such
| complete reversal in the attitude of the southern senators is difficult
understand, but doubtless one factor in the moral transformation
1876 was the fact that the most valuable timber lands had
dy been taken.*** There had also, no doubt, been some growth in
servation sentiment.

INDIRECT ENCOURAGEMENT TO TIMBER STEALING

_ The General Revision Act of 1891 represented a long step forward
the administration of the public lands, but it contained some pro-
ons which encouraged fraud. Not only did it extend the scope of
189 Stat. 25, 854.

_ 140 Cross Reference, pp. 40-53.

4 141 S. Res. 73; Cong. Rec., Apr. 17, 1888, 3032; Apr. 23, 3221: Stat. 25, 622, 626.

42S. 2511; 50 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., Dec. 21, 1888, 420.
143 Defebaugh, “History of the Lumber ‘Industry in America,” I, 371.

102 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

the Free Timber Act, as already indicated, but it also contained a

clause providing that “suits to vacate and annul any patent hereto-
fore issued must be brought within five years of the passage of this act,
and to vacate patents hereafter issued, shall be brought within six —
years of the issuance of the patent.” This was a limitation on the right
of the government to regain lands fraudulently acquired—a limita- —
tion of real importance, because of the small force of government —
agents and inspectors and the consequent delay in investigating cases. —
- About a year before this, Congress had extended substantial assist-
ance to fraudulent entrymen by providing more liberal regulations —
for filing affidavits."** In 1864, provision had been made that an appli-
cant who, by reason of distance, bodily infirmity, or other good cause,
was prevented from personal attendance at the district land office, —
might make his affidavit before the clerk of the court of the county of —
his residence.’** In 1890, Congress provided that affidavits of various © ;
kinds might be made also “before any commissioner of the United ©
States Circuit court, or before the judge or clerk of any court of ©
record of the county or parish in which the lands were situated.” —
These affidavits were commonly used in the fraudulent acquisition of —
land, and while the new regulations were a convenience to settlers, they —
made fraud easier to perpetrate and more difficult to detect. \q

Fy 7

THE FAILURE TO FORFEIT THE RAILROAD GRANTS

Like the above legislation, not specifically relating to forests, yet |
of great influence on the public timber lands, was the action of Con- —
gress in regard to the forfeiture of railroad land grants. During the ~
seventies, a strong sentiment against further land grants developed, —
and during the next decade the question of forfeiture was always —
before Congress. On this question, Congress divided into three distinct
groups. One group contended that failure to build any part of the —
road in the time specified in the grant should work a forfeiture of the —
entire grant.*** Another group held that it should work a forfeiture ~
only of the lands adjoining that part of the railroad completed “out —
of time,” while a third group favored forfeiture only of the lands ~

144 Stat. 26, 121.

145 Stat. 13, 35.
146 Cong. Rec., July 5, 1888, 5933-36.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 103

4 Bisacent to railroads never completed. The House of Representatives
_ generally took the second position, favoring a forfeiture of all lands
4 unearned in the time specified in the granting act, while the Senate
_ refused to forfeit more than just the land never earned. The difference
_ between these two propositions was very great, for the House view
_ meant the forfeiture of over 54,000,000 acres, while the Senate view
involved the forfeiture of only about 5,000,000 acres.*** After years of
_ debate and squabbling, the House finally accepted the Senate view.***
The forfeiture of these grants was extremely important in its bear-
__ ing on the public lands, including timber lands, but in Congress the
_ question of conservation was not the main question at stake. This was
_ clearly shown by the fact that forfeiture—a conservation policy—
_ was most strongly opposed by the men from the East, especially New
_ England, where conservation always received its strongest support.
_ The line-up on the question of forfeiture did not indicate that the
eastern men loved conservation less, but perhaps rather that some of
them loved the railroads more. Some of them were perhaps considering
the interests of constituents who owned stock in these railroads ; some
| _ doubtless owned shares of the stock themselves; some were employed
as railroad attorneys; and some doubtless merely had the conserva-
¢ Dive, capitalistic point of view which has more generally characterized
the East.
___ Some logic and justice there was, it is true, in the position taken by
_ the Senate. The government had permitted the railroads to continue
_ construction after the expiration of the term of the grant, without
_ declaring any forfeiture of the remainder of the grant, or indicating
in any way that the offer of lands was no longer available. The govern-
ment had not declared its attitude toward the unearned grants, had
__ stood by while the railroads extended their lines; and now it might
well have seemed unfair to declare a forfeiture of the land, even though
_ it had been “earned” after the expiration of the time limit.
_ On the other hand, it is certain that some of the grants and various
_ extensions of time had been secured fraudulently, that some of the
grants were entirely too generous, and that some of the railroads had
_ dealt most unfairly with the government and with the people. Fur-

147 Cong. Rec., July 5, 1888, 6013: H. R. 2476; 50 Cong. 1 sess.
148 Stat. 26, 496.

104 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

thermore, there is no doubt that some of the senators were under
railroad influence.**®

THE RAILROAD ATTORNEY BILL

- Some light seems to be thrown upon the railroad influence in the
Senate, by the treatment which that body accorded a certain railroad
attorney bill in 1886. Senator Beck of Kentucky introduced a bill in

that year, imposing a heavy penalty upon any member of Congress — #

who should serve as attorney or agent for a land grant railroad during

his term of office. Such a provision as this would seem at the present —

time only reasonable and proper, yet it was fought by tactics of every
kind. Edmunds of Vermont tried to bury it in the Committee on the
Judiciary or in the Committee on Finance, and Hawley of Connecticut
spoke at length against this “common and nasty defamation of Con-

gress.” Senator Mitchell of Oregon (later convicted of bribery in con- |

nection with the Oregon timber land frauds) tried to defeat the bill by
adding a most radical amendment, providing a penalty, not only for
serving a land grant railroad, but for serving any corporation or firm
engaged in the manufacture of any article or product on which a
customs duty was levied, or any article or product “in any manner

now taxable or subject to taxation by any act of Congress.” To make

his intent perfectly clear, Mitchell added a final touch of the ridicu-
lous by forbidding congressmen to serve any corporation or firm

“engaged in raising milch cows or beef cattle or hogs, or in the manu-"

facture or sale of butter or of the oleo oil from which is manufactured
oleomargarine.”

Senator Mitchell’s amendment was knocked out, but the bill was
later amended so that Senator Beck referred to it as a burlesque, and
in this form it finally passed the Senate.

It would probably be unfair to assume that the opposition to this
railroad attorney bill was prompted entirely by sinister motives, or
that all the opposition party was composed of railroad attorneys who
were just trying to save their hides. It is probably true that some of
the opposition was due to a sincere belief that the bill was mere “ful-
mination, target practice, firing in the air,” as Senator Ingalls of
Kansas expressed it. Whether there was much real sincerity behind

149 See footnotes, “Lumber Industry,” I, 244.

hie eee a

Re ee

at Noa megy® ae a
Pee Se St ra ee

‘a

SFist Ry E>

saat ae See

ee ay eee ara ema Sree ey

nef

be arnt ete

my, Tees
oe

oe a,

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 105

indignation expressed by certain senators at this “reflection on
zress” and “on the profession of the law,” is open to question.
though it would thus be unwise to attribute discreditable motives
who opposed Beck’s measure, evidence seems to indicate that
of the “distinguished senators” at least felt that this bill might
nger them. Senator Mitchell admitted that he had once been
ney for the Northern Pacific. Teller’s opposition to this bill may
mnsidered in connection with some of the decisions which he made
Secretary of the Interior. Hawley’s speeches do not sound high
s of political philosophy. He spoke of the bill as “harsh and
re,” and wondered if the offense aimed at was really a “crime,
wm in se,” or whether it was merely “some proceeding in contra-
ion of public policy,” which could be “reached by a milder form
ohibition.” If these men were absolutely free from railroad con-
tions, why did they object to the bill, anyhow? It is difficult to see
i the measure could have injured anyone whose skirts were clear,
et it was fought day after day with a stubbornness which indicates
iat more than a mere theoretical principle was at stake.

should furthermore be noted that the party opposing this bill
to avoid fighting in the open. Thus the first blow was Edmunds’
mpt to have the bill referred to the Committee on the Judiciary,
e it was understood the measure would be strangled. When the
on to refer was under consideration, Senator Beck said, “It might
go to the tomb of the Capulets,” and Senator Vance asked that
e bill be read once more, so that he could “take a farewell of it.”
: e next, attempt was to have it referred to the Committee on Finance,
al so apparently known to be hostile to such legislation. A great vari-
| y of amendments were pressed, obviously with no purpose but the
eat of the bill; and by such means its practical defeat was finally
euplished. ne

_ Forestry and forest conservation were never mentioned in the
bates on the railroad attorney bill, yet this careful consideration
$ appropriate because it throws light on the failure of Congress
forfeit the railroad grants. Railroad grants have been extremely
, 150 Cong. Rec., XVII, 5095, 5494, 5514, 5643, 5693, 5842, 5991, 5995-5999, 6037-

6051 6771, 8015; XVIII, 177-183, 210, 248, 278, 434, 952, 1004, 1038, 1047, 1065-
¢ 7, 1127-1139, 1149, 1154, 1199, 1227, 1242, 1284, 1314-1321, 1344-1360.

106 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

important in their bearing upon the public timber lands, have been by 3
far the most important cause of the concentration in timber owner-

ship which in recent years has come to occupy so much attention.

Fortunately the fiasco of 1890 was not the only action taken with —
regard to the railroad grants, for, already in 1887, the Secretary of —
the Interior had been directed to adjust all land grants,“ and in ©
1880, Congress had restored 28,253,347 acres to the public domain q

by forfeiture of particular grants.’

TIMBER ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS

Congressional action in regard to the Homestead and Preémption —

laws, public and private sale, and forfeiture of railroad grants, had
no specific reference to timber lands. It is true that the Timber Cul-
ture Law was originally intended to exert an influence on forest con-

ditions, but with the failure of the act to accomplish that purpose, it —
ceased to be of importance as a forest land measure; in fact, it was _
about the only law for the acquisition of lands which was never used ©

in taking timber.
Legislation specifically relating to timber lands has already been

considered somewhat in connection with the Free Timber and the ©
Timber and Stone acts. In each case Congress refused to adopt a
conservation policy. In certain other timber land measures, however, —
Congress showed a different tendency. This is indicated in some meas- —
ure by the act of 1888, forbidding trespass on Indian reservations. —
Previous to 1888, there had been no law specifically prohibiting timber
cutting on the Indian reservations. The act of 1859*** set the penalty —
for depredations on military or “other” reservations, but it had not —
been interpreted to apply to Indian reservations, and, during the

eighties, there was much complaint regarding the stealing of timber
from the Indians. President Cleveland urged Congress to act, and
finally, in 1888, after a great many unsuccessful attempts,’ a law
was secured extending the provisions of the act of 1859 to Indian
reservations.’”°

151 Stat. 24, 556.
152 Report, Sec. of Int., 1888, XIV.
153 Stat. 11, 408.

154 H. R. 6321, H. R. 6371; 46 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 2496, 47 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 1188, ©

S. 1544; 48 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 3306, H. R. 6045, S. 1476, S. 1779; 50 Cong. 1 sess.
155 S, Ex. Doc. 13; 49 Cong. 1 sess.: Stat. 25, 166.

ee al se

ae

= :
Te

SP ae rele

of eae eh
pd eae

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 107
APPROPRIATIONS FOR TIMBER PROTECTION

‘Perhaps in no way, however, was a conservation tendency more
inly shown than in the appropriations made for protecting the
ublic timber lands. In 1878, it will be recalled, Congress increased
1e appropriation from $5000 to $25,000. In 1879, the amount was
further raised to $40,000; in 1882, to $75,000, and in 1890, to
$100,000, in addition to large sums already mentioned for preventing
fraudulent entries. These appropriations, with several extra deficiency
ppropriations, enabled the Land Office to greatly increase its work-
ig force. In 1878, there were only eleven special agents working to
rotect the timber lands, while in 1885, there were twenty-three, and
1890, fifty-five.*”®

‘The steadily increasing appropriations for the protection of
ber lands do not indicate a conservation power in Congress grow-
with the same rapidity or the same steadiness. This is proved, not
y by the passage of the Act of 1880, above described, and by the
‘tension of the Free Timber and Timber and Stone acts previously
ssed, but by other considerations as well. In the first place, the
undry Civil Bill, in which these appropriations were made, always
iginated in the Committee on Appropriations, and in this committee
e more populous eastern states were much better represented than
the Committee on Public Lands, which controlled so much land and
ber legislation. Furthermore, the Sundry Civil Bill always included
great number of items, and was usually passed hurriedly, in the last
ays of the session, so that amendment was more difficult than in
orc dinary legislation. It was in the Senate that least favor was usually
2 sh 1own conservation measures, and the Senate was not quite free to
d ) ock an appropriation bill. Thus, in the Committee on Appropria-
tions an increase for timber protection had a fair chance of getting
4 “into the bill, and, once there, had a fair chance of remaining, even in
_a Congress which would have promptly eliminated any ordinary

conservation measure.

__ The second consideration limiting the significance to be attached to
jese increasing appropriations, is the fact that government appro-
priations for most other purposes were also increasing rapidly. Be-

156 Report, Land Office, 1878, 122: Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 233: Report, Land
Office, 1890, 80.

108 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

tween 1878 and 1891, the appropriation for miscellaneous expenses

almost doubled,**’ and it seems that the sum given for timber protec-

‘tion might likewise have increased considerably, without indicating

any great change of sentiment. The fact that it quadrupled is doubt- q

less worthy of note.

EFFORTS TO SECURE LAND GRANTS FOR FORESTRY SCHOOLS

Of only limited significance, also, was the interest shown in Con-
gress regarding the matter of land grants to aid schools of forestry.
In 1880, the Chamber of Commerce of St. Paul, Minnesota, sent
out letters to various public men, asking for opinions as to the advisa-
bility of granting lands for a school of forestry. Several college presi-
dents and other men answered favorably to the inquiry; in fact, only

President Eliot and Professor Sargent of Harvard University

opposed the scheme ;*** and in 1882, Senator McMillan of Minnesota
introduced a bill providing aid for a school of forestry, to be estab-
lished in St. Paul.**® In the following year, Pettigrew, delegate from
Dakota, asked for a grant of land for a-school of forestry in
Dakota;*® and, throughout the eighties, there was usually at least

one bill before Congress seeking a land grant to endow a school of —

forestry somewhere. No results came of any of these bills and they are
probably not significant of any deep interest in forestry, the purpose
behind at least most of them being an anxiety on the part of certain

politicians to serve their constituents by securing a free grant of

land.
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FORESTRY INVESTIGATIONS

Of a different character was the action in Congress regarding
appropriations for forestry investigations. It will be remembered that

157 Statistical Abstract, 1891, 3.

158 §, Misc. Doc. 91; 46 Cong. 2 sess. Professor Sargent gave two reasons why a
school of forestry could not succeed: first, there were no teachers in America
qualified to teach in such an institution; and second, there being as yet no demand
for trained foresters, students would not care to prepare themselves for that work.
It was, of course, true that there was as yet no demand for trained foresters and
even foresters with European training found it necessary to take up other kinds of
work on coming to America. (Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, 1883, 24.)

159 Cong. Rec., May 15, 1882, 3926.

160 H, R. 7440; 47 Cong. 2 sess. ps

Pee sh ah Unie ae Le ek eee

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 109

sum in 1881,*** and in 1882 the amount was raised to $10,000.*** The
Division of Forestry was organized in 1881, and was recognized by
: gress in 1886, when $2000 of the $10,000 given was specifically
aside for the chief of that division.*”°

In the appropriation of 1890, $7820 was given for salaries, and

“making? > was ieiacd to $15,000.*

oa THE FOREST RESERVE ACT

__ While these appropriations were of great importance in providing
; A information upon which any intelligent forest policy must be based,

information and policy alike would have been of little use had the
_ United States never possessed any national forests; and section 24 of
the General Revision Act of 1891 provided that the President might
from time to time set aside forest reservations in any state or territory
having public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or under-
wth. This provision, definitely providing for national ownership
f forest lands, a complete departure from the forest policy hitherto
pursued, is by far the most important piece of timber legislation ever
_ enacted in this country; and the circumstances of its enactment must

be briefly discussed. | ?

____-161 Cross Reference, pp. 42, 43.
_—s-:162 Stat. 21, 296.
—«-:168 Stat. 21, 384.
—s«:164 Stat. 22, 92.
«165 Everhart, “Handbook of United States Documents,” 58: Stat. 24, 103.
a 166 Stat. 26, 283, 286. Dr. Fernow gives the following account of the manner in
a which this appropriation was secured. He says that a syndicate of capitalists had
_ built the Texas state capitol, taking 3,000,000 acres of semi-arid land in payment.
_ One of the men in the syndicate became United States Senator, and, influenced by
a Chicago engineer’s contention that battles are usually followed by rain, secured
- the increased appropriation, and added to the chief’s function that of making

i Fernow became known in Washington as the “gapoguri,” or rainmaker.
167 Stat. 26, 1048.

110 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY
EARLY ADVOCATES OF FOREST RESERVES

It will be recalled that public opinion, and even scientific opinion,

during the seventies, had generally favored the sale of timber lands;

but there had been a few signs of dissent from that policy. As early
as 1867, the Commissioner of the Land Office, speaking of Oregon,
declared that “lands producing timber of such valuable qualities and
in such extraordinary quantities should be preserved as timber lands
through all time.”’ In 1878, the committee of the Association for the
Advancement of Science had so qualified their disapproval of a sys-
tem of national forests as to practically grant the advisability of such
a system. In 1877, Hough voiced approval of the Canadian system of
selling stumpage with a reservation of the land,*®* and in a later vol-
ume of his “Report on Forestry” unreservedly urged that policy for

the United States.’*® In 1878, Commissioner Williamson wrote to Sec- —

retary Schurz, “The soil should not be sold with the timber where the
land is not fit for cultivation.”*”° Secretary Schurz fully agreed with
his commissioner in this matter, and persuaded Senator Plumb of
Kansas to introduce a bill withdrawing all timber lands from sale, but
the bill was lost in the Committee on Public Lands.” In the following
year, Schurz urged the reservation of some of the redwood tracts in
California,*”’
bill reserving from sale all lands “chiefly valuable for timber,” ex-
cepting those bearing minerals. The failure of this bill has been
noted.***

Secretary Teller was not generally enthusiastic about forest re-
serves, although later, as senator, he introduced one bill which would
have permitted their establishment. Commissioner McFarland, in
1884, urged the establishment of “permanent timber reserves in locali-
ties and situations where’such permanent reservations may be deemed
desirable.”*"* In 1885, Secretary Lamar and Commissioner Sparks

168 Hough, “Report on Forestry,” I, 194.

169 [bid., III. 8.

170 Report, Sec. of Int., 1878, XV. |

171 S, 609; 45 Cong. 2 sess. See Report, Land Office, 1900, 110-112.

172 Report, Sec. of Int., 1879, 29. -

173 Cross Reference, pp. 98, 99.
174 S, 760; 47 Cong. 1 sess.: Report, Land Office, 1884, 19.

and in 1880, the Public Lands Commission presented a

— ~
. reer Pe ee en
ar So oP | 2 7 eae te cd

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 111

d in urging the reservation of a part of the public timber lands,”
1 throughout their administration gave unqualified support to that
i cy.
_ Lamar and Sparks were aided in their efforts by B. E. Fernow and
{. A. Bowers, who entered the government service in 1886. Within a
yea after Fernow’s installment at Washington, he formulated an
lak orate bill for the withdrawal of all public timber lands. Bowers
kewise had been in the government service only a year or two before
1e had worked out a complete plan for the management and disposal
0 ‘the public timber lands,*** and this plan he urged upon Congress in
way possible.
Lamar’s successor, Vilas, evinced no special interest in forestry ;
nor did his successor, John W. Noble, during the first years of his
administration.

4 During the eighties, at least one magazine pukiohed articles favy-
orable to forest reserves, and later this became a very popular subject
with various publications. In 1885, the American Forestry Congress,
an d in 1889 and 1890, the American Forestry Association, called for
forest reserves, while in the latter year the American Association for

the Advancement of Science sent a memorial to Congress, urging the
policy of reservation. The California State Board of Forestry
addressed a memorial to Congress in 1888, calling for reservations,
but spoiled the effect of it all by asking for state ownership.’

_ Not only was there agitation during this period, but one of the
states actually established public forests. In 1884, the legislature of
‘York appropriated $5000 for the employment of experts to work
out a system of forestry for the state, and the commission appointed
urged that the state should at least keep the lands which it still had,

ounting to about 780,000 acres. No scheme of general purchase or
‘condemnation was deemed wise, however, because of the great expendi-
ture necessary, and the danger of artificially enhancing the value of
vately owned timber lands. Five years later, however, New York
ssed a law authorizing the purchase of additional lands.**

195 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 45, 236.

_ 176 H, Ex. Doc. 242; 50 Cong. 1 sess.

_ 117 The Nation, Sept. 6, 1883, 201: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, 1890, 19,
BP 178 Report, Forestry Commission of N. Y., 1885: N. Y. State College of Forestry,
Bul. 5, 1902.

112 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY
CONGRESS AND THE QUESTION OF FOREST RESERVES

Congress was, during this period, not entirely silent on the question |
of forest reserves. In the first place, some legislation was enacted with
regard to Indian lands, which, although it had no direct reference to
forest reserves, at least suggested the idea of a sale of timber witha
reservation of the land. In 1888, such a sale of timber was recognized a
by Congress, and in 1889, the President was authorized to permit the "
Indians on reservations to cut and sell dead timber on their lands. —
The act of 1890 went still further, in authorizing the Secretary of the —
Interior to permit the Menomonee Indians in Wisconsin to cut “all or
any portion” of the timber on lands reserved for them, and sell it at
public auction.*”” 4

Of congressional activity specifically relating to forest reserves, —
the first example was probably Representative Fort’s forest reserve —
bill introduced on February 14, 1876. On the very next day, in the
consideration of the bill to open up the southern lands, Senator Bout-
well offered an amendment which, by providing for the sale of timber
without the land, would practically have meant the reservation of all
the southern timber lands, although it specifically reserved only live
oak and red cedar. Of course this amendment did not pass. Secretary
Schurz’s forest reservation bill of 1878 likewise failed. In January,
1880, a bill, introduced by Representative Converse of Ohio, authoriz-
ing the President to reserve certain timber lands in California, passed
the House without any opposition, but received no attention in the —
Senate. The following year Converse brought this bill up in the House ~

again, but it was not discussed. In 1882, Butterworth and Sherman, ~
both of Ohio, introduced bills into the House and Senate, but both —
were lost in committee.*®*°

rel etiahassinick gigi Pa aia See MRIS.

In the forty-eighth Congress, forest reserve measures were intro-
duced by Senators Cameron of Wisconsin, Sherman of Ohio, Miller of q
New York, and Edmunds of Vermont ; and by Representatives Deuster
of Wisconsin, and Hatch of Missouri. Senator Miller’s proposal to —
withdraw all timber land pending investigation by a committee, was —
accorded a favorable committee report, while the bill pressed by —

179 Stat. 22, 590; 25, 673; 26, 146. 4

:

180 Cross Reference, p. 45. Cong. Rec., Feb. 15, 1876, 1083; Jan. 27, 1880, 547:
H. R. 1272, H. R. 6315, S. 1826; 47 Cong. 1 sess.

ae Si i at

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 T0 1891-118 -

ator Edmunds, “To establish a reservation at the headwaters of
Missouri River,” passed the Senate with little opposition.***

The following year, Edmunds promptly brought his proposal up
again, and again it passed the Senate without comment, but made no
headway in the House. A general forest reservation bill introduced
b. y Sherman was not reported. In 1886, Representative Hatch of Mis-
souri introduced another reservation bill, but no results accrued.**?
erally, the forty-ninth Congress gave very little pttention to the
question of forest reserves.

_ In 1887, however, forest reserves were a popular subject in Con-
s. Edmunds appeared with his favorite bill for a reserve at the
d of the Missouri River, but this time it was lost in committee, as
also measures proposed by Senator Sherman of Ohio and Repre-
tative Markham of California. The following year, Hatch made
other effort, but it failed to elicit a report. Bills introduced by
epresentative Joseph of New Mexico, E. B. Taylor of Ohio, and
Holman of Indiana also failed.*** In this session, however, the House
adc pted two resolutions calling for plans for the management and
a position of timber lands, one of these resolutions calling specifically
r the secretary’s plan for reserving forests. Inspector Bowers and
. As: issistant Secretary of the Interior Muldrow submitted elaborate
jlans, but the House took no further action.***

olman’s bill for the general revision of the land laws, in 1888,
ined a provision that all timber lands should be classified as such,
the timber sold without the land, at not less than appraised value;
md also a section providing specifically for the creation of forest
$1 §. 1188, S. 1258, S. 1824, S. 2451, H. R. 5206, H. R. 4811: Cong. Rec., Feb.

885, 1930; June 2, 1884, 4743, 4745.
1825S. 551, S. 581, H. R. 2946; 49 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., J uly 8, 1886, 6648,

_ 1838. 540, S. 598; 50 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 10430; 49 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 1982,
R. 3239, H. R. 11037; 50 Cong. 1 sess. Weaver of Iowa also introduced a bill
‘To further amend the public land laws, and for the preservation of the natural
orests on the public domain, the protection of water supply and for other pur-
ses;” but it seems doubtful whether this really meant the creation of forest
resel a for Weaver expressed himself, in another connection, as opposed to
€ ating the timber from the fee in the land. (H. R. 1352; 50 Cong. 1 sess.:
Cong. Rec., June 25, 1888, 5563.)
a "184 Cong. Rec., Jan. 18, 1888, 553; Mar. 24, 1888, 2371: H. Ex. Doc. 144, 242;
0 Cong. 1 sess.

114 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

reserves. This bill passed the House with both these sections intact ; 7

in fact, the forest reserye section received almost no attention in the —

debates.?**

In 1889, Taylor and Sherman appeared as usual with proposals for 1
reservation, and the next year another western man, Representative —

Clunie of California, announced his approval of such a policy. Early

in the latter year, President Harrison transmitted to Congress a
memorial of the American Association for the Advancement of Sci-
ence, calling for forest reservations, and in pursuance of the recom-

mendations of this Association, Representative Dunnell introduced a
bill into the House, but no results were secured.**°
In the light of later events, the action of Congress in regard to some

of these bills seems rather strange. It is true that most of the bills.
introduced never emerged from the committee, and no general reserva- _

tion measure ever passed either house, but the Senate twice approved
Edmunds’ proposal for a reserve at the head of the Missouri, while

the House passed one bill providing for reservations in California;

and in each case this was done without any particular discussion or
hi terageoes As already stated, the forest reserve provision of Hok@
man’s general revision bill received almost no attention in the debates.
The entire attitude of Congress indicates a failure to foresee the |g
results which were likely to follow from the adoption of a forest —
reservation policy.

Whatever may have been the reason for the lack of a more vigorous i
opposition to these forest reserve proposals, it is fairly certain that

no general forest reservation measure, plainly understood to be such,

and unconnected with other measures, would ever have had the slight- i

est chance of passing Congress ; and when such a measure was finellyg

THE PASSAGE OF THE FOREST RESERVE ACT

In 1891, the question of a general revision of the land laws, partion

185 H. R. 7901; H. R. 178; 50 Cong: 1 sess.

186 H. R, 705, H. R. 7026, H. R. 8459, S. 1523; 51 Cong. 1 sess.: ca

Am. Forestry Assoc., 1891-92-93, 39.

a
Pecan sae aheiccasmlts! a

igi al wh ial oe .

Sr
if bars yah

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 115

's, had been vexing Congress for a decade; and a determined effort
; being made to effect some kind of a revision. Late in the second
sion of the fifty-first Congress, a conference committee of the two
es was appointed to adjust differences on one of these general
evision bills, and Secretary of the Interior Noble, who had been influ-
aced by Fernow and Bowers, and perhaps by other members of the
merican Forestry Association, asked this committee to insert a rider
orizing the President to establish reserves.***
fortunately this conference committee was composed of men most
; whom were at least not predisposed to fight such a measure. Of
he Senate conferees, Plumb of Kansas was mainly interested in other
of public lands, but, coming from a prairie state, he understood

H. R. 7254; 51 Cong. 1 sess. In crediting Secretary Noble with the intro-
n of this forest reserve section, the writer is following the usual account
matter. Recently, however, Senator Pettigrew has advanced the claim that it
he, and not Noble, who should be credited with this action; that Noble had
x to do with it. In spite of this claim, and in spite of the fact that the writer
u to secure absolute proof to back up his belief, he nevertheless adheres to
ecion that Secretary Noble should receive the credit. Several considerations
to such a conclusion. In the first place, Secretary Noble repeatedly asserted
ut it was he who had inserted that section. He told Mr. Bowers of New Haven
it he had done it; and in at least one public speech he spoke of his “official
® in connection with the forest reserve section. Most other writers of the
also seemed to assume that Noble had been responsible. Fernow, writing in
97, oer of him as the author.
Du all this time, apparently, Pettigrew made no claim to the authorship of
‘section; and, when President Cleveland established a number of preserves in -
§, it was Pettigrew who led the forces that called for their suspension. There is
e evidence that Pettigrew was not unfriendly to the reservation policy previous
1897, but in that year, as will be shown in the following chapter, he did every-
ig possible to secure the suspension of the reserves Cleveland had created; and
e 1¢ things he said in Congress indicate that he really favored entire abolition of
serves, although, by securing the passage of the act in 1897, he did a great
e for conservation.
this question, the following letter from Dr. Fernow seems pertinent: “To
seems strange that Pettigrew should persistently have kept in the dark that
er knew of his interest even in the subject. Nor has Mr. Bowers any such
! tion. My memory is, that at the time the story was current, Mr. Noble
elared at midnight of March 3, in the Conference Committee, that he would not
t the President sign the bill (for abolishing the timber claim legislation) unless
e Reservation clause was inserted. Since these things happen behind closed doors,
ly someone present can tell what happened, Secretary Noble or one of the con-
ees. All we, that is, Bowers and myself, can claim is that we had educated Noble
the point.” (Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1893, 36 et seq.: Science,
r. 26, 1897, 490.)

116 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

the value of a timber supply and had shown a disposition mildly favor-
able to timber conservation. Walthall of Mississippi had taken an
active interest in at least one conservation measure—that providing
for the abolition of private entry in the South; while Pettigrew of
South Dakota had shown no hostility to forest conservation; in fact,
Pettigrew has claimed to be the author of the forest reserve section.
Payson of Illinois and Pickler of South Dakota, representing the ~
House, were actively favorable to forest reserves, and Holman of
Indiana could be depended on to favor any proposition for better land |
administration, although, like Senator Plumb, he was more interested — ‘
in other public land questions. Thus of the six conferees, at least four
would have been expected to favor the establishment of forest reserves, —
while none were likely to oppose. The personnel of this committee was —
one link of the chain of unusual circumstances which rendered th +
final passage of the forest reserve measure possible.
Secretary Noble’s efforts were successful and a twenty-fourth sec-
tion was tacked onto the conference bill, providing for the creation of
reserves. This procedure—the introduction of a new provision in
conference report—is contrary to the rules of Congress. The bill as
_ amended, with its twenty-four sections, was presented to the Senate a”
few days before the close of the session.’** Senator Plumb, who had
charge of the bill, insisted on its speedy consideration, and without
even being printed, and with scarcely time for a comment, the bill
passed the Senate. 7
The Senate had always been rather hostile to conservation meas-_
ures, and the passage of this bill, thus, without any opposition, was —
possible because of several favoring circumstances. The haste with iy
which Congress almost always acts near the close of a session was:
aided by the great length of the bill, which made any careful study of —
its various provisions difficult ; while the great variety of provisions —
involved, affecting every kind of public land and making various —
changes in the different laws, rendered it difficult to pick out any one

7
aay)

'
t

188 Cong. Rec., Feb. 28, 1891, 3614; Mar. 2, 1891, 3685. It is interesting to note
that as early as 1876, . a law very similar to this forest reserve provision had ee

States.

THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 117

the bill, the forest reserve clause being to some extent balanced by the
lause broadening the scope of the Free Timber Act. Furthermore,
of the provisions of the bill, in fact all but the forest reserve pro-
ion, had been debated over and over, and members were so familiar
the main points involved that they were probably less careful to
crutinize the conference bill than they would have been to examine
n ordinary bill. Doubtless very few, if any, of the members realized
vhe ee portent results were to flow from the passage of this little
est reserve section. The attitude of Congress in regard to subse-
uent as well as previous legislation indicates clearly that very few
f the members of either house realized how extensively the President
wou ld use the power conferred here. Finally, it must be considered
hat this was a bill reported from a conference committee, a sort of
‘bi ill not easy to amend. Any amendment would have delayed the bill,
: thaps defeated it; and on some of the items, as, for instance, the
9eal of the Preémption and Timber Culture acts, the public demand
aad in the course of ten years gathered considerable power. This last
asideration was doubtless of greater weight in the House, where
3 e members are usually more in need of campaign material, and at
his time feared to close,another session without having accomplished
kind of a revision of the land laws.
mewhat strangely, the bill encountered greater opposition in the
| e than in the Senate. Dunnel of Minnesota distrusted the entire
ill because it had not been printed, while McRae of Arkansas opposed
ec ate 24 for the very Democratic reason that it put too much power
= hands of the President ; but Payson carried the measure safely
Bact the discussion. This was on February 28. When the bill came

» again on March 2, there was no time for discussion and it passed
ithout a comment.

‘Thus the passage of ie Forest Reserve Act, the first important
. ervation measure in the history of our national forest policy,

not be credited to congressional initiative, but to a long chain of
eculiar circumstances which made it impossible for Congress to act
lirectly on the question. If the conference committee, like most public
land committees, had included a majority of men hostile to conserva-
n; if the forest reserve provision had been attached to anything
1 conference bill; if the question had come up at the beginning

118 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

instead of the close of the session; if there had been less of a public
demand for revision of the land laws; if the bill had been a short one,
with only a few clauses; if Congress had been a little less familiar
with the general provisions of the omnibus bill under discussion and
so more careful to scrutinize them, or if members had realized what
important results were to follow; if any one of a seore of possible
contingencies had prevailed, the passage of a general forest reserve
measure at this time would probably have been impossible. Congress |
was not yet fully converted to the principle of forest ronan as” .
later developments clearly show. 4

CHAPTER Ill

: FOREST RESERVES FROM 1891 TO 1897: NEED OF
PROTECTION AND ADMINISTRATION

THE SITUATION IN 1891

sFORE proceeding to a consideration of the period following the year
91, it will be profitable to halt and take an inventory of results
accrued at that date—note just what had been accomplished in the
eriod since 1878. There had been, in the first place, a notable im-
provement in some of the laws not specifically applying to timber on
the public domain. Public sale and private entry had been abolished.
Perhaps more important, the repeal of the Preémption Law and the
Pe ndment of the Commutation Homestead and Desert Land laws
em accomplished, and more liberal appropriations made to pre-
fraudulent entries; although these gains were in some degree
ffset by the act allowing affidavits and proofs to be made before
commissioners of the United States courts, etc., and by the provision
imiting the time within which suits must be beicght for cancellation
of patents.
E _ As to the laws specifically applying to timber lands, the situation
in 1891 was not so favorable. Appropriations for forestry investiga-
i ms had been greatly increased, but the Free Timber and Timber
and Stone acts were still in force, while a still worse free timber pro-
fs a on had been added in the Permit Act of 1891. (Only a year later
1e Timber and Stone Act was extended to all public land states.)
As s has been shown, neither of these acts provided for the honest
quisition of timber for general commercial purposes, and the exten-
sion of their provisions was merely a legalization of plundering which,
h the larger sums available for protection, might otherwise have
en prevented. Thus the laws for the disposal of timber on the public
main were worse in 1891 than they had been in 1878, just as they
u been worse in 1878 than ever before. Congress had shown utter

’

120 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

incapacity to deal intelligently with the public timber; and all hope
for future conservation must center in the provision which would take
some of the timber lands out of the hands of Congress—the provision
enabling the President to set aside forest reserves.

THE CREATION OF NEW RESERVES

The President’s new power was not long unused. Within less than
a month after the passage of the Forest Reserve Act, President Harri-

son proclaimed the Yellowstone National Park Reserve, adjoining |

Yellowstone Park in Wyoming,’ and in September of the same year
added still another section to the reserve, giving it an area of over a
million acres.” In October, he set aside the White River Plateau Re-
serve in Colorado, of over a million acres,’ and the following year
several reserves in various regions of the West. President Harrison

established altogether fifteen forest reserves, embracing an estimated |

area of over thirteen million acres.*

President Cleveland, in the first year of his second administration,
established two reserves in Oregon, embracing nearly five million
acres; but here he stopped, and took no further action for several
years—hbecause he found that the reservation of these lands secured
no special protection. Congress had made no provision for their pro-
tection, and they stood in the same position as unreserved lands.

THE NEED FOR PROTECTION OF THE RESERVED LANDS

The need for protection of the new forest reserves was very soon

perceived and constantly urged upon Congress. In 1891, Secretary —

of the Interior Noble pointed out the necessity for better care of the
new Yellowstone Reserve.” In the same year, and repeatedly there-
after, the American Forestry Association urged legislation on the
subject.° In 1898, Commissioner of the Land Office Lamoreux called
attention to the inadequacy of the laws and appropriations for pro-
tecting the reserves from timber trespassers and forest fires.‘ Almost

1 Stat. 26, 1565.

2 Stat. 27, 989.

8 Stat. 27, 993.

4 Report, Land Office, 1894, 438.

5 Report, Sec. of Int., 1891, CK XXVIII.

6 Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1891-92-93, 12; 1894-95-96, 75.
7 Report, Land Office, 1893, 79.

Lure fou aay

eT ee er ee a Se

Siete Tos a > ‘
Le ey kieran Se
TST Saeed ie i a be teh SAS ion ew

Tolinle

THE FOREST RESERVES 121

- year the Commissioner of the Land Office and the Secretary of
Interior made this appeal for legislation; and Cleveland, in his
econd annual message said, “I concur with the secretary that ade-
quate protection be provided for our forest reserves, and that a com-
pre nensive forestry system be inaugurated.’’** In 1893, the Secretary
»f Agriculture complained of the wasteful lumbering and destructive
on the forest reserves,’ and the following year the American
iation for the Advancement of Science adopted a resolution
for better administration and protection.
; ins of the inaction of Congress was accompanied by definite
stions as to the best methods of protection. Perhaps no proposal
; more often urged than that of somehow linking up the forest
rr rvice with the military service of the United States. In 1890, the
secretary of War had complied with the request of the Secretary of
ne Interior that troops be sent to the protection of some of the na-
ona parks in California, and each year for several years thereafter,
ps had been detached for this purpose.*° In 1894, Secretary of the
‘ior Hoke Smith and Commissioner Lamoreux called upon the
sary of War for troops to protect the new forest reserves against
s and other encroachments, particularly against the sheep men,
10 Wadinetizes did. great damage to the forests ‘by setting out fires
prove the grazing for their flocks. The acting Secretary of War
leclined to make the details, however, basing his refusal upon the
pinion of the acting judge advocate general of the army, that the
aployment of troops in such cases and under the circumstances
ibed by the Secretary of the Interior, not being expressly author-
| by the constitution or by act of Congress, would be unlawful.
erhaps this decision was justified by a strict interpretation of ex-
laws, although it seems that the law of 1827 authorizing the
resident to take proper measures to preserve the live oak timber on
ublic lands, might have been stretched to include the protection
aa generally without subverting the government. Certain it
at this decision prohibited the adoption of a very economical and
sient means of timber protection.
8 Report, Land Office, 1893, 27.

Report, Sec. of Agriculture, 1893, 31.
Report, Sec. of Int., 1893, LX.

122 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

A somewhat different plan for using the military machinery of the ©

country was that of Professor Sargent, who suggested the establish-
ment of a chair of forestry at the United States Military Academy
at West Point, with control of the forests by educated officers, study
at the academy to be supplemented by practical study in the woods.
This scheme was favored by the American Association for the Ad-
vancement of Science, and by several men of influence, among them
George Anderson, captain of the United States Army in charge of
Yellowstone Park. Roosevelt gave only qualified approval, while
Pinchot, Fernow, and Bowers opposed the plan, and it never received
serious consideration in Congress.’*

EFFORTS IN CONGRESS TO SECURE BETTER PROTECTION

Petitions appeared in Congress praying for better protection of

the forest reserves, and some efforts were made to secure this. In 1892, é
Representative Caminetti of California submitted a resolution calling

for a report as to the condition of the forest reservations in Cali-
fornia.”” In the same year, a bill introduced by Senator Paddock of
Nebraska, “To provide for the establishment, protection, and admin-
istration of public forest reservations,” was favorably reported in

the Senate, but made no further progress, although strongly urged

by the American Forestry Association. Similar measures introduced
by Holman of Indiana, McRae of Arkansas, and Townsend of Colo-
rado, were not even reported.*®

THE McRAE BILL

The bill which aroused most interest and debate was one introduced
and vigorously urged by the man who had made almost the only speech
against the reservation measure in 1891—McRae of Arkansas.
McRae’s bill contained a number of excellent provisions, besides the
one providing for the protection of the reserves. In the first place, it
provided for the sale of timber to the highest bidder at not less than
appraised value, the receipts from timber sales to be used for the
protection of the reserves. In the second place, the Secretary of War

11 Century Magazine, Feb., 1895, 626.

12H. Report 2096; 52 Cong. 1 sess.

13H. R. 102, S. 2763, S. 3235, S. Report 1002; 52 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 10101,
H. R. 10207; 52 Cong. 2 sess.

THE FOREST RESERVES 123

authorized to detail troops to protect the reserves when neces-
; and, in the third place, provision was made for restoring to
y any agricultural lands included within forest reserves. An
dment inserted by the committee reporting the bill provided that
tion relating to the sale of timber should apply not only to the
; reserves, but to all timber lands on the entire public domain.
though approved by the Commissioner of the Land Office, by the
etary of the Interior, and by the American Forestry Association,
is wise and conservative measure encountered a tremendous amount
f opposition. A variety of objections were urged. In the first place,
ny thought, or at any rate argued, that it would stimulate forest
tion. Pickler of South Dakota declared: “Our timber lands in
est will be denuded of timber. . . . The very object of the law,
is the setting apart and protection of these timber reservations,
be defeated.” Hermann of Oregon declared the bill should be
“A bill to denude the public forest reservations.” Simpson of
“rated it a “dangerous measure,” particularly on the ground
allowed the Secretary of the Interior so much power. “Not
” he said, “does it allow the Secretary of the Interior to sell
mber on the lands in these reservations which have been set aside
or the special purpose of holding the moisture, but also it allows him
utely to sell the timber on any public lands i in any part of the
ed States.”
oolittle of Washington called the bill an “infamous proposition,”
“no redeeming features, except the one permitting the employ-
of the army.” “From my experience and observation in these
s,” he explained, “I know it to be true that if the lumberman is
nce permitted to go upon a quarter section of land, having purchased
e stumpage, or the timber from that land, he will not confine himself
is proper limits, and it is all nonsense to expect that this timber
be preserved at all if you let down the bars for a single moment.
u might as well turn a dozen wolves into a corral filled with sheep
d expect the wolves to protect the sheep as to expect your timber
I protected if you permit the lumbermen to go upon the reserva-
at all.” Coffeen of Wyoming expressed a similar view: “The bill,

H. R. 119, H. Report 78; 53 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., Oct. 10, 1893, 2371
q: 5 Oct. 12, 2430 et seq. -

124 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

while it purports to protect timber, is calculated in every provision

from title to terminus to destroy our timber through the operations
of corporations and mill owners who are authorized to buy the timber
under the provisions of the bill.”

A second objection urged against McRae’s bill was that it would
throw the timber supply of the West into the hands of large corpora-
tions and monopolists. Hermann argued that it would benefit mainly
the “mill men and the large syndicates and great landowners, or
speculators and capitalists.” Simpson considered that “such legisla-

tion would simply be in the interest of the corporations that are —

hungering to get possession of the public domain.” Rawlins of Utah
said the bill would merely be “an inducement to monopolies to gobble
it [the timber] all up and dispose of it to the people at such prices as

they themselves may dictate.” Hartman of Montana argued in similar
vein: “You say to corporations that are able to purchase this timber, ©

‘You may have whatever timber you desire.’ But at the same time you
say to the honest settler, the hard-handed miner, or farmer, or stock
raiser, ‘You can not have a foot of this timber, unless you purchase it
in competition with these corporations; unless you do that you must
either steal the timber or freeze to death.’ ”

Some of the western men were doubtless sincere in their fear of |

monopoly, and in their belief that the sale of timber would lead to
forest destruction. Few men in Congress, even as late as this, had yet
grasped the principles that govern intelligent forest administration.
Few were able to understand the wisdom of selling the timber while
retaining the ownership of the land; and many still had an entire
misconception as to the proper use and management of forest reserves.
Many seemed to think that the forest reserves should be locked up,
preserved sacred and inviolate from every valuable use. They did not
yet understand that scientific forest administration implies not only
protection, but also the use of mature timber under such restrictions
as to prevent injury to the growing trees.

While thus some of the western representatives were sincere, even
if misguided, in their fear that the sale of timber would stimulate
forest destruction, others doubtless used this argument as a cloak to

hide their real motives. McRae distrusted them. “Instead of proposing —

fair amendments,” he said, addressing himself to the opposition, “you

*

)
4
f
“as
:

7

THE FOREST RESERVES 125

tlemen have, in the face of the amendments — spent all
‘ time denouncing the bill as unjust and infamous. . . . You have
d your talk at the immaterial parts to consume time. These argu-
nts have come from gentlemen who have special timber privileges
ea dy and who desire those privileges continued. . Whether
entionally or not, you who oppose this bill are ‘dia sien of the
»polists who have had the special privilege of cutting government
er for nothing. You will deceive nobody by denouncing those
ited by your opposition if successful.”
'ithout a doubt, McRae here exposed one of the main reasons why
of the western men opposed the bill. Settlers and miners had
become accustomed to free timber and were of course opposed to any
“6 gislation which required them to pay for it. Bell of Colorado and
artman were frank in stating that this was an important reason for
a opposition. Hartman pronounced the bill “infamous in the
tre eme.” “It means,” he said, “that thousands of miners all over our
western country will be precluded from obtaining the timber necessary
for the shafts in mines which they are working. It means too, that
settlers engaged in agriculture, in stock raising, and in various other
stries pursued in the West will be compelled either to violate the
ws of the United States and become timber thieves or else freeze to,
th.” Rawlins offered an amendment giving settlers and miners free
. er for firewood, fencing or building purposes.
_ Mining interests feared the bill on other grounds, however, than
y that it would deprive them of free timber. As Hermann pointed
the reserves had not yet been opened to mining, and any provision
r the protection of the reserves would result in shutting out the
ners altogether. Without a doubt it was the situation of miners
ich caused a large share of the hostility to the McRae bill, and to
> forest reserves in general. If the bill had included a section direct-
z the Secretary of the Interior to eliminate al] mining and agricul-
ral lands from the reserves, it might easily have passed, but as it
, it aroused entirely too much opposition; and Coffeen finally
ught the opposition to a climax by offering an amendment abolish-
z all reserves except those in the three coast states—a proposition
ich Bell heartily endorsed. Perhaps fortunately, this did not come
a vote, and some days later the bill was withdrawn.

126 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

In the next session, McRae again brought his proposal before the
House, accompanied by a favorable report from the Committee on
Public Lands.*® This time, however, the measure was framed so as to
allow the Secretary of the Interior to give free timber to settlers, and
the vote on the resolution of Outhwaite of Ohio, calling up the bill—
117 ayes to 54 nays—indicates that it was generally favored, al-
though, no quorum being present, it was not discussed and never
came up again during the second session.*®

In the third session, McRae resumed his efforts to push House bill
119 through Congress. This time the bill had been amended to permit _
mining in the reserves, while the section providing for sale of timber _
on the general public lands had been eliminated; and these modifica-
tions caused a complete reversal in the attitude of the western con-
gressmen, who veered around to a favorable attitude, influenced
mainly, no doubt, by the provision permitting mining in the reserves.*”

The chief opposition to the bill came from Wells of Wisconsin, who
opposed “every principle of the bill,’ and predicted that “timber
thieves and land sharks” would take all the timber if they were per-
mitted to go upon the land. He felt sure that there was a “smell of
boodle” behind the bill. “Why, sir,” he exclaimed, “it is backed up, as
I said here recently upon this floor, by men who have enriched them- __
selves by plundering the public domain and by men who know nothing
of forestry. . . . I do not want to stand here a party to the upbuild- —
ing of, and will not stand sponsor for the creation of another brood of
saw-log statesmen, such as have disgraced this floor for thirty years.”
Pickler opposed the bill because it contained a section limiting the
purposes for which reserves might be created, and because it per- |
mitted lands unnecessarily included in a forest reserve to be restored ;
and on the first day of debate, he and Wells, by a determined filibuster,
managed to prevent favorable action. Ten days later, however, it was
again brought up, and passed by a vote of 159 to 53, not an opposing,
vote coming from the states west of Kansas and Nebraska. The bill
was thus generally regarded as unfavorable to conservation, although
the lines were not drawn with absolute clearness.

15 H. Report 897; 53 Cong. 2 sess.
16 House Journal; 53 Cong. 2 sess., 521.
17 Cong. Rec., Dec. 6, 1894, 85; Dec. 7, 111 et seq.; Dec. 17, 364 et seq.

THE FOREST RESERVES 127

he McRae bill at this stage was one which latter-day conserva-
gnists would generally have approved, and certainly it was such a
asure as would have improved the situation of the forest reserves,
t much of the opposition came from conservation quarters. Doubt-
ess this is to be partly explained by distrust of the amendment per-
mitting mining in the forest reserves. As has been pointed out pre-
viously, many conservationists had an idea that the forest reserves
ist be shut up and guarded against every intrusion, that anyone
er nitted to go upon the reserves would be certain to do injury.
perience with western timber trespassers lent considerable support
> this belief, but it was, of course, impossible that the reserves could
be maintained on any such basis of non-use, because it aroused
ely too much western hostility. The miners felt that they had a
t to go upon the land wherever minerals were to be found, felt that
eir operations were not inconsistent with the purposes for which the
serves were set aside. Some of the conservationists did not under-
tand western conditions and could not fully appreciate the western
oint of view. |
might seem that the McRae bill as it finally passed the House,
onceded about as much to the West as should have been expected,
it when it was referred in the Senate, Teller of Colorado, of the
mmmittee on Public Lands, immediately brought up a substitute bill,
differed widely from the House bill.** The Senate bill repre-
ed fairly well what the western men considered right and proper in
salir g with the forest reserves, and for that reason it is interesting
fo note some of its provisions. In the first place, it imposed a limita-
tion on the purposes for which forest reserves might be created. They
t be created to secure favorable conditions of water flow, or to
re a continuous supply of timber for the people in the state or
i tory where the reserves were located. Thus, the creation of re-
s to secure a continuous supply of timber for the public generally
! as not permissible under Teller’s bill. In the second place, the inclu-
én | of agricultural or mineral lands was forbidden, and any land
sown to be mineral must be restored to entry. The reserves were
ened to mining and prospecting. Free timber was provided for set-
le $, miners, residents, and prospectors, and also for the construc-

18 Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1895, 2779, 2780.

128 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

tion of bridges, schoolhouses, and other public uses; while settlers in ; .
the forest reserves were allowed free pasture in the reserves. Provision _

was made that any entryman or settler included within a forest reserve
might have his property appraised and paid for by the Secretary of
the Interior, or he might relinquish his claim and select another tract

outside, which should be patented to him, regardless of the status of

his claim within the reserve. Some of these provisions seem exceedingly

generous, but the bill passed the Senate without amendment and with-_

out comment. Perhaps fortunately, the House never had an oppor-
tunity to vote on the substitute.
Thus the three sessions of the fifty-third Congreih closed without

anything having been accomplished for the protection of the forest —
reserves. On the second day of the fifty-fourth Congress, however,

H. R. 119 was given its accustomed place on the House calendar,”

but was given no attention for over six months. Finally, on June 10

of the following year, it passed the House with almost no comment,

but never emerged from the Senate Committee on Public Lands. |

McRae’s attempts thus ended in failure. Legislation for the forest
reserves was destined to come in a somewhat different manner.”°

THE COMMISSION OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, AND .

CLEVELAND’S PROCLAMATIONS OF FEBRUARY 22, 1897

The American Forestry Association had been active from the very —
first in its efforts to secure forest protection, and finally the executive
committee of that association asked the Secretary of the Interior,
Hoke Smith, to call upon the National Academy of Sciences for a

commission of experts to make a careful study of the entire forestry
question. About this time, the Century Magazine published an edi-
torial also calling for such a commission, and the editor, R. W. John-
son, even personally requested Secretary Smith to ask the National
Academy for a commission of investigation. In response to these
requests, or prompted by other influences, Secretary Smith wrote to

19 Bills were also introduced by Senators Teller of Colorado, Allen of
Mississippi, and Dubois of Idaho, and by Representative Johnson of California;
but no results accrued from any of them. It is difficult to explain the introduction
of such a bill by Senator Teller, for, at least in later years, he was one of the most
radical opponents of the forest reserve policy. (S. 914, S. 2118, S. 2946, H. R. 9143;

54 Cong. 1 sess.: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1896, 40, 47.)
20 Cong. Rec., June 10, 1896, 6410, 6411.

te TS RENE eat aeE

Pet fe

THE FOREST RESERVES 129

cott Gibbs, president of the National Academy of Sciences, calling
an official expression from the Seomeny ct various questions
ing to forestry and the forest reserves.”
sident Gibbs, in response to this letter of inquiry, scott a
mission composed of Professor C. S. Sargent, Alexander Agassiz,
ry L. Abbot—an eminent engineer and hydrographer—Professor
liam H. Brewer of Yale University, Arnold Hague of the United
es Geological Survey, and Gifford Pinchot. While these men were
mg to serve the government without compensation, Gibbs sug-
that $25,000 should be appropriated to cover the expenses of
investigation, and in the Sundry Civil Bill of 1896, $25,000 was

d for that purpose.”

february, 1897, Professor Sargent, chairman of the commission,
ssed a letter to President Gibbs of the Academy of Sciences,
mending the establishment of thirteen new reserves, to embrace
1 area of over 21,000,000 acres.** The issue of this letter before the
port of the commission was entirely completed—it was not completed
ntil May 1, after the close of Cleveland’s administration—was
ypposed by Gifford Pinchot, who believed the recommendation of new
serves should be accompanied by a statement of the objects sought,

nd by definite plans for the administration of the new lands. Pinchot
w the danger involved in thus “locking up” millions of acres of land,
ith no provision for its use or protection. Upon receipt of Professor
rgent’s letter, however, President Cleveland proclaimed all of the
sired reserves on February 22, 1897—the one hundred ‘and sixty-
th anniversary of Washington’s birthday. Immediately a storm
oke loose in the Senate.

PREVIOUS HOSTILITY TOWARD THE RESERVES

2 efforts above mentioned, seeking better protection for the
abi were not the only sort of activity in Congress. It is

:S. Doe. 105; 55 Cong. 1 sess.: Science, 5, 489, 893. Fernow thinks that this
cet” was unnecessary and unprofitable. (Fernow, “History of Forestry,” 417.)

130 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

true that many of these reserves were established upon the petition of
citizens residing in the respective states,* but there was much oppo-
sition to the reserves from the very first, and in almost every session
of Congress war was waged on the reservation policy. In 1892, Repre-
sentative Otis of Kansas introduced a bill to open the Yosemite and
and General Grant parks in California.”®> Bowers of California was _
always hostile to the reserves in that state, and in 1896 he secured a _
favorable committee report on one of his “settlers’ relief” bills.*° In
the second session of the fifty-fourth Congress, several bills were intro-
duced to abolish the forest reserves.

Two classes in the West were particularly hostile—the stockmen,
who found their privileges restricted by the reservation of these lands, _
and the miners, who were at first entirely shut out of all forest —
reserves.” :

The prohibition of mining was an unnecessary hardship, for mining,
properly conducted, would not have interfered seriously with the pur-
poses for which the reserves were created, and in 1896, certain reser-

vations in Colorado were opened to miners.”* In discussing the Colo- __

rado bill, McRae pointed out the need of general rather than special
legislation on the subject, and the day after Cleveland created the

thirteen reserves, Secretary of the Interior David R. Francis re- ae

quested the chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations to

insert into the Sundry Civil Bill a provision opening all forest reserves — ‘

to mining.”® Such a provision was inserted in a later Sundry Civil Bill, —
but, as will be seen, with one or two other provisions which Secretary ©
Francis had not called for.

THE ATTACK OF 1897 — :
The western hostility previous to the year 1897 having been noted,

the effect of Cleveland’s proclamations of February 22 can be better 4

understood. The reserves were necessarily proclaimed without a very —

24 Fernow, “History of Forestry,” 417.

25 H. R. 8445; 52 Cong. 1 sess.

26 H. Report 1814; 54 Cong. 1 sess.

27 Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1894-95-96, 71.

28 Stat. 29, 11. It is true that under the mineral land laws speculators later

acquired some timber lands within the reserves, and tried to acquire a great deal

more. (Forestry and Irrigation, Oct., 1906, 449; Apr., 1908, 189.)
29 Cong. Rec., Jan. 30, 1896, 1126: S. Doc. 21; 55 Cong. 1 sess.

THE FOREST RESERVES 131

investigation of local interests,*° and there was real cause for
itment in some sections, especially since the reservation of the
s did not accomplish anything toward their protection.. Remon-
aces poured into Congress. On February 28, Senator Allen of
ska presented a memorial from the Nebraska state senate, ask-
Congress to annul one of Cleveland’s proclamations.** The next
y, Carter of Montana presented a resolution from the legislature of
‘yoming, praying for the abolition of one of the new reserves in that
ate, “lest it seriously cripple and retard the state’s development.”*”
he Seattle Chamber of Cormerce,** and various other commercial
: tions in the West sent petitions and remonstrances.

A determined effort was made by Senator Mantle of Montana,
of Wyoming, and other western men, during the closing days of
nd’s administration, to secure the revocation of these procla-
s by means of a rider to the Sundry Civil Bill. Senator Clark
the amendment. “We have protested by this amendment,” he
ced, “against a most grievous wrong that I am convinced was
ated in ignorance and since that time has been continued by
acy, because, the facts and circumstances being once known as
e reservations, nothing but pure obstinacy would persist in a
that threatens so much disaster to a large portion of this
ic.”’

Clark’s amendment was accepted by the Senate, but when it came
‘in the House, Lacey of Iowa offered as a substitute an amendment
ing the President authority to modify or vacate altogether any
ve order creating forest reserves. After some debate, the House
to this substitute. When it came to the Senate, considerable
tility was evident, but Clark and his supporters finally abandoned
r gee to revoke the proclamations during that session of
SS. They announced, however, that they would block legislation
B ext session until they got relief. “I want to say here and now,”
: ed Mantle, “that if these assurances (of modification of the
ocl: mations) should fail of realization, if the people of those states
:0 Fernow, “History of Forestry,” 418. See also S. Doc. 68; 55 Cong. 1 sess.

g. Rec., Feb. 28, 1897, 2480.

2 Cong . Rec., Mar. 1, 1897, 2548.
'S. Doc. 68; 55 Cong. 1 sess.

1382 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY.

should be subjected to the loss and the hardship and the privation
which must necessarily follow the continuation of that order, when-
ever Congress meets in extra session, so far as I am personally con-
cerned, so far as under the rules, the very liberal rules of this body, :
am able to prevent it, I shall do my utmost to prevent any important

legislation from being crystallized into law until this gross injustice
to the people of these states has been remedied and righted.”** _ i

President Cleveland did not approve of the Lacey amendment, and
pocket-vetoed the Sundry Civil Bill; so the western men secured no
relief during his administration, and the question of revoking or.
suspending the new reserves was for a while a burning issue in certain
political circles.

In the meantime, Charles D. Walcott of the Geological Silica see-
ing that the forest reserves were in. danger, went to Senator Pettigrew
and convinced him that there was an opportunity to do a great ser-
vice for the country by securing the passage of legislation for the
protection and administration of the reserves. Walcott drew up a bill,
using the McRae bill (H. R. 119) as a basis, and after talking it over
with Secretary Bliss of the Department of the Interior, with the for-
estry commission of the National Academy of Sciences, and even with
President McKinley and his cabinet, asked Pettigrew to introduce if
as an amendment to the Sundry Civil Bill.

A special session of Congress was called by President MeKinley ca
March 15, 1897, and early in the session, Pettigrew came forward
with his amendment*’—a slightly different measure from the one Wal-
cott had given him.** This amendment has played so important a part
in the history of the forest reserves, that its provisions must be noted
in detail.

Among the concessions to the opponents of the reserves, was, first,
a clause providing that reserves might be set aside only for certail ]
specified purposes—“to improve or protect the forest,” or “for the
purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to fur-
nish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of
citizens of the United States.” The inclusion of lands more valuable

84H. R. 10356; 54 Cong. 2 sess.: Cong. Rec., Mar. 3, 1897, 2930.
35 Cong. Rec., Apr. 8, 1897, 655; May 5, 899.
36 The writer is obliged to Dr. "Charles Walcott for much of this informatiill

THE FOREST RESERVES ° 133

erals or for agricultural purposes than for forest purposes
cifically forbidden. In the second place, the Secretary of the
was authorized to give free timber and stone to settlers,
or residents for firewood, fencing, building, mining, prospect-
other domestic purposes ; and in the third place, the reserves
ned to mining and prospecting. In the fourth place, a clause
zed any person who had a claim or a patent to land included
2st reserve to relinquish his tract to the government and select
eive patent to an equal area outside.
mber of provisions of the Pettigrew bill showed the influence
pnd far-sighted friends of the reserves. In the first place, and
portant, a clause gave the Secretary of the Interior the power
ake provisions for the protection of the reserve—to “make such
and regulations and establish such service as will insure the
ets of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and
d to preserve the forests thereon from destruction.” In the
place, the secretary was authorized to sell timber, “under such
regulations” as he might prescribe; and in the third place,
sident was authorized to restore lands found better adapted to
or agricultural purposes than to forest usage, or to modify
laries of forest reserves in any way.
whole, the amendment was about the best measure that
of the reserves could have hoped for, but as a rider to an
opriation bill it was clearly out of order. Pettigrew announced,
ver, that if his amendment were ruled out on a point of order, he
d fight the appropriation bill with a filibuster. This proved un-
sary, for when Senator Gorman raised the point of order it was
a the Senate and voted down by a vote of 25 to 23."7
e amendment, as first introduced by Pettigrew, there was no
n revoking or suspending the new reserves; but he later re-
iced it with a clause suspending the reserves that Cleveland had
hed, until March 1, 1898; and it was on this question of sus-
the reserves that most of the debates turned, less attention
paid to other more important provisions.
western men rallied around Pettigrew, almost to a man. Clark
sming complained of the “utter and absolute and intolerant
ce of the whole proposition.” White of California declared

134 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

that the proclamations were “improvidently made,” “ridiculous in the —
extreme, oppressive,” and indicative of a “dense ignorance of the
actualities of the situation.” Turner of Washington called the procla-_
mations “an outrage on the interests and the rights and the feelings —
of the people of the states that are affected by it.” “I say the Senators —
from those states are not to be made to kick their shins around the |
lobbies of the executive department or around the lobbies of the Inte-
rior Department,” he proclaimed. “The self-respecting course for the —
Senators of those States to pursue is to come to the legislative branch
of the Government and ask that branch of the Government to correct
the evils which have been inflicted upon them by executive action.”**

Rawlins of Utah declared that Cleveland’s action was “as gross an
outrage almost as was committed by William the Conqueror, who, for —
the purpose of making a hunting reserve, drove out and destroyed the ~
means of livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people.” “Whence
come the objections to the enactment of this measure of fairness and '
justice?” he asked. “They come from some senator away off in Massa-
chusetts. . . . The speech of the Senator from Delaware [Gray] is —

:

—

37 7
VOTE ON SENATOR GORMAN’S POINT
OF ORDER

0 STATES 171 WHICH NEITHER SENATOR »?
VOTED, OR If WHICH THEY VOTED OF OPPOSITE SIDES.

Cong. Rec., May 6, 1897, 924

38 Cong. Rec., May 5, 1897, 901; May 6, 909, 912, 914, 916.

THE FOREST RESERVES 1385

the effect that he has great concern for the preservation of the
ests of the distant state of Washington 5000 miles from the place
re he lives. Yet neither he nor the people who may live in the State
phere he now resides can by any conceivable possibility. be affected
e way or the other by this legislation. It is a high tribute which the
gentlemen of the East pay to the intelligence, the sense of fairness,
_ the foresight of the people in the West and the men whom the people
| a that section have sent to represent them in the Halls of Congress,
at there should be any quibble raised in respect to the enactment of
; legislation.”

_ Wilson of Washington Sepeuied to history to show that a great
‘injustice was being done to the West. “It would seem,” he argued,
at it was impossible for the people west of the Missouri River to
velop their own domain and their own country in their own way.
_ We have never had that opportunity. The people who first settled in
_ New England came and took thousands of acres of land and developed
_ them as they saw fit, and the people who passed from New England
_ across the Alleghany Mountains and settled in the Mississippi Valley
- took up their lands at a dollar and a quarter an acre without those
restrictions required under the homestead act of 1860... . Our
people have had to go forward and develop their country by law, and
they have observed the law in so far as it has been possible for any
izen to do so. They do not complain of this. It is right and proper
d just. What they do complain of is that their material interests—
those very things that affect their prosperity and advancement, nay,
_ their very existence as Commonwealths—shall be disposed of by the
stroke of pen, as though we were mere provinces and not sovereign
_ States of this great Union.” Wilson spoke bitterly of the “eastern
_ friends, who are so extremely solicitous for our happiness and our
3 a _ prosperity, and our growth and development, who control our incom-
- ings and our outgoings with such a delightful liberality upon their
: part.” “Why,” he asked, referring to the commission of the National
_ Academy of Sciences, “should we be everlastingly and eternally
harassed and annoyed and bedeviled by these scientific gentlemen from
- Harvard College?”

i’ Like almost all men from the West, Wilson was very anxious that
nothing be done to interfere with the development of the West. “We

136 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

in the western country do not desire to do anything that is not proper,
that is not right,” he announced. “We only ask for equal and exact
justice; we only ask to help develop the Union of the States... .
Suppose these forest reservations had been made years ago, and that
these. withdrawals had been made in California, would the $1,500,-
000,000 of gold have been produced in that state? . . . If such with-
drawal had been made in Idaho, would she have contributed her
$200,000,000 of gold and silver to our national wealth? . . . Had
the mountainous regions of Montana been withdrawn, would she have
given us her $35,000,000 yearly of the precious metals? A wonderful
development has been made, a wonderful growth has come about. It
was not done by silver; it was not done by gold; it was not accom-
plished by paper money; but it was accomplished by the energy, the
industry, the perseverance, the trials, the self-denials of the hardy
pioneers who have blazed the pathway of civilization into a magnifi-
cent highway and built upon the other side of the Rocky Mountains
an empire for you and for me.” 7

The conservation forces made no very spirited contest, because
even the eastern men felt that Cleveland’s proclamations had caused
considerable hardship, and that there was much justice in the western
demand for relief. Even staunch conservationists were willing that
some relief should be provided, but they were not willing to let the
attacks upon the general policy of forest reservation go unchallenged ;
and Allison of Iowa, Gorman of Maryland, Hawley of Connecticut,
and Gray of Delaware took up the defense with some energy. Gray
announced that while he was willing to make concessions, he still sup-
ported the reservation policy. “All I want,” he said, “is that the
Senate should not consider that we have abandoned this great ques-
tion of forest preservation in the interest of the whole people of the
United States to the selfish interests of speculators and owners—and
I say it in no invidious sense—who have rushed into that country, and
of course will naturally sacrifice larger interests to the particular
interest they have in hand. . . . I do not blame them, but they need
the regulating hand of law. I do not blame a man who goes into that
country and finds he has a large fortune in view, if he sacrifices large
interests in the future to present advantage, that he may gain by his
conduct. It is not human nature that he will, unless the strong hand

Pee ail ” ae oe eee a =
* ey DA ga a) Se So 2 TT Sn

; ' — " radii etna niet Sea does

a ae

sade
i,

ee) eee, Per
a

.

THE FOREST RESERVES 137

administrative law restrains him and compels him, subordinate his
te interests to the larger interests of the whole people.”
The adoption of Pettigrew’s amendment in the Senate by a vote of
32 shows how strong was the sentiment in its favor.*® The fact
that many western men should be energetically pushing a measure
hich was later to be recognized as one of the great landmarks in the
aservation movement, paradoxical as it seems at first blush, is not
ult to explain. A great many forest reserves had been established
in the West, and these lands were virtually locked up against all use
| r development ; and at the same time they were just as completely
| a protected from fire and trespass as unreserved lands. Pettigrew’s
ndment, opening these lands to mining, and providing for the use
development, as well as the protection, of the timber, naturally
saled to the men from the states involved; while the lieu selection
‘ovision, in its very generous treatment of settlers, presented a
trong argument for western support.
In the House, several western men took up with energy the cause
1 Pettigrew had espoused in the Senate. Their activity took the
n in the main of a bitter denunciation of Cleveland’s proclamation
Ditebrasey 22. Hartman of Montana called it “a parting shot of
the worst enemy that the American people have ever had.” Knowles of
So Dakota declared that the issue of this “villainous order” meant
15,000 people in his state “must vacate their homes and become
pers”; and he was particularly indignant because President
sland had consulted so little the wishes of the western politicians.
fe know the ‘rotten boroughs of the West,’ as the New York World
us, have little influence with this administration,” he said. “Our
resentatives warm their heels in the anterooms not only of the
resident, but those of the heads of Departments, while the Represen-
at ives and Senators from the East file past them and have the quick
r of every branch of the Government.” Castle of California declared
ere was never exhibited by any government a more shameless,
re brutal ice lesson of might making right” than in the treat-
of certain “peaceable citizens of California”; and Bailey of
as declared he would never “vote to make any adjustment which
oses in a foolish and sentimental regard for forests to ignore and
~ 88.Cong. Rec., May 6, 1897, 924.

138 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

disregard the interests of the men of flesh and blood who have built up q y
that country.” bi

The complaints of the western men did not elicit a large measure of E
sympathy in the House. Lacey of Iowa saw one aspect of the situa- 4
tion very clearly. “I am not surprised,” he pointedly remarked, “to
find a great deal of hostility to this order, coming in general from a _
source not very far from the headquarters of some of the great mines
of the country, which have been getting timber free of charge under
permits from the Interior Department. . . . Ihave examined permits
giving to certain mines in South Dakota—to certain mine operators

there ; not silver miners, either, but gold bugs—the privilege of cutting “
four square miles of timber in a single permit absolutely free of charge.

In connection with the same mines, I have seen railroads which have

been built right through that timber, and upon those railway trains H

almost mountains of timber are carried and dumped at the foot of g
the mine, free of charge so far as the Government is concerned. No _

wonder gentlemen complain of the loss or curtailment of such a — ;
privilege as this. Nothing is so sacred as an abuse.’’**

McRae of Arkansas likewise showed how the miners were receiving _
free timber under more liberal terms than ever before, yet were not —

content to exploit the timber on the public domain, but wanted to
invade also the reserves. “I appeal to you,” he said in closing his argu-

ment, “in behalf of the millions of people along our rivers, for pro- —

tection. I appeal to you in behalf of the health and prosperity of the —
people of the West to protect them. I appeal to you in behalf of the
arid region, where there are neither trees nor water, to protect them.
Save our forest reservations and prevent the floods upon the mighty
Mississippi.” Lacey and McRae received some help in their opposition, —

even from the West, for Bell of Colorado defended the reservation —

policy because it conserved the water supply for the valleys below. 4
Underwood of Alabama favored an amendment giving the President —

power to change any of the reservations, instead of Congress doing it, —

on the grounds that the President could act more quickly and more —
intelligently than Congress. Cannon also favored this idea, but it —
never came to a vote, and the debate was finally cut off by Lacey’s

40 Cong. Rec., May 10, 969, 970; May 11, 1007, 1008, 1013.
41 Ibid., May 10, 965.

THE FOREST RESERVES 139

m for non-concurrence, which was adopted by a vote of 100
39.”

The conference committee to which the Sundry Civil Bill was
ferred was fortunately composed mainly of men who were not hostile
) the reserves. At least two of the Senate conferees—aAllison of Iowa
and Gorman of Maryland—had actively defended the forest reserves,
hile, of the House conferees, only one—Sayers of Texas—had any-
thing of the western bias. Representative Stone of Pennsylvania had
never taken an active interest in the forestry question, and Cannon,
although not a conservationist, opposed legislation in this fashion,
a an appropriation bill. There was not an aggressive enemy of con-
ervation on the committee.

The conference report changed only one important clause of the
Pettigrew amendment—that relating to lieu selections by settlers in |
the forest reserves. This clause later became so important that it
must be examined carefully.**

THE FOREST LIEU SECTION

Pettigrew’s amendment, as originally introduced, provided as
follows: “Any person who may have initiated or acquired any lawful
claim or right to land within any forest reservation,” might relin-
-quish the land to the United States, and in lieu thereof “select and
patented to him, free of charge, a tract of land of like area
resoever there are public lands open for settlement.” This was an
exceedingly generous provision, for it would have allowed any settler
had “initiated” a claim, no matter how far he had gone with it,
no matter whether he had ever lived on it at all or not, to relinquish
_and have “patented” to him an equal area anywhere that there were
7 blic lands open to settlement.” This provision would have per-

‘mitted any speculator to file claims or make entry on any land that
he thought likely to be included in a forest reserve, and then, if the
“reserve were established, trade his claim off for a patent elsewhere.
_ As soon as the Pettigrew amendment came up in the House, Lacey
objected to the lieu selection clause and offered as a substitute a
clause giving “any settler or owner” of “an unperfected bona fide

42 Cong. Rec., May 10, 966, 969, 1016, 1013.
48 Cong. Rec., June 17, 1913, 2059.

140 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

claim or patent” included in a forest reserve the right to relinquish
and select in lieu thereof “a tract of vacant land open to settlement,”
free of charge, and allowed credit on the new claim for any time spent
on the relinquished claim. This substitute was taken from the McRae
bill, which had been before Congress for some time; and it differed in
two important respects from the clause in Pettigrew’s amendment.
In the first place, instead of. giving the settler a patent to his lieu
selection, it gave him only the same claim, right, or title as he had
in the forest reserve before, and in the second place, it allowed lieu
selections, not only to “persons,” but also to “owners” generally.*
The report of the conference committee to which the bill was re-
ferred followed the provisions of the Lacey substitute, and this
caused many of the western men to oppose the adoption of the report,
although in all other important respects the Pettigrew amendment
had been adopted without alteration. In the Senate, White of Cali-
fornia, Cannon of Utah, and Shoup of Idaho were strongly opposed
to the conference report ; and Rawlins of Utah offered several amend-
ments before he was reminded that amendments to a conference report
were out of order. Pettigrew announced that he felt it his duty to
insist upon the absolute revocation of the proclamation of February
22, even if it involved the defeat of the Sundry Civil Bill. Thus it
appears that the lieu selection clause was very important to him, for
in his amendment as originally presented he had not called for revoca-
tion at all; and the conference report followed his own ideas except

44Some of the changes made in this amendment during its passage through
Congress throw a rather interesting light on the “manners and customs” of poli-

ticians. The amendment Walcott prepared and gave to Pettigrew contained a -

provision that the “settlers” “miners,” “residents,” and “prospectors” mentioned as
entitled to free. timber, should include only individual settlers and not corpora-
tions. Before introducing it, however, Pettigrew consulted ex-Senator Moody of
South Dakota, counsel for the Homestead Mining Company, and Moody eliminated
this provision to “improve its phraseology.” He also erased the provision giving
the Secretary of the Interior power to establish rules and regulations for giving
free timber. When Walcott saw what had happened to his amendment, he imme-
diately called upon Pettigrew; and Pettigrew promised to reintroduce the un-
altered amendment. This he did on April 8, and it was referred to a committee
for consideration. On May 5, Pettigrew submitted the amendment in the Senate
again, but again the clause limiting free timber to individual settlers was omitted,
and another clause, suspending the new reserves, had been added. Both these
changes appeared in the bill as finally passed.

THE FOREST RESERVES 141

the matter of lieu selections. The opposition did not have strong
zh support, even in the Senate, however, to block an appropria-
bill; and the conference report was adopted by a vote of 82 to 25
the Senate, and 89 to 6 in the House. With the approval of this
on June 4, 1897, the forest reserves emerged from a very pre-
us situation.*®

THE ACT OF 1897

The act of 1897 was thus a compromise. The western men secured,
the first place, the suspension of Cleveland’s proclamation, At the
of nine months the proclamations were again to take effect, but
allowed sufficient time for speculators and adventurers to go upon
land and establish claims against the government, and enabled
ig companies to cut supplies of timber.**® The clause limiting the
oses for which reserves might be set aside was not a serious
iction, however; the provision authorizing the Secretary of the
ior to give free timber to settlers was one which he might use
own discretion; and the clause opening the reserves to mining
not likely to injure the reserves at all, while it was certain to
atly reduce western hostility to the reserves.

On the whole, the act represents a very important step forward.
permission given the secretary to sell timber growing on the
yes recognized at last, and forty years, too late, the principle
ch must govern any intelligent system of forest administration-
of the timber with a reservation of the land. It is true that merely
horizing the Secretary of the Interior to “make provisions for
protection of the reserves” did not afford much protection unless
secretary had funds, and appropriations for protection from
r trespass had even decreased since 1891 ;** but under the vig-
administration of Pinchot these appropriations were destined
increase again.** Finally, the provision authorizing the President
Cong. Rec., May 27, 1897, 1278 et seq., 1284, 1285: S. Doc. 68; 55 Cong. 1 sess.
| Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 80, 268.

In 1891, the amount appropriated had been $100,000 for “timber protection,”
$120,000 for “protection from fraudulent entry,” making $220,000 in all. In
these two items were combined and a total of only $90,000 was appropriated.
t. 26, 970; 30, 32.)

Even had there been no increase in appropriations, the secretary was now in
etter position than ever before to fight the worst kind of depredations, for in

142 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

to restore agricultural lands and modify the boundaries of reserves in
any way made it possible for him to avoid stirring up so much local
antagonism.*® Incidentally, the discussion aroused by Cleveland’s
proclamations, bitter as it was, awakened a public interest in forest
questions which was very favorable to the future development of the
forest policy.
February, 1897, Congress passed an act providing a heavy penalty for setting
fires on the public domain. (Stat. 29, 594.)

49 Intelligent administration of these provisions was made easier by an appro-
priation of $150,000 for the survey of the reserves. Fernow, however, suggests that
this appropriation was secured, not mainly because of the need of surveys, but

rather because a certain organized survey party in the Geological Survey was then
in need of employment. (Stat. 30, 34: Fernow, “History of Forestry,” 419.)

CL MEAN £

Py Tae Pee cal gi iol ir tee ore

CHAPTER IV

CONSERVATION ACTIVITY

“GOLDEN ERA” OF FOREST CONSERVATION ACTIVITY
ade following the passage of the act of 1897 may be regarded

shed during this decade than during any similar period in
ory of that movement.

ry, no field equipment, no real understanding of forestry any-
except with a few men like Fernow and Pinchot. The Division
restry was still merely a bureau of information, employing a

1 in the best forest schools of Europe, with a large fortune, and
ring zeal for public service, coupled with a winning personality,

” Fortunately he was working under a man who was able to
ate those qualities; and President Roosevelt probably sought
el of Pinchot more than that of any other man in Washing-
two men represented a force which was able to accomplish
things for conservation."

PUBLIC OPINION AND CONSERVATION

c interest in forest conservation developed very rapidly during
iod, largely because of the influence of Pinchot and Roosevelt.

rnow, “History of Forestry,” 420: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912, 229-243; Pro-
#, Society of Am. Foresters, May, 1905: American Magazine, Jan., 1908:
4% Literature, 47, 388: Independent, 64, 415, 1374: No. Am. Rev., 188, 740:
og 291, 292; 92, 718; 93, 770; 94, 282: World’s Work, 16, 10235, 10427; 19,
20, 12871.

144 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

This increase in public interest is clearly seen, not only in many
journals and periodicals of the time, but in the progress made by
various states in forest matters, and in the formation of a number
of conservation commissions—state, inter-state, and national.

i
STATE CONSERVATION ACTIVITY Fi

The interest shown by many of the states previous to 1891 has a
already been noted.’ In the period following that date, this state
activity increased greatly. In New York, where state forests had first
been provided for, a law was passed in 1897, authorizing the pur-
chase of additional forest lands, and a special agency, the Forest
Reserve Board, was established to carry this into execution.*? Under
this law about $3,500,000 has been spent, and in 1907 over 1,500,000
acres had been added to the State Forest Reserve.* In 1900, Minne-
sota enacted a law providing for state forest reserves. In 1902, Massa-—
chusetts acquired three state parks and placed a trained forester in
charge. The next year, Indiana appropriated to buy a small state
reservation, and in 1906, Maryland had four small reservations, gifts
from private individuals.

kd atte atid

wee Dg omit a

Oh ek IR Gio

Pennsylvania was one of the first states to undertake the purchase —
of public forests. As a result of a persistent propaganda by the ~
Pennsylvania Forestry Association, a commission of inquiry was
instituted in 1887, and another in 1893. The legislature in 1895 —
provided for a Commissioner of Forestry, and two years later passed _
an act providing for the purchase of state forest reservations. In
1908, nearly a million acres had been bought up under this law, and
the state was fast working out a system of efficient management.’ .

Wisconsin provided in 1897 for a forestry commission to draw up
a plan for the protection and utilization of the forest resources of
the state, and in 1905, the legislature passed a law setting aside all

2 Cross Reference, pp. 33, 34, 96, 97.

3 Fernow, “History of Forestry,” 426.

4In 1894, a constitutional convention of New York adopted an article forever
prohibiting the cutting of trees on state lands, and the people ratified this action.
This has of course prevented the state from using these lands in a rational, business-
like way, and renders them valuable merely as a pleasure ground for wealthy
New Yorkers. (Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1894-95-96, 32, 101: Outlook,

100, 729.)
5 Report, Pa. Commissioner of Forestry, 1901-02, 11.

THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 145

lands i in the northern timbered portion of the state. Wisconsin
as nearly 400,000 acres of state forest lands. In 1900, Minne-
tered upon a policy of forest reservation, and established a
forest service a decade later. Michigan passed a law in 1907
awing from sale 40,000 acres of agricultural college lands,
> state now owns over 200,000 acres of state forests. In 1908,
nt made state forests possible by creating a Board of Agri-
>and Forestry, with authority to purchase lands for the state;
mont now has a small area of state forest land. New Hamp-
recently provided for the purchase of Crawford Notch. New
now has about 14,000 acres of state forest lands, and Con-
it a smaller amount, while South Dakota has 80,000 acres,
rying 250,000,000 feet of western yellow pine. Several American
s have even established forests, usually for watershed protection.
t Lake City has about 25,000 acres, Newark, New Jersey, over
acres, and Asheville, North Carolina, Hartford, Connecticut,
mchburg, Virginia, have smaller amounts.°

aratively few of the states own any public forests, but al-
ll have established some agency to look after forest matters.
e of the states, single foresters have been appointed—in Maine
Connecticut (1901), Massachusetts (1904), Vermont
and Rhode Island (1906).’ Other states, following the lead
ork in 1885, have provided for commissions or boards—New
shire (1898), Wisconsin (1897) (a temporary commission,
d by a permanent Forestry Board in 1905), Michigan and
nesota (1899),° Indiana (1901), New Jersey (1905), Washing-
(1905), Maryland and Kentucky (1906), Alabama and Oregon
). Hawaii created a Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry in
and in 1903, a Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and
. In 1905, the California Board of Forestry, which had been
ied by politics in 1893, was again revived.? Many of the ap-
eedings, Society of Am. Foresters; July, 1913, 202: Forestry and Irriga-

_ Feb., 1906, 80; Aug., 1907, 403: American Forestry, May, 1911, 253; Jan.,
62; May, 1917, 306: Smithsonian Report, 1910, 433: Am. Lumberman, Oct. 7,

now, “History of Forestry,” 428: Kinney, “Forest Law in America.”
office of fire warden had been created in Minnesota in 1895.
ormation regarding these commissions has been taken from the annual

146 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

pointments in these various state commissions went to politicians at |
first, but gradually that class of appointees is being superseded by
men with special training for the work.

The subject of state legislation regarding forestry is too large to |
be treated here, but it is interesting to note that the idea expressed —
in the old Timber Culture Act of the seventies has not yet been ~
abandoned, for several states passed timber culture acts after 1891, —
Wisconsin providing, as late as 1907,’° for a tax exemption of lands
planted in trees. Even as late as 1917, several states still have laws
in effect permitting county boards of commissioners to offer bounties;
several others offer tax rebates, and still others exempt young trees ;
from taxation for a period of years. Indiana passed a law in 1899
allowing partial tax exemption, but it was declared unconstitutional.
In recent years, the timber culture movement has developed into a 3
movement for rational taxation of forest lands, and on this problem —
many of the states are still at work.”* ;

An increasing interest in forestry is indicated by the growing num- ~
ber of states which provide for the observance of Arbor Day. Several —
states had provided for this previous to 1891, and many others fol- —

ee
iy =v

reports of the various commissions, from the Proceedings of the American For- —
estry Congress, the Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, and of the
American Forestry Association, from Fernow’s “History of Forestry,” 425-435,
and from Kinney, “Forest Law in America.”

10 Report, State Forester, Wisconsin, 1907-08, 92. 4

11 House Report 134 of Mass., Jan., 1906: Mass., Report of Commission on 4 i
Taxation of Wild or Forest Lacie: Senate No. 426, Jan., 1914: Mass. Acts of 1914, ;
Chapter 598: “Taxation of Forest Lands in Wisconsin”; Report of State Board of —
Forestry, Sept., 1910: Report, Wis. State Forester, 1907-08, 93-95: Conn., Report, —
Special Commission on Taxation of Woodland, 1912: Third Ann. Report, N. Hamp-
shire State Tax Commission: Washington, Report, State Board of Tax Commis- —
sioners, 1912: Report, Commissioner of Corporations on Taxation, Dec., 1913, 16, 4
17, 25, 46, 47, 62, 112, 241, 280, 329, 364: Report, National Conservation Commission, !
1909, Vol. II, 581-632: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1891-92-93, 22, 23, 74, 15: %
Fifth National Conservation Congress, Report on Forest Taxation: Report, Com- |
mittee of National Tax Assoc. on Forest Taxation, by Fred R. Fairchild (Re- —
printed from Proceedings of Nat’l Tax Assoc., Vol. VII): “Forest Taxation,” by a

and Local Taxation, Des Moines, Iowa; Sept. 4, 1912: Fernow, “Economics of q
Forestry,” Appendix, 465-467: American Lumberman, Jan. 27, 1912: Proceedings, |
Society of Am. aan Apr., 1906, 115: Addresses by Fred R. Fairchild, A. C. 4

THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 147

d after that time. As early as 1892, the American Educational
ciation recommended the universal observance of Arbor Day,
at the present time there are only a very few states. where the
is not recognized. On April 15, 1907, President Roosevelt called
the school children of the United States to give one day each
to tree-planting exercises. The movement has even spread to
on) countries.*”
should perhaps be noted that in recent years many of the states
given increasing attention to fire protection. After the destruc-
ive fires in the Northeast in 1908, Maine increased her annual appro-
priation for fire protection to nearly $70,000; New Hampshire to
20,000; Massachusetts set aside $25,000; Connecticut $5000;
ew York $75,000; Pennsylvania $25,000; and Maryland $5000.
ise, after the terrible forest fires of 1910, in the Lake states and
the Pacific Northwest, Wisconsin raised her appropriation to
35,000; Minnesota appropriated $75,000; Washington $38,000;
nd Oregon $25,000." In 1907, the first Lake States Forestry Con-
rence, composed of representatives from Michigan, Minnesota, and
onsin, was held at Saginaw, Michigan; and in December, 1910,
‘oe disastrous fires of the summer of that year, the Lake States
Fire Conference met at St. Paul, Minnesota.** In 1911, the
soy Beouts organized in Michigan for protection against forest

EDUCATION IN FORESTRY

provision for technical education in forestry was made long
e opportunity for its application had arisen, and indeed before
ofessional foresters could be found in this country to do the
ig. The new subject attracted the attention of educational
is, and the desire to assist in a popular movement led to
$ introduction, at least by name, into their curricula. In 1897,
enty institutions, land grant colleges, offered some instruction in

4 oceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1891-92-93, 12: Arbor and Bird Day
al, Indiana, 1907, 15: Forestry and Irrigation, May, 1907, 223, 247, 265; Apr.,

} American Forestry, Nov., 1913, 721.
. Report of the Conference, published by the American Lumberman,
o, 1911.

148 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

The era of professional forest schools, however, was inaugurated q
in 1898, when the New York State College of Forestry was organized —

at Cornell University, and when the private school at Biltmore was
opened by Dr. Schenck, on the estate of W. K. Vanderbilt. A year
later, another forest school was opened at Yale University, an endow-
ment of the Pinchots. In 1903, the University of Michigan added a
professional department of forestry; and then followed a real flood

of educational enthusiasm, one institution after another adding

courses in forestry.”

FORESTRY JOURNALS AND FORESTRY SOCIETIES

Two new forestry journals appeared: the Forestry Quarterly,

launched in 1902 by Dr. Fernow, and the New Jersey Forester,
started by Dr. John Gifford in 1895. The latter publication soon —
changed its name to The Forester, and three years later was taken —
over by the American Forestry Association, continued as Forestry —

and pid he sora later as Conservation, and still later as American
Forestry.*°

In 1901, the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests
was organized, and this society exerted a considerable influence in
New England during the following years. In the same year, the :
Canadian Forestry Association held its first annual meeting in —
Ottawa. During the next decade, a number of associations were x
formed: the Iowa Park and Forest Association, the Nebraska Con- —
servation and State Development Congress, the Paducah (Kentucky)

‘Forest Association, the Southern Conservation Congress; and other

forestry associations in Maine, West Virginia, North Carolina, —
Georgia, and Louisiana. In 1908, the National Conservation League —
was organized, with Walter L. Fisher as president, Theodore Roose- —
velt as honorary president, and William Taft and W. J. Bryan as —
honorary vice-presidents. In the same year, the Woman’s National %
Rivers and Harbors Congress was organized in Shreveport, Louisi- ~
ana, one of the objects being the conservation of forests; and the ~

following year, the National Conservation Association was organized,

15 Fernow, “History of Forestry,” 433.
16 [bid., 432.

THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 149

Charles W. Eliot as president. In 1909, a conservation com-
on was also created in Canada.“

OTHER INDICATIONS OF CONSERVATION SENTIMENT
railroad companies began experiments in tree planting in the

seventies, and some of them are still trying to work out a system
nber culture which will at least provide a part of the future tie
y. The Louisville & Nashville, the Michigan Central, the Illinois
‘al, the Big Four, the St. Louis & San Francisco, and the
olk & Western have made various sporadic attempts to develop
ations. The Santa Fé has made systematic efforts to grow
optus on some of its lands in southern California; and the
sylvania Railroad has planted several million trees on its unused

where was the interest of the people in timber conservation more
y indicated than in the party platforms of 1908 and 1912. The
cratic platform adopted at Denver in 1908 announced, “We
‘upon the preservation, protection and replacement of needed
s.’ The Republican platform of the same year stated, “We
‘se the movement inaugurated by the administration for the
rvation of natural resources, and we approve of all measures
event the waste of timber.” Four years later the Republican,
cratic, Progressive, and Prohibition platforms all had con-
ion planks, the Progressive platform being particularly com-
nsive in that respect.””

ROADENING SCOPE OF THE CONSERVATION MOVEMENT

Tt was during the first decade of the twentieth century that the
nservation movement” acquired something of its present signifi-

» and importance. Under the influence of Pinchot largely, the

of conservation was extended to other natural resources than

r—coal, oil, gas, iron, grazing lands, irrigable lands, water and

water power, and at the same time acquired a broader meaning than
sat involved in the mere “saving” of these resources. With Pinchot

nformation here is taken from current issues of Forestry and Irrigation,
‘vation, American Forestry, and the Canadian Forestry Journal.

Forest Leaves, Aug., 1907, 50: American Forestry, Apr., 1910, 26: Proceed-
Society of Am. Foresters, Vol. 4, 30 et seq.

World Almanac and Encyclopedia, 1910 and 1913.

150 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

and Roosevelt, the “‘conservation movement” meant a constructive
sd D

movement, involving not only the conservation of irreplaceable re-

sources, but the development of other resources, as, for instance, irri-
gation lands, waterways and water power, not as local and private
enterprises, but for the benefit of the people as a whole.

The broadening scope of the conservation movement is well indi-
cated by the fact that the Ballinger-Pinchot controversy” in 1910

was mainly concerned, not with the conservation of timber, but coal. a

About the same time, the question of water power suddenly emerged
into a position of the greatest prominence, solely due to the agitation
and efforts of Pinchot. While timber conservation thus took a position
of relatively less importance, it was not absolutely less important
than it had been before. Probably the growing interest in coal, water
power, and other resources helped, rather than retarded, the cause of
forest conservation, by lending an added interest and power to the
whole conservation movement. As Pinchot expressed it: “We have
forestry associations, waterway associations, irrigation associations,
associations of many kinds touching this problem of conservation at —

different points, each endeavoring to benefit the common weal along h|

its own line, but each interested only in its own particular piece of
work and unaware that it is attacking the outside, not the heart of
the problem. Now the greater thing is opening out in the sight of the
people. This problem of the conservation of natural resources is a

single question. Each of these various bodies that have been working — i

at different phases of it must come together on conservation as a
common platform.”

THE PUBLIC LANDS COMMISSION

Perhaps the real genesis of the conservation movement, in this
sense, is to be found in the appointment, by President Roosevelt, of
the Public Lands Commission in 1908 “to report upon the condition,
operation, and effect of the present land laws, and to recommend such

changes as are needed to effect the largest practicable disposition of

the public lands to actual settlers, and to secure in permanence the
fullest and most effective use of the resources of the public lands.”
The commission, composed of W. A. Richards, F. H. Newell, and

20 Cross Reference, pp. 201-204.

THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 151

hot, sat in session at Washington for several weeks, hearing
mony regarding the public lands, and then Pinchot and Newell
; west to confer with various western interests. In March, 1904,

ort was finished and sent to Congress. This report, like the Donald-
son report of the early eighties, contained a vast amount of informa-
# jor regarding the public lands and the operation of the public land
laws, and recommended a number of changes in those laws, in the
ests of conservation. It is not certain that this report accom-
plished a great deal toward the repeal of bad laws or the enactment

B coed laws; in fact, it was somewhat disappointing as far as result-
g legislation was concerned, but at any rate it furnished needed
information regarding public land questions.”*

THE WATERWAYS COMMISSION AND THE CONFERENCE OF
GOVERNORS

In March, 1907, President Roosevelt created the Inland Waterways
mmission, to make a comprehensive study of the river systems of
United States, and suggest means of improvement of navigation,
slopment of power, irrigation of arid land, protection of lowlands
m floods, and of uplands from soil erosion—to work out “a compre-
ive plan designed for the benefit of the entire country.”’ While this
mission was engaged in an inspection trip along the lower Missis-
91, Pinchot, who was a member, conceived the idea of calling a con-
nce of the governors of the states to consider the question of the
servation of the resources of the country. President Roosevelt, of
se, approved the suggestion, and wrote to the governors of all
states, inviting them to a conference to be held in the White House
May, 1908. Invitations were also extended to the justices of the
yreme Court, to members of the cabinet, to all the senators and
esentatives in Congress, heads of scientific bureaus at Washing-
, representatives of the great national societies, both scientific and
astrial, representatives of journals, and to notable citizens known
be interested in the natural resources of the country, including
J. Hill and Carnegie.
The character of this conference shows the importance which
inchot and Roosevelt attached to the question of conservation. It
21, Doc. 189; 58 Cong. 3 sess.

152 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

was one of the most notable conventions ever held in this country, and
three days were devoted to speeches on the conservation of the re- —
sources of the country.” Several of the governors announced that.

they would immediately appoint state conservation commissions in —

their respective states; and the number of state commissions was
greatly increased within the next year or two.”
THE NATIONAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION 3
Soon after the Conference of Governors, Roosevelt appointed the —
National Conservation Commission, with Pinchot as chairman, to
make a report on the national resources of the country. The commis-
sion had no funds at its disposal, but Roosevelt gave an order direct-
ing that the heads of the scientific bureaus at Washington should
utilize their forces in making investigations requested by the com-
mission, so far as such investigations lay in their respective fields.

Pinchot and his assistants did most of the work. The report of the ~ '

National Conservation Commission, in three volumes, was completed
in January, 1909, and is the most exhaustive inventory of our natural
resources that has ever been made.”*

Roosevelt’s next step was to invite the governors of Canada and

Newfoundland, and the President of Mexico, to appoint commission-

ers to consider with the commissioners of the United States, the ques- | 4
tion of conservation. In consequence of these inyitations, the first —

North American Conservation Conference was held i in Washington,
February 18, 1909—a meeting somewhat similar to the Conference. 1
of Governors; and, at the suggestion of this conference, President
Roosevelt requested the powers of the world to meet at The Hague
for the purpose of considering the conservation of the natural
resources of the world. Perhaps as a result of Roosevelt’s activity,
the Canadian Parliament made provision for a commission on con-
servation in May, 1909.”

In marked contrast to the position of President Roosevelt, was the
attitude of Congress during this time. Roosevelt asked for an appro-

22 Proceedings of a Conference of Governors, May 13-15, 1908; H. Doc. 1425;
60 Cong. 2 sess.: Chautauquan, 55, 21 et seq.

23 Van Hise, “Conservation of Natural Resources in the United States,” 8.

24S. Doc., 676; 60 Cong. 2 sess. ©

25S. Report 826; 61 Cong. 2 sess. 45: Conservation, Apr., 1909, 218-221: Cana-
dian Forestry J sairanl, June, 1909, 99.

| THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 1538

Nelson of Minnesota introduced an amendment to the Sundry
Bill, appropriating $25,000 for the expenses of the commission.”®
amendment went to the Senate Committee on Appropriations
was lost there. Senator Eugene Hale of Maine was chairman of
committee, and he has been blamed for the failure of the amend-
27

_ The failure of Nelson’s amendment was unfortunate enough for the
servation Commission, but it would not have been fatal had the
nission still retained the authority to ask the scientific bureaus
o such work as was appropriate and proper for them to under-
. In the House of Representatives, however, a clause was attached
e Sundry Civil Bill, prohibiting all bureaus from doing work for
commission, board or similar body appointed by the President
out legislative sanction.** James A. Tawney of Minnesota, who
poral opposed conservation, was responsible for this amend-

oo having thus strangled the National Conservation Com-
mission, the organization of the conservation movement was carried
yard by the Joint Committee on Conservation, an official body
blished at the Second Conference of Governors, and in the fall of
9, the National Conservation Association was organized. This
ation was supported largely by personal contributions of
ot. ;

yard the close of the sixtieth Congress, President-elect Taft
sted to Mr. Nelson, chairman of the Committee on Public Lands,

| Cong. Rec., Feb. 17, 1909, 2561:
In earlier years; Senator Hale had evinced an apparent interest in forest
vation. (S. 1476, S. 1779; 50 Cong. 1 sess.)
tat. 35, 1027.
Cong. Rec., Feb. 25, 1909, 3118. Dr. Van Hise, president of the University of
sonsin, wrote an article in the World’s Work, denouncing Tawney for his anti-
“a tion activity; but Tawney claimed, in justification of his amendment,
tha Ritdccevelt had appointed a great number of commissions of various kinds
ithout any sanction from Congress, and that this was turning the work of some
ie bureaus into channels other than those intended by Congress. It is easy to
that there was some truth in this, for Roosevelt was inclined to do things
out specific authorization from Congress. That is about the best way for a
sident to get things done. (Cong. Rec., July 27, 1909, 4614: World’s Work,
, 1909, 11718, 11719.)

154 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

that it would be wise to provide for the appointment and maintenance

of a national commission for the conservation of the natural resources
of the country, but Congress did nothing. On January 14, 1910, Taft
sent a special message to Congress on the subject, but it bore no fruit,
as far as forests were concerned.*° Senator Newlands introduced a bill
providing for the appointment of a national conservation commis-
sion,** but it was never reported.

INCREASE IN APPROPRIATIONS FOR FORESTRY PURPOSES

Much was accomplished for conservation during this period, how-
ever, even in the enactment of legislation. In the first place, appro-
priations for protection against timber depredations increased very
greatly. The appropriation for this purpose had been reduced some-
what between 1891 and 1897, only $90,000 being voted in the latter
year, but the next year $110,000 was provided; in 1900 this was
raised to $125,000, in 1902 to $150,000, and in 1904, the amount
provided was $250,000; while over $240,000 additional was provided
during this period in deficiency appropriations. Furthermore, a new
item appeared in 1898, bearing the sum of $75,000 “for the protec-
tion and administration of the forest reserves.”’ The next year this
amount was more than doubled, and the next year nearly doubled
again, while in 1904, a total of $375,000 was appropriated.”

The increasing appropriations for the Division of Forestry were
of considerable importance, not only as showing a more generous
spirit in Congress, but also in providing the knowledge upon which
efficient management of the reserves must be founded. In 1897, the
division received $28,520 for salaries and general expenses.** Two
years later, the appropriation act doubled the amount given for gen-
eral expenses, and broadened the purposes of the investigations to
- include advice to owners of woodlands as to the proper care of their
timber—a very important function, which would have been considered
entirely too paternalistic ten years before, and to include the finding
of suitable trees for the treeless region—a clause which looks a little

30 S, Report 826; 61 Cong. 2 sess:

31S. 3719; 61 Cong. 2 sess.

32 Stat. 30, 618, 1095; 31, 613, 614; 32, 452; 33, 482, 483.
33 Stat. 30, 3, 5.

THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 155

revival of the Timber Culture Law.** In 1900, the sum given for
al expenses was again doubled, and the next year doubled again,
al of $185,000 being provided in the latter year for the Bureau
yrestry, which succeeded the Division of Forestry. In 1902, the
opriation for the Bureau of Forestry was increased over $100,-
| ), and the next year was raised to $350,000. In 1904, $425,140
as provided, while the additional sum of $200,000 was given for a
restry and iieation exhibit at the St. Louis World’s Fair.*®

_ TRANSFER OF THE RESERVES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE

nust be directed to the transfer of the forest reserve administra-
1905, from the Department of the Interior to the Department
iculture. This transfer did not mean simply that the appro-
ns went to a different department; it meant that money given
tection was more efficiently used, and it is even probable that
riations were more generous after 1905, because of the greater
y in their expenditure.
vious to 1905, the forest work of the government was badly
ed, the Land Office, in the Department of the Interior, being
d with the administration and protection of the forest reserves,
logical Survey with the surveying, while the Division of For-
—later the Bureau of Forestry—in the Department of Agri-
ture onan the technical research and investigation. The dis-
ra ry s arising from this dispersal of functions became more and
re Roarent as the area of forest reserves increased. Also the Land
as not well fitted to carry on the work of forest management,
had no trained foresters and no facilities of developing them, or
veloping the scientific knowledge upon which intelligent forest
nistration must be based. The Land Office attempted to do little
rotect the forests against trespass and fire, although some timber
old and the grazing of stock was regulated to some extent. This
of merely guarding the forest reserves, without providing for
proper use—a policy of “locking up” a valuable resource—was

bai 30, 952.
at. 31, 197, 929, 930; 32, 295, 1157; 33, 177, 286.

156 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

certain to cause great hostility to the reserves, and ultimately to
result in the overthrow of the reservation policy; yet it was the only
policy the Land Office could well follow.

The necessity for some kind of a change was early recognized, and
in 1901, President Roosevelt, following the recommendation of Pin-
chot, urged the transfer of the entire care of the reserves to the
Bureau of Forestry. In response to this, Representative Lacey, chair-
man of the House Committee on Public Lands, introduced two bills in
Congress,*° but one of these was never reported, and the other was

reported with such an incubus of amendments that its passage was

not to be hoped for, or even desired.** A majority of the committee
reporting the latter bill favored the transfer, but a few western men
opposed—Mondell of Wyoming, Jones of Washington, and Shafroth
of Colorado, and also Fordney of Michigan. These men, in their

minority report, advanced a number of reasons for their opposition,

and some of the reasons were logical and valid enough; but they did
not mention one consideration which doubtless had a great deal of
weight with some of the western men—the fact that the Department
of Agriculture was known to favor considerable restriction on grazing
in the forest reserves.**
Opposition to the Lacey bill did not come entirely from the West,

however, and, in the debates, the most violent hostility, not only to —

this particular bill, but to the Bureau of Forestry and its investiga-
tions generally, was shown by “Uncle Joe” Cannon of Illinois. Cannon
was a conservative of the old school, and very hostile to Pinchot and
his work, perhaps recognizing in Pinchot a menace to some of the
interests which he himself had always guarded zealously in Congress.
Cannon was always very suspicious of the “college professors, stu-
dents, wise men and so on and so on throughout the length and breadth
of the country, who investigate,” and it was his motion to strike out
the enacting clause that finally cut the bill off “right close up behind
the ears,” by a vote of 66 to 47.

Pinchot, with the help of the Secretary of the Interior and the

36 H. R. 10306, H. R. 11536; 57 Cong. 1 sess.

37 H. Report 968.

38 Cong. Rec., Feb. 11. 1901, 2247.

89 Cong. Rec., June 9, 1902, 6509-6526; June 10, 6566-6573: Report, Sec. of Int.,
1904, 28, 380.

ee

ye ae Pr

RE

Tore =

Seca
aed |:

chi et A,

THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 157

missioner of the Land Office, continued his campaign to secure
transfer of the forest reserves, however, and early in Roosevelt’s
mistration, Mondell brought in a bill to make the transfer.*® The
nate committee reporting the bill loaded it down with such a mass ‘
provisos that the original purpose was somewhat obscured,** but
s measure finally passed both houses without much opposition.”
hus the transfer of the forest reserves to the Department of Agri-
re was finally effected by a western man, Mondell, whose name,
: year just previous, had headed the list of signatures to a House
rt which asserted the impracticability of any such transfer.** In
the Senate, another western man, Warren of Wyoming, introduced
wo bills in the fifty-eighth Congress, providing for the transfer of
the reserves to. the Department of Agriculture. Warren later devel-
yped into a moderate conservationist on forestry questions, and, per-
aps even'at this time, a regard for the forests might explain his
n, but Mondell was always an active enemy of the forest reserves,
1 his action must be explained differently. The explanation is per-
1aps indicated in a memorial of the Idaho Wool Growers Association,
jhich in 1908, prayed Congress for a law transferring the reserves
o the Department of Agriculture because the Department of the
ior was shutting many of the stockmen out.** The Department
Interior, under Secretary Hitchcock, was developing a policy
too vigorous to suit some of the western men, and it seemed to be
thought that a change could at least make matters no worse. The
lepartment of Agriculture, under Pinchot’s influence, was turning
. more liberal policy in grazing matters.
ne act of 1905 contained several provisions besides the one shift-
ing the forest reserves to the Department of Agriculture. The western
nen secured a little political concession requiring the selection of
: ; Supervisors and rangers, when practicable, from the citizens of
rt he states or territories in which the reserves were located; while the
in rvation forces secured a provision requiring that money received
mm the sale of timber should, for a period of five years, constitute a

0H. R. 1987; 58 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 8460; 58 Cong. 2 sess.
S. Report 2954; 58 Cong. 3. sess.
42 Stat. 33, 628.
‘8 H. Report 968; 57 Cong. 1 sess., Pt. 2.
Cong. Rec., Dec. 17, 1903, 312.

158 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

special fund for the protection, administration, improvement, and
extension of the reserves. This provision slipped through Congress
because no one in Congress had any idea that the receipts would ever
amount to much. At the time, it was too small a sum to be of great
importance, and it had not been growing much from year to year.
Immediately after the transfer, however, the imposition of a charge
for grazing in the forest reserves increased the receipts very greatly ;
and for two years Pinchot had funds for building up rapidly an effi-
cient system of administration, without interference from Congress.
This special fund was abolished in 1907—as soon as Congress realized
how much power it placed in the hands of the forester—but in the
meantime it had served an extremely important purpose.

Under the Department of Agriculture, the forest reserves received
what appeared to be increasingly generous appropriations. The

Bureau of Forestry became the Forest Service, and received in one

sum the appropriations which had hitherto been made in two sepa-
rate items—to the Bureau of Forestry for investigations, and to the
Department of the Interior for protection and administration of the
reserves. The sums appropriated by Congress after 1905 were very
large, compared with appropriations of earlier years; but the forest
reserve receipts also increased very greatly, and in 1907 and 1908
even exceeded the cost of administration.* .

OPPOSITION TO INCREASED APPROPRIATIONS

These increasing appropriations were not secured without some -

opposition, but by no means all of the opposition came from the West.
In 1908, for instance, it was the Senate, the stronghold of western
sentiment, that raised the House appropriation for the Bureau of
Forestry nearly $85,000 ;*° and in the discussion in the Senate there
was no particular opposition from the West; in fact, it was Rawlins
of Utah who seemed most anxious for better protection of the for-
ests.*7 In the Sundry Civil Bill of the same year,** a Senate committee

45 Stat. 33, 872; 34, 685, 1269-1271: S. Doc. 141; 59 Cong. 2 sess.: H. Doc. 681,
62 Cong. 2 sess.: Forestry and Irrigation, Jan., 1907, 14: Fernow, “History of
Forestry,” 419.

46 Cong. Rec., Feb. 24, 1903, 2548.

47 [bid., 2547.
48 H. R. 17202; 57 Cong. 2 sess.

es fesnaNeas.

ee ee

SPIE i Ct ati HN ke Sitnog

nee

if

ig eee Sat SoG pes ee
Sane ESS progetto san

THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 159

the House appropriation for the protection of forest reserves
$325,000 to $400,000 ;*° and this amendment was agreed to in
Senate without a comment. In both these bills, the final amount
ed represented a compromise between the two houses, with the
ate calling for the larger appropriation. The situation in 1904
| similar, and so again in 1905." In 1907, on the proposal to give
Forest Service $500,000 for working capital and permanent
rovements, it was Mann of Illinois who raised the point of order,
ile in opposition to this extra appropriation, the western anti-con-
serva tionists, Carter, Heyburn, Fulton, Clark, and Patterson, were
ed by several men from central and eastern states—Tawney of
esota, Mann of Illinois, Hemenway of Indiana, and Lodge of
.chusetts.**
us it is clear that the division on the question of these appro-
ations was not sectional, as on most conservation questions. Sev-
ral reasons may be given for the failure of the western men to put up
stre er fight against the appropriations. In the first place, irri-
n was assuming greater importance, and some of the men saw
forest destruction would involve hardship for the settler depend-
‘upon a steady water supply. Also, the Secretary of the Interior
during these years, giving some free timber to settlers in the
ty of the reserves, and this made them look more kindly upon
reservation policy, and upon the appropriations for carrying that
y into effect.** As a further reason for the changed attitude of
of the western men, it has been suggested that some of the tim-
sn who had secured land, in some cases at a fairly high price,
1ally saw that it was to their interest to advocate the reservation
er land which might come into competition with their holdings.
would limit the supply of timber available to other lumbermen,
so enhance the value of their own ‘holdings. Such an attitude as

»f securing more lands.
e of the stockmen enjoyed free grazing privileges,”* and a few

ong. Rec., Feb. 25, 1903, 2621.

. Report 811; 58 Cong. 2 sess.: S. Report 3567; 58 Cong. 3 sess.
1 Cong. Rec., Jan. 29, 1907, 1906-1909; Feb. 19, 1907, 3292-3300.

2 Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 241: Statistical Abstract, 1907, 113.
Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 241.

160 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

of them actively favored government regulation, such as existed in the
forest reserves, because it prevented overgrazing and minimized the
disputes constantly arising among claimants to grazing districts.™
Finally, there can be little doubt that one of the main reasons for the
attitude of the western men was the fact that the money appropriated
was spent in their own vicinity, and not all of it in “interfering with
the development of the West.” Part of the appropriations—$500,000
in 1907—-was spent for roads and improvements of various kinds.
The benefits thus accruing were probably exaggerated, for the average
man sees too much advantage in “money spent at home.”

On the other hand, the opposition of such eastern men as Mann,
Hemenway, and Lodge arose partly from a sincere belief that the
administration of the forest reserves was becoming extravagant, and
partly from a well-founded fear that the conservation movement was
becoming a menace to some of the business interests they represented.

Some of the railroads, coal mining interests, oil interests, as well as

timber interests, had headquarters in the East, and they saw their
“creen pastures” disappearing as the reservation policy broadened
to include more and more of the natural resources which had before
been open to private exploitation. Some of these men represented the
anti-administration wing of the Republican party which grew up in
the latter years of Roosevelt’s administration.

On the whole, the increase in appropriations was unquestionably
significant of a changing attitude toward conservation, yet its sig-
nificance is qualified by several considerations. In the first place, most

government expenditures were increasing rapidly. The expenditures

for the entire Department of Agriculture, for instance, increased
during this same period, from $3,000,000 to $10,000,000—over 300
per cent.”° The country was prosperous, and the government extrava-
gant, so that larger appropriations were hardly as significant as they
would have been under other circumstances. In the second place, it
must be remembered that these appropriations did not bring conserva-
tion squarely into issue; and, finally, it will be noted that the number

54 Cong. Rec., Feb. 18, 1907, 3189: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1894-95-
96, 71: S. Doe. 189, 58 Cong. 3 sess. (diagram in back of book). For a description
of the difficulties arising under unregulated grazing see Forestry and Irrigation,
Apr., 1907, 211.

55 Statistical Abstract, 1907, 660.

' THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 161

ional forests was increasing rapidly, and the appropriations
to cover an increasingly large area, while the income from the
est reserves was increasing faster than appropriations were. |

CREATION OF NEW RESERVES
reland’s forest reserve proclamations of February 22, 1897,
the last he made, for his term expired shortly afterwards, but
ley 0 been in office less than a year when he established his
erve,® and during his term of office he increased the number
forest reserves from twenty-eight to over forty,’ covering in 1901
stal area of about 50,000,000 acres.
ident Roosevelt was far more aggressive in his reservation policy
predecessors had been. His policy, however, should be credited
to his chief forester, Pinchot; in fact, it is perhaps only fair
that for a very large part of the 150,000,000 acres of forest
s which are now the property of the American people, credit is
Gifford Pinchot, who was Roosevelt’s most trusted assistant
iser. Pinchot saw that the government was rapidly losing its
land, and he organized a field force to gather information as
is of recommending reserves. During these years, the timber-
f the Lake states were looking westward for new fields to exploit,
r agents in the West were assembling blocks of timber land as
s they could. Thus proceeded the race between the government
e private individuals for the remaining western timber. Roose-
: aside thirteen reserves in the first year of his administration ;**
zeal increased prodigiously in the last years of his administra-
1907, the number of national forests had been increased to
h a total area of over 150,000,000 acres—three times the
2 at the beginning of Roosevelt’s administration.”

IMPROVEMENT OF THE FOREST FIRE LAW

gress made some advances in the protection of timber in other
than by providing money. In the first place, the law against
forest fires was somewhat improved. The act of 1897 had i

. 30, 1767.

nort, Land Office, 1901, 107.
tat. 32, 1988-2030.

sort, Land Office, 1907, 20.

162 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

vided that any person who should “willfully or maliciously” set a 4
fire, or “carelessly or negligently” leave a fire unattended near any j
timber, should be punished by a fine of not more than $5000 or by
imprisonment for not more than two years.°° This law left upon the ~
government the burden of proving willfulness, malice, carelessness, or _
negligence in order to secure a conviction under the law—an impossi- ;
ble task in almost all cases.*'. In 1900, this difficulty was partially —
removed by striking out the words “carelessly or negligently,”® but —
the law, even as thus amended, was not a very efficient instrument for —

the punishment of trespassers, for it still required the government to —
_ prove that any fire set was set. “willfully or maliciously.” The law was |
also still defective, perhaps, in not containing a moiety provision in —
behalf of informers.®* Considerable progress seems to have been made, —
however, in reducing the number of forest fires, especially in reducing © i |
the number of camp fires left burning; and in 1909, the law was —
further modified.™* y

AUTHORITY TO ARREST TRESPASSERS WITHOUT PROCESS

Enforcement of the forest fire law, and of all laws for the protec- —
tion of the forest reserves, was facilitated by an act passed in 1905, —
giving officers of the United States the authority to arrest, without —
process, any person found violating a law or regulation governing ©
the forest reserves or national parks.*” Many of the reserves were —
very large, and even if rangers happened to apprehend persons in the —
act of violating a law or regulation, they must often go a distance of —
twenty miles or more to get the judicial process necessary to make an |
arrest. Thus the government officers were often practically helpless, |

warrant, in such cases, was at least questionabie.* In 1899, the Land —
Office recommended legislation to meet this condition,’ and in 1900,

60 Stat. 29, 594.

61 H. Report 482; 56 Cong. 1 sess.

62 Stat. 31, 169.

68 Reports, Land Office; 1900, 114; 1901, 153.

64 In 1901, forest rangers discovered 1335 such fires; in 1902, 1083, and in 1903,
only 597. (Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 328: Stat. 35, 1088.)

65 Stat. 33, 700.

66S. Report 2624; 57 Cong. 2 sess.

67 Report, Land Office, 1899, 128.

HE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 163

e introduced by Representative Lacey of Iowa and Senator
gh of North Dakota, but both measures were smothered in

oe °8 Two years later a bill passed the Senate,” and was favor-

I r the United States had criminal jurisdiction over some of
s, and his objections sent the bill back to the calendar. sag |

ed or, as one western writer expressed it, “might give addi-
mean: s of annoyance and intimidation” to the rangers; but, in

; ” 3860; 57 Cong. a sess.
Rec., Apr. 23, 1904, 5449.
Rec., Apr. sia 5672.

CHAPTER V

THE FOREST RESERVES SINCE 1897 (continvep): ANTI-
CONSERVATION ACTIVITY

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY

Ir was during the latter part of the decade 1897-1907 that a definite
anti-conservation party grew up. With the development of a compre-
hensive forest policy and with the extension of the idea of conserva-
tion to other resources than timber, certain interests felt that they

were threatened, and united in opposition. Of course there could be ©

no definite party opposed to conservation until “conservation” was
given a definite meaning; and Pinchot and Roosevelt were the ones
who gave it a definite meaning—who inaugurated what has been
termed the “conservation movement.”

In order to get a well-balanced conception of the progress made

since 1897, it will be necessary to consider in detail the activity of the —

anti-conservation forces. It has been seen that the appropriation bills
did not bring the conservation issue squarely before Congress. The
western men generally showed no particular opposition to increased
appropriations; but the attitude of some of them toward conservation
was not radically changed, as will now be shown.

FACTORS TENDING TO AROUSE WESTERN HOSTILITY:
AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE FOREST RESERVES

One of the reasons most often given for western discontent during
this period was the inclusion of agricultural lands in the forest re- —
serves. The act of 1897 had forbidden the inclusion of such lands, but —

Ce

some had previously been included, and even in later proclamations —

it was not always possible to avoid the inclusion of some agricultural

land. Such land could be eliminated only by proclamation of the :
President, or by special act of Congress. Settlers within the forest 4
reserves were allowed to hold their lands through permits issued by the —

ANTI- CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 165

‘ Eiicest Service, but of course they lacked incentive to improve their
mes, because they could not obtain title, and the forester might at
any time revoke their permits.’
It is not to be supposed that all of the western men who railed at
reserves, and at the inclusion of agricultural lands, were inspired
_ entirely by sympathy for these settlers. Some of them disliked the
: reserves anyhow, were always quick to seize any pretext for an attack
u upon the forest reserves or upon the Forest Service, and the “hard-
ips of the settlers” served excellently for debating purposes. Later
evelopments in certain sections indicate that many of the complaints
arding the inclusion of agricultural land, probably most of them,
ally arose from the fact that the creation of forest reserves pre-
nted speculators from acquiring land which was not really fit for
ture.”
There was no dispute in Congress as to the desirability of opening
agricultural lands to settlement. All agreed that this should be
me, but there was a clear division on the question as to how it should
done. The conservationists wanted the opening up of such lands left
the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior—later the Secretary

_ 1 Stat. 30, 34: “Land Decisions,” 29, 593; 30, 44: Forestry and Irrigation, June,
06, 267: Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 321, 322.
2 Thus over 400,000 acres were eliminated from the Olympic National Forest
1900 and 1901 on the ground that the land was chiefly valuable for agriculture
i that the “settlement of the country was being retarded.” The land thus elimi-
ed for agricultural use was largely taken up under the Timber and Stone Act,
h requires oath that the land is “valuable chiefiy for timber but not fit for
vation.” Three companies and two individuals later acquired over 178,000 acres
it, in holdings of from 15,000 to over 80,000 acres each. Of timbered homestead
ms on this eliminated area, held by 100 settlers, the total area under actual
tivation in 1900 was only 570 acres, an average of but 5.7 acres to each claim.
1906, petitions were presented to the President and the Secretary of Agriculture
cing that certain lands in the Bitter Root Forest Reserve should be restored
the ground that they were unusually well adapted to apple orchards. Exami-
tion proved that this land was covered with a fine growth of pine, so the Forest
ice decided that the land would not be opened until the timber had first been
ved. This was not at all satisfactory to the applicants, who said the timber
uld be left as a bonus to the homemakers. :
In one case the Ferest Service received fifty-nine applications for eliminations,
d three of these were found to be bona fide. In another case where land was
en to “settlers” for agricultural purposes, the timber was merely cleared off
i not one acre in thirteen was ever cultivated. (“Lumber Industry,” I, XIX,
i: Forestry and Irrigation, Feb., 1907, 60, 61.)

166 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

of Agriculture, who should ascertain the character of the land first,
and then formally open it to settlement. Most of the western men were
opposed to giving the Secretary any discretion in the matter, and
favored either a law compelling him to open up such lands, or a law
opening up the forest reserves to all who cared to make entry.

Some reason and logic there was in the latter position. The western
men naturally chafed under the necessity of going to the Secretary
of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture every time they
wanted a tract of land opened up to settlement. There were consider-
able areas of land in the forest reserves which were susceptible of
cultivation, and any elimination of such lands was a slow process,
being dependent on the tardy and cumbersome movements of a Fed-
eral department. The western people, like frontiersmen everywhere,
were impatient of delay, and always wanted rapid development. Fur-
thermore, doubtless many of them feared that if discretion were left
with the secretary, some of the land, however good for agricultural
purposes, would never be opened to entry at all; and who could be
a better judge of its fitness for agricultural uses than the entryman
who was willing to try to make a living on it?

This was a short-sighted view, however. Even though the Secretary
of the Interior might be very slow to open up lands, or might fail
altogether to-open them up to entry, it was best for the future of the
reserves that he should have some discretion in the matter; and it

would have been a very serious mistake to throw the reserves open |

indiscriminately to all who might want to make entries, for many
would have made entries with no intention of proving up, but merely
with the object of clearing off the timber, or perhaps with the inten-
tion of securing mineral deposits or other valuable resources.

THE LACEY BILL

Lacey of Iowa, of the House Committee on Public Lands, intro-
duced two bills in 1904, providing for the elimination of agricultural
lands in the forest reserves, and for their later disposition—both
measures strongly urged by the Secretary of the Interior; but neither
of them ever became law, although one of them passed the House.*

3 Report, Sec. of Int., 1904, 27, 98: H. R. 13631, H. R. 13633; 58 Cong. 2 sess.:
H. R. 17576; 59 Cong. 1 sess.

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY . 167

years later Lacey brought forward another bill, which finally
sed Congress in spite of opposition from certain western men.*
The Lacey bill of 1906, following conservation ideals, left the open-
of these lands to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture.
e real merits of the bill were not given much attention in the de-
es, most of the discussion consisting in attacks upon the forest
reserves, with an occasional voice raised in their defense. Hogg of
Colorado attacked the measure on the ground that it left the Secre-
tary of Agriculture too much discretion in regard to the opening of
he lands. Mondell had always complained a great deal about the
ount of agricultural land locked up in forest reserves, and had tried
a a bill through Congress providing for their elimination ;° but
uacey’s measure he promptly attacked, on the ground that it would
sad to undue extension of the reserves. Smith of Arizona ventured the
issertion that there was no longer any room left in the West for more
erves, but Mondell said there were still “patches of sage brush”
ich might be made the basis of further reservation. French of Idaho
onsidered the bill “a sort of chloroform to the people of the West,”
2 the policy of establishing forest reserves was being carried out.
* os. interests were strong in Congress, and were to some extent
pposed to this measure. Thus, Smith of California secured the exclu-
sion of his state from the provisions of the bill, on the ground that
aod lands were better left under the control of the Secretary of
riculture. This may have meant merely that Smith preferred graz-
g under regulations to no grazing at all, for grazing lands were
ome times also fit for cultivation, and land opened to settlers was, of
eliminated from the stock raiser’s domain. Also, California
iad a a fence” law, according to which settlers were not required
‘0 fence against grazing animals, the duty of keeping the animals off
f such claims resting with the stockmen. Thus, the stockmen in that
tate found scattered settlers a source of considerable trouble and
se, and so they were not particularly anxious to increase the
Y er of them. Martin of South Dakota, on the other hand, favored
che bill because he considered that it would protect the sagnrrint of the
ettlers as against the stockmen. Mondell held that it was “no part

Cong. Rec., Apr. 17, 1906, 5392 et seq.
ai. R. 14053; 58 Cong. 2 sess. See also Cong. Rec., Apr. 7, 1906, 4918.

168 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

of a proper forest reserve policy to attempt to settle range contro- s
versies.”” |
Not all western men were lined up in opposition. Some of them
voted for the bill, but, as Dixon of Montana explained, it was not —
because the bill was exactly what they wanted, but because they —
thought “half a loaf was better than no bread.” 4
In spite of all opposition, Lacey’s bill finally became law, and soon
afterward Congress provided funds to meet the expense of restoring ©
agricultural lands to the public domain.® ay

GRAZING IN THE FOREST RESERVES

important a part as forestry, and for this reason must receive care-
ful consideration. When the reserves were opened to mining in 1897,
miners ceased to have a constant grievance, but the same act that ©
gave the miners access to the reserves gave the Secretary of the
Interior the right to shut stockmen out.

Cattle and horses were not shut out from any of the reserves, the
only requirements for the pasturage of such animals being an agree- ~
ment by the applicant that he would comply with the rules and regu- ~
lations of the Secretary of the Interior. In 1900, however, the regula-' —
tions were amended so as to require applications for the privilege of |
grazing all kinds of livestock in the reserves. This new ruling per- —
mitted some regulation of the number of cattle and horses, but the —
matter seldom involved serious difficulty, since the number of animals —
authorized was often considerably in excess of the number for which —
permits were sought. Since sheep were shut out of some of the reserves, —
the cattlemen in some regions had good reason to be friendly to the —
reservation policy.’

Sheep grazing proved a knotty problem. Soon after the act of 1897 —
was passed, regulations were issued prohibiting the pasturing of sheep _
in all the reserves except those in Oregon and Washington. It was ~
claimed that sheep injured the forest cover, particularly in regions E

6 Cong. Rec., Apr. 17, 1906, 5396: Stat. 34, 233; Stat. 34, 724, For later difficul- fi
ties concerning the elimination of agricultural lands from the forest reserves see

Cross References, pp. 255-260.
7 Report, Land Office, 1900, 390: Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 323. —

See er eee Sakae

Sea, il ae SENT

Sih eae 2 nage

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 169

_ of limited rainfall.* Furthermore, it was reported that fires were often
_ set by sheep herders to improve the grazing, the new shoots which
__ started after a fire furnishing excellent forage for the animals. Such
“ap were generally started in inaccessible places, far from any road,
_ to insure the burning of a large area before they could be put out.°
; At first, the Department of the Interior regulated grazing Seer
but in 1902, the secretary decided that where there were wool growers’
" associations representing a majority of the sheep owners or of the
P interests involved in wool growing, such associations should be allowed
4 _to recommend the allotment of permits, providing they would see that
: Bape mittees complied with all rules and regulations. Qualified wool
f _ growers’ associations were found in four of the states, and they were
a given the allotment of the permits in several of the reserves, including
3 _ one in Arizona and one in Utah, the rules being relaxed to permit some
a _ «grazing in these two states. In general, the operation of the rule
By giving wool growers this authority did not prove satisfactory.*® The
_ issue of permits was often delayed, while too many sheep were gen-
im erally allowed on the reserves, and in 1903, the Department of Agri-
_ eulture again took charge of the allotment."

___No charge being made for the privilege of grazing, it was a diffi-
_ cult task to assign permits in such a way as to do justice to all appli-
ants, but the department finally adopted rules giving stock prefer-
ence in the following order, viz.: first, stock of residents within the
reserve ; second, stock of persons who owned permanent ranches within
__ the reserve, but who resided outside; third, stock of persons living in
_ the immediate vicinity; and fourth, stock of outsiders who had some
\ equitable claim.*” While this arrangement seems just, it was not
s accepted with good grace by some of the sheepmen. Those who had
been in the habit of herding their stock upon certain lands insisted
_ upon continuing the practice after the lands had been reserved, some
__ of them going to the extent of openly defying all rules and regulations
of the department.”

8 Report, Land Office, 1898, 87, 88.

__-® Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 314: Forest Bul. 91, 6.

10 Report, Sec. of Int, 1902, 332.

11 Report, Sec. of Tat. 1903, 322. ° ”

12 Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 332.
18 Ibid.

170 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

It would be unfair to ignore the element of justice in the attitude
of the sheepmen toward government regulation of their business.
Like other western men, they were much imbued with the idea of indi-
vidual liberty, and were impatient of restraint. They had herded their
sheep over some of these grounds for many years—for so long that
they came almost to feel a certain proprietary interest in them. Now
comes the forest reserve, and with it a troop of officials and “scientific
gentlemen’”’—for whom the western men usually had scant respect,
anyhow. These new officials began to lay down rules and regulations,
some of which, although wise and necessary, increased the difficulties

‘under which sheep raising was carried on. As an old sheepman in
Wyoming once expressed it: “Of course anyone can raise sheep, even
according to the rules laid down by the forest officers; but raising
sheep as a business man must—so as to make a profit—that is a
different proposition.” It is rather difficult for anyone not thoroughly
familiar with western conditions to appreciate the attitude of some
of the sheepmen in this matter.

In November, 1898, the Department of Justice advised the Depart-
ment of the Interior that a criminal prosecution could be maintained
against any person who herded sheep in a forest reserve, in viola-
tion of the rules and regulations provided; but two years later a
United States District Court in California held that the act of 1897,
in so far as it declared to be a crime any violation of the rules and
regulations thereafter to be made by the Secretary of the Interior,
was a delegation of legislative power to an administrative office, and
therefore unconstitutional. The Attorney-General adhered to his

opinion in spite of this decision, and suggested that other prosecu-

_ tions be instituted, with a view to getting a case before an appellate
court. Similar suits were therefore brought in northern California,
Arizona, Utah, and Washington, but in each case the decision of the
first court, although certainly erroneous, was sustained.**

The government had no right of appeal from these decisions, and

14 Opinions, Atty.-Gen., 22, 266: U. S. vs. Blasingame; 116 Fed. Rep. 654:
Dastervignes vs. U. S.; 122 Fed. Rep., 34: U. S. vs. Deguirro; 152 Fed. Rep., 568:
U. S. vs. Domingo; 152 Fed. Rep., 566: U. S. vs. Bale; 156 Fed. Rep., 687: U. S.
vs. Rizzinelli; 182 Fed. Rep., 675: U. S. vs. Grimaud; 220 U. S., 506: Light vs.

U. S.; 220 U. S., 523: Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 324. See also Dent vs. U. S.; 8
Arizona, 138.

4

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY vee

903, the commissioner advised the forest officers not to institute
nal proceedings in case of sheep trespass, but rather to secure
injunction against the parties to restrain them from entering or
om remaining in the reserves. Such proceedings were instituted in
eral jurisdictions, and in every case the court granted the injunc-
m. In one case the sheepmen appealed, but the Circuit Court of
als sustained the lower court in granting the injunction.*® In
many cases the prevention of stock trespass by this method of injunc-
tion was a slow process,*® and some owners persisted in taking large
umbers of sheep into the reserves, merely with the intention of obtain-
ing the pasturage until ordered out by the court. Eventually, the
United States Supreme Court held that the government could proceed —
against trespassing sheep owners under the law of 1897 ;* but, during
e period from 1900 to 1911, that right was not generally admitted ;
fact, during the earlier years of that period, it was generally

In 1908, Recktary Hitchcock sent to the Speaker of the House a
to remedy this condition of affairs, by specifically forbidding the
pas sturing of livestock in forest reserves without permission of the
retary, but the bill was never given any consideration. In 1905,
the e House Committee on Agriculture inserted an amendment into the
a ricultural Appropriation Bill, providing a penalty for grazing
hout permission, but Martin of South Dakota thought the penalty
1000 too severe, and his point of order eliminated the amendment.
iring the same session of Congress, another bill for accomplishing
same purpose passed the House, but never emerged from the
te Committee.**

he lack of a law specifically prohibiting grazing would have been
seriously felt if there had been some way by which the department
rolling the reserves could impose a reasonable charge for grazing.

Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 324, 325: Report, Dept. of Agr., 1905, 206: U. S. vs.

vignes; 122 Fed. Rep., 30.

‘In one case, where 34,000 sheep were found trespassing on the Sierra Forest

rve, the marshal would have had to travel a distance of about 400 miles to
injunction. (Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 325.)

U. S. vs. Grimaud; 220 U. S., 506.

H. Doc. 12; 58 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., Jan. 27, 1905, 1487: H. R. 6480; 58

. 2 sess.

172 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

The act of 1897 had authorized the secretary to sell the timber grow- 7
ing on the reserves, but had not authorized the sale of grazing privi- —
leges. The need of such authority was soon recognized, and in 1900, —
Secretary Hitchcock sent a bill conferring it to the Speaker of the ©

House. Lacey introduced the bill twice, but it was never reported.”
These attempts having failed, Chief Forester Pinchot and Secre-
tary of Agriculture Wilson decided that, without further legislation,

the act of 1897 might be construed to authorize a charge for grazing. —

That act had provided that the Secretary of the Interior might “make
such rules and regulations and establish such service” as would “insure
the objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy

and use and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction.” This —

did not specifically authorize any charge for grazing, but it did not
prohibit it, and, beginning January 1, 1906, a small charge was made

for that privilege.*® This action aroused considerable opposition in ~

some sections. Meetings were held and petitions drafted, asking for
modifications in the rates, or, in some cases, for an entire remission of
the fee. The regulations were soon modified somewhat, giving settlers
a half rate for a certain number of cattle, but even as amended they
tended to arouse a hostility toward the forest reserves. There was some
talk about “taxation without representation,” and one western publi-
cation even went so far as to propose secession of the western states
from the Union.” Secretary Wilson and Pinchot stood firm, however,
and President Roosevelt gave them his full support.

Roosevelt doubtless made many enemies in the West by his stand ~

on this and other conservation questions, but he always held his
ground firmly in spite of adverse criticism. This is indicated clearly
by the following excerpt from a letter written to Senator Heyburn, in
reply to some of Heyburn’s criticisms of the forest reserves: “The
other clippings you send relate to party matters, and strive to make
it appear that the forest reserve question in Idaho is a matter of polit-
ical importance. Now, when I can properly pay heed to political

19 H. Doc. 598; 56 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 10756; 56 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 8329; 57
Cong. 1 sess.

20 H. Doc. 6; 59 Cong. 2 sess., 278. Regarding the question of the right to make ~

this charge, see Opinions, Atty.-Gen., 25, 473; 26, 421.
21 Forestry and Irrigation, July, 1907, 341, 342, 355.

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 173

terests, I will do so; but I will not for one moment consent to sacri-
_ fice the interests of the people as a whole to the real or fancied inter-
_ests of any individual or of any political faction. The government
policy in the establishment of the national forest reserves has been in
effect for some time; its good results are already evident; it is a
_ policy emphatically in the interest of the people as a whole, and espe-
p cially to the people of the West; I believe they cordially approve it,
4 a I do not intend to abandon it.’’”*

EFFORTS TO OPEN THE RESERVES TO GRAZING

_ There had been, from the very first, considerable opposition to all
“regulations of grazing. On February 18, 1899, Senator Warren pre-
_ sented a petition in Congress praying that grazing be allowed without
any restriction. The next day, Smith of Arizona presented a similar
_ memorial from the legislature of his state. These petitions seemed to
bear little immediate fruit, but, two years later, a determined effort
was made in Congress to break down the secretary’s regulations by
“means of an amendment to the Sundry Civil Bill, an amendment
permitting grazing within the reserves. “Slippery Tom” Carter of
Montana proposed the amendment, but Teller was its main advocate
in Congress. Teller and Carter were aided in the debates by Warren
_of Wyoming, Rawlins of Utah, and Shoup of Idaho, each of whom
wished his state to be included in the provisions of the amendment ;

while Heitfeld of Idaho suggested that the amendment be extended to
; all public land states.”

_ Senator Platt of Connecticut led the opposition to the proposal.
Pettigrew also opposed, basing his arguments against the amendment
mainly on the injury done by sheep to the trees in the reserves. “I
‘ [believe the forest reservation law was a good one,” he said further,
“and that it has been of great advantage to the West, and that we
“ought to preserve these forests, keep down the fires, and renew the
"forests as trees are cut down.” In spite of the opposition of Platt
and Pettigrew, the amendment was agreed to in the Senate,”° but the
_- 22 Forest Bul. 67, 77.

5 is, soot Cong. Rec., Feb. 13, 1899, 1781; Feb. 14, 1879; Feb. 7, 1901, 2075; Feb. 28,
q Brome Cong. Rec., Mar. 1, 1901, 3283.

«28 Ibid., 3285, 3571.

174 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

House balked, and the conference committee, after considerable —
wrangling, finally recommended that the Senate withdraw its proposal.
So this attempt to open the forest reserves to unrestricted grazing
ended in failure.

Considerable attention has here been given to grazing matters, but
it must be remembered that, as previously stated, grazing played
about as important a part as forestry in the history of the reserves
during this period. The reserves had been extended to embrace vast —
areas of grazing land;*° in fact, the receipts from grazing permits

often exceeded the receipts from the sale of timber. This inclusion of
grazing lands in the forest reserves brought the grazing interests into
frequent conflict with the Forest Service, aroused a hostility toward
the reserves, and in this way exercised a very important influence in
determining congressional action regarding the reserves.

THE PUBLIC LANDS CONVENTION AT DENVER ‘ 4

The attitude of some of the western grazing interests was indicated
pretty clearly in the Public Lands Convention, which met at Denver
in June, 1907. This convention, one of the most important ever held
in the West, was attended by hundreds of delegates from the grazing
states. Among those in attendance were Congressmen Bonynge of
Colorado, Mondell of Wyoming, and Taylor (Congressman-to-be) of
Colorado; and Senators Shafroth of Colorado, Carter of Montana,
and Clark of Wyoming, besides other western men, great and small.
On the nomination of Senator Teller and Congressman Bonynge,
Senator Carter was chosen temporary chairman, and Dr. Wilson, a
big sheepman of Wyoming, was elected permanent chairman.

Not only were the grazing interests fully represented, but the
administration had men there—Secretary of the Interior Garfield,
Pinchot, Newell of the Reclamation Service, and several others. Pin-
chot had summoned a few of his experienced officers, in order that they
might be on hand to give information, if necessary.

The convention was the scene of bitter debates, of attacks upon
- President Roosevelt and his administration, of violent quarrels over
the credentials of the delegates. Charges were made on both sides that
the convention had been “packed.” The charge was made, on the one

26 “Tumber Industry,” II, 16.

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 175

and, that Colorado and Wyoming were trying to seat too many dele-
tes; and these two states really had a great majority of the dele-
gates present—perhaps 80 per cent—while California had only a few
delegates. On the other hand, it was freely charged that forest offi-
cials had tried to pack the convention with their own supporters; and
there was an element of truth in this, for Pinchot later removed one
official who had been accused of favoring supporters of the Forest
ervice in issuing the tickets to the galleries.

AGGRESSIVE POLICY OF ROOSEVELT AND PINCHOT

Not only did Roosevelt and Pinchot enforce the laws vigorously, but
_ they often did things which no law required—went beyond the manda-
ry provisions of the law, where it was necessary to protect the pub-
¢ interests. They did not hang back, after the fashion of ordinary
government bureaus, and wait for Congress to give specific orders;
it vigorously took the initiative whenever conditions demanded
action. The regulation imposing a charge for grazing in the forest
erves was an illustration of this. There was in the law itself no pro-
ion authorizing such a regulation, but neither was there any law
yrbidding it and the public interests demanded it. Such a policy as
this naturally aroused considerable hostility in Congress and else-
here, among those who look upon Congress as the seat of all author-
_ ity, and regard the administrative offices as mere agencies to carry out
will of that august body. Roosevelt’s and Pinchot’s policy was
garded by some as “autocratic,” and subversive of our democratic
berties.
Even though this aggressive policy thus aroused some hostility, it
“was wise—perhaps even absolutely necessary to the success of the
forest reserve policy. If Pinchot had waited for Congress to take the
4 litiative and lay down rules for the administration of the forest
reserves, he might be waiting yet; and the forest reserves, with little
intelligent provision for their use and administration, would have been
a failure. Instead of being a public enterprise beneficial to the people
s the West, they would have been obstructions in the path of economic
dk velopment, until the rising tide of irritation would have swept them
away. It was extremely fortunate for the country that during these
Baers there was a man at the head of the Forest Service with energy,

a
os

176 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

and enterprise, and intelligence enough to push ahead without waiting
for any signals from Congress. Congress had seldom evinced any
capacity to deal intelligently with the timber lands, or with most other
natural resources—in fact, some very discerning students of Ameri-
can government are inclined to doubt whether it is generally possible
for Congress to deal intelligently with any sort of problem. Certain
it is that most intelligent legislation is to be credited not to the
initiative of Congress itself, but to outside influence—often the
pressure exerted by an “autocratic” President.”

THE FOREST LIEU ACT
In order to understand the attitude of the West during these years,
it will be necessary to look into yet another matter, however—into the
operation of the Forest Lieu section of the act of 1897. This section,
which may be designated as the Forest Lieu Act, provided that where

an unperfected claim or patent was included within a forest reserva-

tion, the settler or owner thereof might relinquish the tract to the
government, and select another tract of land outside of the reserve.
The abuses arising under this provision were conspicuous features in
the history of forest reserves during this period, and without doubt
played an important part in determining the fate of the reservation
policy in the critical days of 1907.

The Forest Lieu Act, like the Railroad Indemnity Act of 1874, was
manifestly unfair to the government. It permitted an exchange in
which it was certain that the government would lose, for no owner of
land would relinquish it and select other land unless he could gain by
the transaction.”* Worthless land of all kinds was relinquished, in
some cases land naturally valueless, in some cases timber land
stripped of all merchantable timber. Entrymen under the Timber and
Stone Act, for instance, would sometimes cut all the timber from their
lands, and then relinquish them and select other tracts of valuable
timber land under this law.”

The Forest Lieu Act provided for the selection of a “tract of vacant
land open to settlement.” Secretary Bliss held in 1898 that this did
not permit the selection of unsurveyed lands, since it was a general

27 Cross Reference, p. 143.

28 Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 321. °
29 Report, Land Office, 1899, 115.

<perstiadd ant

0 CE a aes neon ae

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 177

le that no portion of the public domain was subject to disposal until
ter survey, and the statute had not specifically authorized the selec-
m of unsurveyed lands. The following year, his successor, Hitch-
cock, reversed this decision, however, and held that both surveyed and
surveyed land might be selected under the act, on the ground that
e statute made no distinction between surveyed and unsurveyed
nds, and contained no words which indicated any intention on the
rt of Congress to limit selection to surveyed lands. Secretary Hitch-
ck considered the language “so clear and explicit as to leave no
om. for construction.”*® Whatever may be said as to the logic of this
cision, it was most unfortunate in its results. The right to select
om unsurveyed lands was a benefit mainly to railroad companies.
could be of little use to settlers, because they would not only have
select lieu lands, but, in order to get title, would have to reside
on them until surveys could be made.**

rivate holdings within the forest reserves were of three general
ses: first, those of settlers who had gained title through the various
ttlement laws ; second, those in which the title was acquired through
e state by the various educational grants; and third, railroad lands,
lands acquired from the land grant railroads, wagon roads, etc.
Of these three classes of lands, the first, comprising those owned
y settlers, was of no great area or importance, although, in actual
mbers, these holdings exceeded the other two combined. The second
ass, the state school lands, included sections 16 and 36 in each town-
‘ip, in all of the states except Utah, where sections 2, 16, 82, and 36
granted, but it is uncertain how much of these school lands was
as basis for lieu selections. In some cases, Congress had imposed
rictions or conditions as to the disposition of the lands, and in
some of the states the provisions regarding their disposition were such
t the t they could not be used as basis ; yet, in some of the states, notably
n California and Oregon, these school — were available in con-
siderable amounts, and “school land scrip” was a recognized article
ade among the timbermen and speculators. It has been stated that
ornia, while under “Southern Pacific government,” sold most of
eg Decisions,” 27, 472; 28, 284.

H. Report 1700; 56 Cong. 1 sess.
‘82 H. Report 2233; 58 Cong. 2 sess.

178 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

her school lands for $1.25—later $2.50—per acre.*® The history of
the California school lands is not a particularly edifying tale.

Railroad lands formed the great bulk of private holdings in the
forest reserves. In January, 1904, the Commissioner of the Land
Office estimated that over 3,500,000 acres of railroad lands were
included within existing reserves, while as much more was included in
reserves then temporarily set aside.

Commissioner Hermann held in 1898 that the Forest Lieu Act
was intended to apply only to settlers or owners of agricultural lands,
who felt that by the inclusion of their holdings within the limits of a
forest reserve, they were deprived of the advantages that accrue from

intercourse with neighbors, from adequate schools, roads, ete. This.

seemed a reasonable interpretation of the act, but the following
year, Secretary Hitchcock held that the act applied to “any tract

covered by an unperfected bona fide claim under any of the general —

laws of the United States, or to which the full legal title has passed

out of the government and beyond the control of the Land Depart- —

ment by any means which is the full legal equivalent of a patent.”
Thus railroad lands, upon survey and patent, became immediately

available bases of exchange under the provisions: of the law. If the

railroads did not see fit to take advantage of the exchange provisions

of the law, they could dispose of their lands at an enormously increased —

price because of the privilege of selecting lieu lands. According to a
decision of the Secretary of the Interior, owners of land within the
reserves might even strip it of timber and then relinquish it and select
other land elsewhere.™*

The difficulties experienced in connection with these selections neces-

33 Outlook, Nov. 23, 1912, 665 et seq.; Feb. 8, 1913, 289: Cong. Rec., Mar. 3,
1913, 4823.

34 Report, Sec. of Int., 1898, 89: “Land Decisions,” 28, 328, 521: H. Report
2233; 58 Cong. 2 sess., p. 5. The first lieu selections of the Northern Pacific in
Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, were made by the company itself and
most of the land was afterward sold to the Weyerhauser Timber Company; but
the latter practice of the Northern Pacific was to sell its rights in the form of
scrip, leaving the purchaser to select the land. In the case of the Atlantic and
Pacific grant in New Mexico and Arizona, about 735,000 acres of lieu land scrip was
secured and located by the Santa Fé Pacific—the successor to the Atlantic and
Pacific, and by several other corporations and individuals. (“Lumber Industry,”
I, 229, 242; II, 77, 78.)

i at

‘ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 179

tated greater care in the establishment of reserves, to avoid the
usion of worthless or denuded lands; and in the proclamation
eating the San Francisco Mountains Forest Reserve in Arizona,
= scheme adopted was to include only the vacant unappropriated
timber lands. Most of the land in the reserve was worthless for its
timber—some entirely barren, some covered with scrub timber and a
mall amount denuded, and every alternate section of this land be-
ed to the Santa Fé railroad, which ran through the district pro-
vosed for reservation. Some of this worthless land would have made
Xe lent basis for lieu selections, but the proclamation reserved only
ever numbered sections, thus establishing a sort of checkerboard
reservation.”

_ The opportunity which the Forest Lieu Act gave for profitable
isposal of worthless lands no doubt furnished the motive behind many
of the petitions praying for the establishment of forest reserves in
he West. In 1901, the Commissioner of the Land Office had on file
etitions and recommendations from i ee sources, seeking the crea-
j or n of over 50,000,000 acres of reserves,*® a considerable proportion
... area consisting of railroad and private lands. In one proposed
serve alone, there were 250,000 acres of an old land grant, secured
¢ before through a Mexican title of questionable validity. At one
me, three United States congressmen were indicted for alleged illegal
a tices in trying to secure the establishment of a forest reserve to
over some of their holdings.** Without doubt many of the petitions
ere made by persons sincerely interested in timber conservation, but
nany were made by persons who only sought m means of turning worth-

s lands into valuable holdings.

“The evils arising under the Forest Lieu Act were very quickly seen
y government officials. In 1898, the Secretary of the Lee re-
orted that the lieu selection provision needed modification ;** and the

35 Report, Land Office, 1901, 113: Stat. 30, 1780.

ii cvore Land Office, 1901, 114, 117.

87 peepert, Sec. of Int., 1906, 30. Puter says it was a gang of timber thieves that
orked hardest for the creation of this reserve—the Blue Mountains Forest Re-
\ ; n Oregon—and that one man was hired to make false signatures to the
t jon for the creation of the reserve. (Puter and Stevens, “Looters of the
ublic Domain,” 347-350.)

: pe eport, Sec. of Int., p. XVI.

a
rs)

next year, the commissioner called for changes in the law to prevent —
the “improvident, reckless, and unjust selection of the public lands.”* —
Almost every annual report of the secretary, and of the commissioner, .
for several years thereafter, called attention to abuses under the —
law, and recommended its modification or repeal. In 1904, the Public
Lands Commission strongly recommended repeal of the law.*°

Some men in Congress also quickly recognized the evils of the
Forest Lieu Act, and, the next year after its passage, in the act
extending the provisions of the Homestead Law to Alaska, specific —
provision was made that no indemnity or lieu land selections should —
be made in Alaska—a provision which was reaffirmed five years later. —
Subsequent statutes regarding the selection of lieu lands were made —
more and more strict and exacting.** .

4
180 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY ;
‘
(

EFFORTS TO REPEAL THE FOREST LIEU ACT a

Efforts were soon made in Congress to modify or repeal the Forest —
Lieu Act itself, and in these efforts western men played the leading ~
part. In 1900, the Senate unanimously agreed to a resolution sub-
mitted by Stewart of Nevada, asking the Secretary of the Interior —
what legislation was necessary to protect the government from the ©
evils of the lieu land selections.** In the same Congress, several bills”
were introduced into the House, providing for the amendment or
repeal of the act, and one was reported favorably by the Committee
on Public Lands.** In May, 1900, Senator Pettigrew offered an amend-

’ ment to the Sundry Civil Bill, providing that no railroad lands within
a forest reserve should be exchanged until all such lands had been -
examined. This amendment was agreed to in the Senate, but the con-
ference committee substituted another amendment, limiting lieu selec-
tions to surveyed lands, with a proviso that this should not take effect ~
until October 1, 1900. This amendment was accepted by both houses —
and became law.** ‘

39 Report, Land Office, 1899, 114. Be

40S. Doc. 189; 58 Cong. 3 sess., XV. 4

41 Stat. 30, 409; 32, 1028; 35, 626, 627; 36, 562, 563, 960, 961; 37, 201, 241, 323, 324. 7

42 Cong. Rec., Feb. 5, 1900, 1490.

43 H. R. 5267, H. R. 9668, H. R. 10739, H. R. 11841, H. Report 1700; 56 Cong.
1 sess.

44 Cong. Rec., May 31, 1900, 6289, 6290; June 4, 6558; June 6, 6821: Stat. 31, 614.

:

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 181

3 ‘The limitation of selections to surveyed lands would have eliminated
one of the worst features of the Forest Lieu Act, had it taken effect
immediately, but since it did not take effect for nearly four months,
_ there was still time for most of the selections to be made on unsur-
_yeyed lands as before. Just what interests in the conference committee
demanded this concession, it is impossible to say. McRae stated that
_ the House Committee on Public Lands wanted it, and that he thought
| ‘it was impossible to get any legislation without this extension of
time,* but the question remains as to what considerations or what
influences led that committee to demand such a concession. There was
no justification for such an extension of time, for it would have been
‘no hardship to restrict selections to surveyed lands immediately. That
had been the uniform practice of the government in dealing with scrip.
The conference committee which was responsible for this extension of
time was composed of Senators Allison of Iowa, Hale of Maine, and
Cockrell of Missouri, and Representatives Joe Cannon, Moody of
i. M assachusetts, and McRae of Arkansas.

_ The amendment of June 6, 1900, having thus failed to provide
Baccuate relief, efforts were immediately resumed in Congress to
‘secure further modification of the Forest Lieu Act. Various proposals
were made. Representative Fordney of Michigan wished either to
‘repeal all lieu selection provisions, or to provide that the lands
“selected should be approximately equal in value to those relinquished.
ea later claimed that he once called the attention of the Com-
missioner of the Land Office, Binger Hermann, and of the Secretary

x with their coéperation, brought a measure before the House ‘Boies
value, but all of the committee except himself voted against it.“*

_ Mondell would merely have prohibited the selection of timber
lands,’ while Representative Tongue of Oregon, and later his suc-
cessor, Binger Hermann, advocated a limitation on the value of the

45 Cong. Rec., June 6, 1900, 6822. Senator Carter seemed to be opposed to the
‘repeal of the Forest Lieu Act, for reasons which do not sound the depths of sin-
cerity. (Cong. Rec., May 31, 6289.)

+46. R. 7456, H. R. 6523; 57 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., Apr. 18, 1916, 6395.

47 H. R. 4866; 58 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 14052; 58 Cong. 2 sess.

‘mittee on Public Lands requiring that the lands should be of equal

&*

182 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

land which might be selected.** Representative Jones and Senator
Heyburn also favored such a limitation; and in 1904, Heyburn intro-—
duced a joint resolution directing the stay of all proceedings pending
upon selections of even numbered sections by railroad companies.** —
No legislation resulted from any of these proposals.

In the fifty-eighth Congress, Mondell continued his efforts, and —
finally, in 1905, secured a law repealing the Forest Lieu Act.”° It had —
served as the means whereby individuals and corporations exchanged
about 3,000,000 acres of land, much of it waste and cut-over land —
within the forest reserves, for valuable government land outside.

eo ee

LIEU SELECTION IN THE SAN FRANCISCO MOUNTAINS
FOREST RESERVE

Meantime, in the San Francisco Mountains Forest Reserve, in
Arizona, the checkerboard style of reservation was found to involve
_ very serious difficulties of administration, for the owners of the alter- —
nate sections constantly trespassed upon the government sections, —
either willfully or because the boundaries were not well marked. The ©
protection of these scattered patches of government land was very
difficult and expensive ; and Secretary Hitchcock, following the advice
of the forest supervisor and the forest superintendent, entered into
contracts for the exchange of some of the government sections else-
where, for private sections in the reserve, in order to consolidate the
government holdings.

48H. R. 9507; 57 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 2900; 58 Cong. 1 sess. The introduction —
of such a bill by Binger Hermann at this time seems a little strange, and its exact —
significance is difficult to ascertain. Oregon had been for some time the scene of
notorious frauds under various public lands laws, including the Forest Lieu Act,
and, for alleged complicity in these frauds, Hermann had, in February, 1903, been
removed from the office of Commissioner of the Land Office by President Roose-
velt. Hermann went back to Oregon, and, within six months of his dismissal, was
elected to Congress. Whether in introducing this bill, he was sincerely interested
in improving the Forest Lieu Act, or whether he was merely playing to the gallery,
is a somewhat delicate question. (Reports, Sec. of Int., 1903, 12; 1904, 4; 1905, 27.
See also Compilation of Public Timber Laws, 1903, 48, 49.)

49S, Res, 30; 58 Cong. 2 sess.

50H. R. 14622, H. Report 2233; 58 Cong. 2 sess.: S. Report 3332; 58 Cong.
3 sess.: Cong. Rec., Apr. 25, 1904, 5586; Mar. 4, 1905, 4034-4037. For later attempts
to secure lieu selection privileges, see H. R. 10584; 61 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 16339;
61 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 10791; 61 Cong. 3 sess.: S. 245, H. R. 2875, H. R. 4699, H. R.
11378; 62 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 5068, S. 5875, H. R. 16827, H. R. 17248, H. R. 19344,
H. R. 21361, H. R. 21366, H. R. 25738; 62 Cong. 2 sess.

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 183

There were several large private landholders in this reserve: the
- Santa Fé Pacific Railroad Company, the owner of 507,000 acres;

es the Aztec Land and Cattle Company, with 132,000 acres; the Perrin
_ brothers, with 134,000 acres; William F. Baker, owner of 79,000
acres; the Saginaw and Manistee Lumber Company, with 40,000
_ acres; and others with smaller amounts. The Secretary of the Interior
a had already entered into contracts for the exchange of a large amount

of timber land when the Forest Lieu Act was repealed; but a clause
the repealing act provided that “the validity of contracts entered
4 into by the Secretary of the Interior” prior to the passage of the act
- should not be impaired.
It now appears that the exchanges made in connection with these
_ reserves were nothing that the government. could be very proud of.
_ Undoubtedly private owners generally got the best end of these con-
tracts, and some of them even violated certain terms of their agree-
_ ment; but it was hardly to be expected that the government should
_ bargain with private parties and not get cheated more or less.
_ At any rate, there is no evidence to justify imputations often made,
_ that Secretary Hitchcock was inspired by any improper motives in
his conduct of the matter, or even that he was‘ unduly careless. The
_ reserve had been established on the petitions of the legislature of
_ Arizona, the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, the Arizona Water Com-
_ pany, and of private citizens of the state, on the theory that it would
_ conserve the water flow for extensive irrigation systems below. The
_ checkerboard system of reserves had been adopted in a sincere effort
to avoid the evils of lieu selections, and when that form of reserve
a proved impractical, the secretary tried to get it into better shape.
_ There is evidence that Secretary Hitchcock used reasonable care in
b "the matter. The difficulty was with the Forest Lieu Act itself.”
a LIEU SELECTION AND THE MOUNT RANIER NATIONAL PARK
_ The Northern Pacific Railroad was given lieu selection privileges,
_ not only under the general Forest Lieu Act of 1897, but also under
a ‘a special provision in the act providing for the creation of the Mount
_ Ranier National Park in 1899. The creation of this park has been the

‘51 Report, Sec. of Int., 1905, 327: H. Doc. 613; 59 Cong. 1 sess.: S. Doc. 612;
61 Cong. 2 sess.: Cong. Rec., Mar. 4, 1905, 4035; Mar. 14, 1914, 4866, 4867; Jan. 22,
; 1915, 9150s “Land Decisions,” 33, 558.

184 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

occasion of so much discussion, so much criticism of the forest reserves
and the forest reserve policy, so much questioning of motives, and of
the integrity of certain public men, that it merits a bit of close
scrutiny.

As early as January, 1896, Representative Doolittle of Washing-
ton introduced a bill to set aside a national park inclosing Mount
Ranier, and it passed both houses, but was not signed by President
Cleveland—according to statements made later in Congress, was
pocket-vetoed. In March of the following year, Senator Wilson, also
of Washington, introduced a similar measure, which brought no
results; but a bill introduced by him in December, 1897, and favor-
ably reported by him from the Senate committee, finally passed both
houses, and was signed by President McKinley.

The provisions of this act which caused particular trouble were
those which related to lieu selections. The Northern Pacific Railroad
was permitted to relinquish any of its lands within the park, or within
the Pacific Forest Reserve, and to select surveyed or unsurveyed land
in any state into or through which its lines extended. The act was too
generous to the railroad in several ways. In the first place, it gave the
railroad the right to select surveyed as well as unsurveyed lands.
Thus it explicitly provided what the Forest Lieu Act itself had only

left to implication. In the second place, it provided that the railroad —

might select these lands in any state into or through which its lines
extended. This was interpreted by the Secretary of the Interior to
give the right to select anywhere in those states, without restriction to
its indemnity limits. The Northern Pacific had only a few miles of road
in Oregon, but under this provision, it was enabled to select lieu lands
in the wonderfully rich timber regions of Oregon for snow-covered
mountainsides and other comparatively worthless mountain lands. A
significant decision of the Secretary of the Interior some years later,
was on the question as to whether some 17,000 acres of glaciers should
be accepted as bases for lieu selections.

In one of the committee reports favoring the Wilson bill, the state-
ment was made that the railroad lands in the park were mostly heavily
timbered, and some of them were, but the Northern Pacific was glad
to trade 450,000 acres off for better lands elsewhere, some 200,000
acres of the latter being afterward sold to the Weyerhaeusers. It was

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 185

ce stated in Congress that the Northern Pacific relinquished its
,000 acres within three days after the act creating the neat was

"The establishment of this park had been recommended by a com-
Bites of the National Academy of Sciences, and there is no doubt
that many people in Washington wanted the park for perfectly good
_ reasons. Also, at the time Senator Wilson introduced his measure, the
_ general Forest Lieu Act had not been in force long enough so that the
evil results of lieu selections were generally recognized. Nevertheless,
the outrageously generous provisions of the act suggest a possibility
. that its provisions were drawn under the careful supervision of friends
por agents of the Northern Pacific.”

It can now be easily understood how the Forest Lieu Act occa-
Boned much hostility in the West, not only toward the land grant
_ railroads, which profited most under the act, but also toward the
_ forest reserves, which made lieu selections possible. The creation of
more reserves meant more lieu selections for the railroads, and this
meant the appropriation of good timber lands outside the reserves.
7 ih this way, the creation of new forest reserves, while it favored the
rotection of timber within the boundaries established, assisted in the
truction of timber outside. The West had a just grievance; al-
ough it is to be remembered that it was a western man, Senator
‘ettigrew, who was partly responsible for the Forest Lieu Act, and
another western man, Senator Wilson, who was responsible for the
g oss abuses arising out of the creation of the Mount Ranier Park.™

THE OREGON TIMBER LAND FRAUDS

_ Any discussion of the Forest Lieu Act would be incomplete with-
0 out some account of the Oregon timber land frauds in the early years
of the twentieth century—the most extensive and notorious frauds
in the recent history of the public lands. These frauds were perpe-
rated under various public land laws, but perhaps none of the laws
® were used so much as the Forest Lieu Act.

% of 52 Stat. 30, 993: “Lumber Industry,” I, 238, 239: Puter and Stevens, “Looters
of the Public Domain,” Ch. XXIV: Cong. Rec., Mar. 14, 1914, 4865; Jan. 22, 1915,
2146-2148: H. R. 4058; 54 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 349; 55 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 2552; 55 Cong.

2 sess.: “Land Decisions,” 33, 634; 34, 88; 37, 70.
Br) 53 Proceedings, Society of Am. Foresters, Nov., 1905, 70.

186 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

For a great many years certain districts of the coast states were q
infested with speculators, agents of timber companies and of the rail- 4
roads, hunting for scrip, land warrants, or for hirelings to enter lands —

in their interest. Government officials of all kinds, and apparently of
all degrees of dignity were corrupted—land officers, attorneys, sur-
veyors, inspectors, and men higher up.”* Hitchcock learned something

of this state of affairs soon after his initiation as Secretary of the ~

Interior, and, after looking carefully into the matter, began “house-
cleaning” late in the year 1902. One of his first moves was the removal
of Commissioner Binger Hermann from the Land Office. At about the
same time he secured indictments against F. A. Hyde, John A. Benson,
and several others for conspiracy to defraud the government of large
areas of its public lands.®° Some of these men had been in the business
of stealing from the government for over thirty years, and one had

been implicated eighteen years before in land survey frauds involving

over $1,000,000."°

The scheme of Hyde, Benson, and their gang in these later years
involved an attempt to steal several hundred thousand acres of land
under the Forest Lieu Act, by first securing title to state school lands

within the forest reserves in California and Oregon, and then making ~
lieu selections on the basis of these school lands. It appears that they |

had some kind of a “subterranean connection” with officials of the
government, so that they got advance information as to the creation
of new forest reserves, and on receipt of such information, they got
possession of state lands, largely worthless lands, and used it as a

base for selecting valuable lands elsewhere. When Mr. Kingsbury —

took the office of surveyor-general of California in January, 1907, he
discovered that indemnity or lieu lands were almost entirely controlled
by Hyde; and nearly 40,000 acres had been patented before the fraud
was discovered. Secretary Hitchcock immediately stopped the issue of
patents upon all selections and entries involved, and ordered the arrest
of the men implicated.”

54 For an interesting account of conditions here, see Puter and Stevens, “Looters
of the Public Domain.”

55 Report, Sec. of Int., 1904, 21.

56 Report, Sec. of Int., 1887, 332.

57 Report, Sec. of Int., 1904, 22 et seq.

Ca re

SS ee

a

ee ee

8

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 187

____ Benson was said to have accumulated a large fortune in his career,
and, at any rate, it seems that some member of this party had abun-
_ dant means, for the heavy bonds required were promptly furnished,
and every step of the ensuing case was fought stubbornly. The gov-
4 ernment wanted the defendants removed to the District of Columbia
: — for trial, but the motion for .removal was carried to the Supreme
Court of the United States, where removal was ordered only after a
year’s delay. This case was finally terminated in 1908 by the con-
_ yiction of Hyde and one of the other men. The investigation led also
_ to the dismissal of four employees in the Land Office, and several
employees in the Bureau of Forestry.”

_ More fruitful of results than the prosecution of Benson and his
_ party, was the indictment, shortly afterward, of S. A. D. Puter,
_ United States Commissioner Marie Ware, and several others—two of
_ them women.*’ Detective William J. Burns was given charge of the
secret service work,” and Francis J. Heney took charge of the prose-
PF; _ cution, United States Attorney John S. Hall being removed and
afterward convicted of complicity in the frauds. Confessions were
secured from several of the persons, notably from Puter, confessions
_ which involved men occupying high offices.

_ According to these confessions, hundreds of fraudulent entries and
% anal proofs were made before this dishonest commissioner. It was part
_ of the scheme that the United States attorney should allay any sus-
_ picion that might be aroused at Washington, or, if necessary, bring
7 suit in such a way as to make failure inevitable; and when certain
a claims required particular dispatch, one of the congressmen or sena-
tors at Washington was to be bribed to see the Commissioner of the
q OFF and Office, Binger Hermann, and secure desired concessions. In this
Bigbenection, Senator Mitchell was specifically mentioned, Puter alleg-
__ ing that he had paid him $2000 to secure the issue of certain patents.”

58 Report, Sec. of Int., 1904, 23.

a 59 Report, Land Office; 1908, 25-27; 1915, 34: H. Report 566; 62 Cong. 2 sess.:
_H. Report 1367; 62 Cong. 3 sess.: Cong. Rec., Mar. 3, 1913, 4823-4825: Outlook,

‘g E ior. 23, 1912, 665: “Land Decisions,” 28, 285; 31, 28; 33, 639; 37, 164; 40, 219,

284; 43, 176.

‘ 60 Report, Sec. of Int., 1904, 24.

' €1 Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 12-14.

Ff 62 Puter and Stevens, “Looters of the Public Domain,” 136-140.

& iit 63 Tbid., 64, 65.

188 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

On January 17, 1905, Senator Mitchell rose in the Senate to a
question of personal privilege, and made an eloquent denial of all the
charges against him.** “I assert in the most positive and unqualified
manner,” he said, “that each and every one of these charges, in so far
as they relate to or involve me, are absolutely, unqualifiedly and atro-
ciously false, and I here and now indignantly and defiantly denounce
their authors, and each and every one of them, and brand them pub-
licly as malicious and atrocious liars. I challenge them to produce any
evidence, other than that of condemned thieves, forgers and perjurers,
to sustain any such charges.” The gray-headed senator seemed to
command a great deal of sympathy at the time, for the presiding
officer threatened to clear out the galleries before the applause could
be stopped. Within six months, however, Senator Mitchell was con-
victed and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of $1000,
after his law partner, Judge Tanner, had perjured himself in an
attempt to shield him.

Three of the four men representing Oregon at Washington were
indicted in connection with these frauds, and the other one, Senator
Fulton, would have been indicted, it is said, had not the statute of
limitations run against his offense."® Two of them, Senator Mitchell

64 Cong. Rec., Jan. 17, 1905,.959.

. 65 Report, Sec. of Int., 1906, 30. Senator Mitchell’s conviction was accomplished
only after one of the finest chains of circumstantial evidence was forged about
him. Judge Tanner, in Mitchell’s defense, produced a contract between himself and
Mitchell bearing date of 1901, in which it was agreed that Mitchell should have his
salary, get one half of the proceeds of law cases, but that he would accept no fees
for appearing before the departments in legitimate matters affecting his con-
stituents. The watermark on the paper on which this contract was written was
“Edinample.” The Government showed that no sample of this paper had appeared
on the Pacific coast until 1903. It also showed by the color of the ribbon of the
typewriter on which it had been written that it was not in existence before 1903.
Furthermore, the contract had three words misspelled—“legitimate,” “salary,”
and “constituents.” When Tanner’s son was asked to write a sentence containing
these words he made the same mistakes. Then he broke down and admitted that he
had “faked” the contract of 1903, and said that department fees, instead of being
the property of his father, were the property of Senator Mitchell. (Outlook, Feb.
23, 1907, 427 et seq.: Puter and Stevens, “Looters of the Public Domain,” Ch.
XIII.)

66 Report, Sec. of Int., 1905, 27: Outlook, Feb. 23, 1907, 427 et seq.: Collier’s
Weekly, Apr. 4, 1908, 13. Regarding Senator Fulton, the following excerpt from
Roosevelt’s “Autobiography” seems worth quoting: “The other case was that of
Senator Fulton of Oregon. Through Francis Heney I was prosecuting men who

ee ee

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 189

_ and Representative J. N. Williamson, were convicted, the latter after
_ three trials, but both men appealed.’ Mitchell died pending appeal,
but Williamson was granted a new trial by the Supreme Court of the
_ United States, on a question of constitutionality unconnected with
_ the question of his guilt,°* and on May 2, 19138, the case against him
_ was dismissed by the Attorney-General. The case against Binger
_ Hermann was also dismissed in 1910.°°

‘were implicated in a vast network of conspiracy against the law in connection with

5 the theft of public land in Oregon. I had been acting on Senator Fulton’s recom-

mendations for office in the usual manner. Heney had been insisting that Fulton

owas in league with the men we were prosecuting, and that he had recommended

- unfit men. Fulton had been protesting against my following Heney’s advice, par-
_ ticularly as regards appointing Judge Wolverton as United States Judge. Finally
_ Heney laid before me a report which convinced me of the truth of his statements.
_ I then wrote to Fulton as follows on November 20, 1905: ‘My dear Senator Fulton:
_ TI inclose you herewith a copy of the report made to me by Mr. Heney. I have seen

the originals of the letters from you and Senator Mitchell quoted therein. I do
not at this time desire to discuss the report itself, which of course I must submit
to the Attorney-General. But I have been obliged to reach the painful conclusion

_ that your own letters as therein quoted tend to show that you recommended for
_ the position of District Attorney B——, when you had good reason to believe that

he had himself been guilty of fraudulent conduct; that you recommended C——
for the same position simply because it was for B ’s interest that he should

a be so recommended, and, as there is reason to believe, because he had agreed to

divide the fees with B—— if he were appointed; and that you finally recommended
_ the reappointment of H—— with the knowledge that if H. were appointed he
would abstain from prosecuting B for criminal misconduct, this being why
_ B—— advocated H ’s claim for reappointment. If you care to make any state-

ment in the matter, I shall of course be glad to hear it. . . 2 Senator Fulton gave

no explanation. I therefore ceased to consult him about appointments under the
_ Department of Justice and the Interior, the departments in which the crookedness

had occurred.” (Roosevelt, ‘sagan an hl 391, 440.)

67 153 Fed. Rep., 46: 199 U. S., 616.
68 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 165, 177: 207 U. S., 425.
69 The question of the guilt or innocence of Binger Hermann has never been

_ judicially cleared up. The dismissal of the suit against him is of course not con-
_ ¢lusive evidence in his favor. The government had first indicted him for com-
_ plicity in the land frauds, but, being unable to convict, had prosecuted him on the
_ charge of having destroyed certain records of the Land Office. Secretary Hitch-

_ cock had apparently notified him of his dismissal but had given him sufficient time
_ to destroy some of the letters in the office before leaving. It is certain that he
destroyed some of the letters, but he claimed that only those of a personal nature
had been destroyed. This was regular enough, for it is the custom of the Com-
_ missioners of the Land Office to keep copies of all letters that they write, and on

j ewig office, to destroy personal letters. The government was unable to prove -
_ that Hermann had destroyed any of the records of the Land Office, and no one

but Hermann himself knows what was in the letters he destroyed. The writer

190 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

This discussion of the Forest Lieu Act will help to explain the
events of 1907. Sufficient western hostility would have been aroused
by the fact that the act operated to destroy timber on the public
domain for the benefit of a few land grant railroads, some of them
already, by reason of various illegal and arbitrary practices, very
unpopular in the West. This was not, however, the only way in which
the act aroused western hostility, for it occasioned very unpleasant
relations between the Department of the Interior and certain western
congressmen. Even men who were in no way implicated in those or in
other frauds, felt a sympathy for the ones who were caught, for
unquestionably such frauds had been too common in some of the public
land states to be viewed seriously. Also, it is not probable that the
government convicted, or even indicted, all of the politicians who were
guilty of land frauds. It is doubtless significant that it was Senator
Fulton—the only one of the Oregon delegation not indicted in 1903—
who was most active in the anti-conservation attack of 1907.

INEFFICIENCY OF THE EARLY FOREST ADMINISTRATION

For reasons just pointed out, there would have been sufficient hos-
tility toward the forest reserves, even if the forest administration had
been entirely above criticism in all respects, and it was not above just
criticism. During the first few years of forest reserve administration—
previous to 1905—the force included some very poor material. The
superintendents and supervisors were often appointed through politi-
cal influence—lawyers, editors, postmasters, doctors, real estate deal-
ers, etc. The ranger force was’ worse. Ward politicians, bartenders,
and loafers formed a considerable share of the force. Low salaries—
sixty dollars a month for a man and horse—uncertainty of tenure,
and impossibility of promotion kept good men from entering the ser-

cannot but feel that his stand on forestry matters in Congress was generally
conscientious enough. He was of course an astute politician, and it is said by
employees in the Land Office that while he was commissioner he used his office a
great deal in paying political debts, by giving information, and by advancing
cases out of their regular order, etc.—acts not unlawful perhaps, although often
unfair to the applicants who did not “stand in.” (Cong. Rec., Oct. 10, 1893, 2374;
Oct. 12, 1893, 2431; Dec. 7, 1894, 112; Dec. 17, 1894, 366; Apr. 18, 1916, 6395. See
also various references to Hermann in Puter and Stevens, “Looters of the Public
Domain,” particularly pages 59-66.)

at Tet
A mind i ot at

Soe, Oe

Pa, ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 191

; ice. They must fight trespass of all kinds, investigate frauds, report
on the location of settlements, enforce the state game laws, scale
timber, and supervise cutting, and, above all, guard against fire. Able
and competent men were needed; and many of the men. employed
merely brought discredit upon the administration and upon the forest
eserve policy.

_ Early in President Roosevelt’s administration, Secretary of the
Riiccior Hitchcock gave the forest administration an overhauling,
andi in December, 1904, Roosevelt signed an order placing the adminis-
tration under civil service; but the force which was turned over to the
I a. Service in 1905, when the reserves were transferred to the
De partment of Agriculture, was not a very competent body of men.
Th mmediately after the transfer, Pinchot set about to winnow out the
‘incapables, and within two or three years the force was greatly
‘improved ; but the West did not immediately forget the previous state
of affairs. Furthermore, the efficiency of the new administration was
itself a reason for hostility on the part of a certain element in the
West. The officials who lost their positions, the politicians who lost
their influence, the various classes which had profited from the earlier
lax administration, felt no great friendship for the new régime.”

OTHER CAUSES OF WESTERN HOSTILITY

_ Still other factors contributed to the hostility toward the reserves.
‘The reservation of lands led to a curtailment of Land Office adver-
tising, and this brought some of the small newspapers into opposition.
‘The reservation policy also interfered with some of the larger business
interests, and this affected the larger papers, whose attitude was
generally determined by the interests controlling their management.
‘The reservation of lands also cut into the profits of professional land
locators—those who made a business of entering lands in the interest
“id timber companies, cattle companies, and speculators generally.

— One of the causes for the hostility of western politicians had little
0 do with the western people themselves. Some of the western senators
a ad representatives resented the policy of the President in establishing
_ 10 Forestry and Irrigation, Apr., 1906, 161: Report, Land Office, 1908, 27: Pro-

oo: Society of Am. Foresters, Nov., 1905, 43-50: Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909,
: 3 Mar. 12, 1914, 4750.

192 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

reserves without consulting them first. Roosevelt of course saw the —
possibility that advance information regarding the establishment of ©
reserves might be used improperly, and for that reason did not consult —
the western politicians as much as politicians like to be consulted. —

Heyburn and others complained of this apparent “distrust” of the

western men."

AN EXPRESSION OF THE WESTERN ATTITUDE

It will perhaps be only fair to point out certain elements of sin-
cerity and justice in the western attitude of hostility; and this cannot —

be done better than by quoting from a western writer in the North
American Review of November, 1903: “Upon the proclamation of a
forest reserve, which cancels all rights of further entry thereupon
under the general land laws, land holders and mine owners who reside
in the reserved region suddenly find themselves in a new and unex-

pected environment. They are bound hand and foot to strange general —

rules and special orders, under formal authority of the Secretary of

the Interior, but administered primarily by bureau and division offi- —

cers of the Department of. the Interior through local supervisory

officers of several grades, some of whom may be non-resident. No
longer a free agent, as an American citizen should be, the settler is
called upon to submit his avocation and daily acts to the control of
personal authority, exercised without form or force of law. . . . Ina
contest with authority, the settler’s only recourse is to a United States
District Court, and in most of the Western States such recourse can
be had only at a single point, often remote from the settler’s residence.

“True, the settler may surrender possession, including all incre-
ment of value in buildings, irrigation, fences, or other improvements,
in exchange for ‘lieu selections’ of unimproved vacant lands in still

unreserved parts of the public domain, wherein desirable selections —

have come to be few and far between. Whatever the increment, the
rate of value per acre of lieu selections can rarely exceed the current
negotiable value of Land Office scrip. Accretion to local possessions

is no longer practicable. One of the greatest incentives to exertion is —

therefore hopelessly removed. Thousands of worthy settlers within the —
borders of territory summarily set aside for forest reserves at a stroke —

71S. Doc. 68; 55 Cong. 1 sess.

ANTI- CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 193

of the pen, have elected to abandon an environment which has suddenly
_ become intolerable, and to surrender homes, however well-established
_ or even cherished they may have become.

; . “Grazing of sheep is prohibited in most of the reserves. For want
of upland pasturage and water for their flocks in dry seasons, resident
- and near-by wool growers are suddenly confronted with complete sub-
_ version of their occupation. Grazing rights that are preserved to other
_ stockmen are restricted within designated limits for a given number of
- live stock, which must be counted in and out of reserves on given dates.
Timber may be cut for construction or for fuel only by measure, also
within prescribed limits. . . . The mine owner is cut off from neces-
Ki sary uses for timber, baal in small doles, adequate only to purposes
_of the prospector. Further supplies are far from being assured, even
7 after much circumlocution and suspense in the process of application
_ for them. Timber privileges which are granted within limits to indi-
viduals without cost, are explicitly denied to corporations, legally
aeons! as this may be.”

__. As Mondell once pointed out, much of the early complaint regard-
. “ing the forest reserves arose from the hurry with which the exterior
q undaries of the first reserves were established. Since these reserves
had never been carefully surveyed, it was inevitable that there should
be mistakes in marking the boundaries, mistakes which would some-
_times cause hardship to settlers and others. This does not imply that
‘= reserves should not have been established, nor that they should
n0t have been established so early, for if they were to be set aside at
a 1, they had to be set aside while the country was still new and
relatively unknown, before private interests had taken up the most
valuable lands.

EFFORTS TO OVERTURN THE RESERVATION POLICY

_ Measures designed to reverse the entire policy of forest reservation
ere almost constantly before Congress. In 1900, Representative
Wilson of Idaho introduced a bill prohibiting the establishment or
e tension of forest reserves in Idaho except by act of Congress. In
_the same session, Jones of Washington introduced two bills into the
FE ouse, one prohibiting the establishment of reserves in Washington,
and the other prohibiting their establishment in all states. Both were

194 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

favorably reported by the Committee on Public Lands, but neither |

received any further consideration. In the next session of Congress, an
attempt was made in the Senate Committee on Appropriations to slip
an amendment into the Sundry Civil Bill eliminating the word “here-
after,” so that no funds would be available for the protection of
mew reserves. This amendment, however, failed in the conference
committee.”

In the next session of Congress, Jones renewed his efforts to stop _

the creation of reserves, but without success. About the same time, the
House Committee on Public Lands tried to secure a law providing
that forest reserves should be created or enlarged only on the approval
of the governor of the state concerned, but this also failed.”

SENATOR HEYBURN AND THE RESERVES

In 1903, W. B. Heyburn succeeded Heitfeld as senator from Idaho, ©

and Heyburn had not been in Congress a year before he evinced the
rancorous hatred of the reserves which characterized his entire politi-
cal career. Heyburn’s hostility to the reserves, a hostility which he
displayed at every opportunity, was largely a personal matter.
Shortly after he entered Congress, he began to criticise the Forest
Service, and to oppose the creation of new reserves in Idaho. He
carried this opposition so far that Pinchot decided to strike back by
exposing Heyburn’s record on the forest reserve question. The result
was the publication, in 1905, of Forest Bulletin 67, in which was
printed the complete correspondence of Heyburn, Pinchot, President
Roosevelt, Senator Dubois—the other Idaho senator—and several
others, on the question of the creation of reserves in Idaho. This
bulletin showed clearly that Heyburn was not in good standing with
President Roosevelt, and probably Pinchot thought it would make
Heyburn some trouble at home, for Roosevelt was still popular with
the people of the West. Perhaps Pinchot thought this move would
silence Heyburn’s criticism; but certainly it had no such effect, for
Heyburn became only more violent in his opposition to the reserves.
He was ever afterward the archenemy of the reservation policy.

72H. R. 7332, H. R. 9599, H. R.. 11357, H. Reports 1985, 1986; 56 Cong. 1 sess.:
Cong. Rec., Feb. 28, 1901, 3225; Mar. 2, 1901, 3570.
73 H. R. 171, H. R. 172, H. Report 968; 57 Cong. 1 sess.

. ‘ ; — ws
Pot

ee, ae ee Ue

-ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 195

se they show a conservation attitude, even on the part of some
: e western men. Teller of course took the usual stand, but Hey-
n’s colleague Dubois stoutly defended the reserves. “In regard to
Saeposition I differ radically and totally with my colleague,”
id Dubois. “We want to preserve these forest lands for the present
lation of Idaho and for future generations. . . . The present
mistration may, and doubtless does, make some lslakies. | in the
erous details of carrying on this great work, but they are so few
isignificant as compared with the great benefit which the policy
nfers on our whole people, that they are entitled to the support of
r western representatives at least.”
Other western men—Smoot of Utah, Newlands of Nevada, and
arren of Wyoming—showed at least a lack of sympathy with Hey-
n’s attack."’ After Heyburn had berated the Forest Service at
: length, Newlands begged permission to “ask the senator, in view
fact that Idaho’s present population is 300,000 and that she
n aged before very long will probably have a population of a million
a half, whether he regards the present reservation of one fifth of
entire area for purposes of the future as unwise.” In a somewhat
ilar vein, Smoot asked if it were not true that “many times miners,
alleged miners have gone upon forest reserves in Idaho and other
tes and simply located upon a piece of land, calling it a mineral
m, when there was no other object on earth than to get the timber
hin the claim, and when there was no mineral whatever there.”
burn pompously declared that there was “so small a percentage

Bs

ag

dl . Rec., Jan. 29, 1906, 1689.

6 It d., 1691-1693. For a careful discussion of the attitude of Heyburn and of
vis, see Forest Bul. 67, 1905, pp. 40 et seq. As indicated there, Dubois some-
sna Heyburn most severely for his “disregard of facts,” in his attacks
e reserves.

a Cong. Rec., Jan. 29, 1906, 1677-1695.

196 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

of fact upon which to base a question of that kind” that it was “not
worthy of being taken into consideration”; but most of the members
of Congress were evidently considering it, nevertheless. “a

Heyburn’s bill was vigorously assailed by Beveridge of Indiana,
Nelson of Minnesota, and Dolliver of Iowa, and, lacking the united
support of the West, it never passed the Senate. Later in the same
session of Congress, Heyburn introduced another bill, to prohibit
the creation of forest reserves in Idaho, but it was never reported.”

THE ANTI-CONSERVATION ATTACK OF 1907

Attention has now been directed to the difficulties encountered in
connection with grazing in the forest reserves, the very rapid increase
in the number of reserves, the vigorous and aggressive policy of the
Roosevelt administration, the abuses under the Forest Lieu Act, the”
incompetency of the early forest officers, and other causes of westert i
hostility. Consideration of these matters opens the way to a better
understanding of the anti-conservation attack of 1907. y

In 1907, just as in 1897, and at various other times, the anti- .
conservation hostility came to a head in connection with the debates
on an appropriation bill. The House Committee on Agriculture had
inserted an amendment to the Agricultural Appropriation Bill, per-
mitting the Secretary of Agriculture to divide up the national forests
into such administrative units as might seem wise, but Tawney of
Minnesota was opposed to allowing the secretary so much discretion,
and he raised the point of order on the amendment.” Tawney after-
ward withdrew his point of order, but Mondell renewed it and was
sustained. ¥

Mondell’s opposition was apparently prompted by the fact that
the Forest Service followed the policy of selling timber at regular
market prices; although as a matter of fact, the Forest Service wa:

the West, was raising prices even above those of the Pacific “lumbe e]
combines.” “Each inspector who visits our reservation boosts the
price a little higher,” he said, “until we have a monopoly established

78S, 4470.
79 Cong. Rec., Jan. 29, 1907, pp. 1900, 1901.

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 197

_ by the side of which the alleged lumber monopoly on the Pacific coast
, is a mild-mannered and philanthropic organization.”*°
_ In spite of the opposition of Mondell, Tawney, Fitzgerald of New
* Rork, Smith of California, and others—by no means all western
-men—Wadsworth of New York succeeded in getting the appropria-
tion bill through the House without serious alteration, but in the
Senate a more decided hostility was immediately manifest. A pro-
posed increase in Pinchot’s salary was promptly assailed by Senator
Fulton; but the entire Bureau of Forestry was presently brought in
‘for castigation. “The truth is,” declared Senator Fulton, “this
bE Bureau is composed of dreamers and theorists, but beyond and out-
| e the domain of their theories and their dreams is the everyday,
| sy, bustling, throbbing world of human endeavor, where real men
“are at work producing substantial results. . . . While these chiefs
of the Bureau of Forestry sit within their marble halls and theorize
and dream of waters conserved, forests and streams protected and
preserved throughout the ages and the ages, the lowly pioneer is
climbing the mountain side where he will erect his humble cabin, and
vithin the shadow of the whispering pines and the lofty firs of the
estern forest engage in the laborious work of carving out for him-
self and his loved ones a home and a dwelling-place.”* Senator Pat-
terson of Colorado complained likewise, although in somewhat less
oquent vein, of the “little, petty prosecutions” instituted by
government agents.
_ Secretary of the Interior Ethan Allen Hitchcock was the main
te oath of western vituperation. “I myself believe, and I say here
iow,” announced Senator Fulton, “that the responsibility [for the
b ses under the Forest Lieu Act] did rest upon, and the conse-
que nces must be born by, the Secretary of the Interior.” Senator
rie: was equally energetic in his denunciation of Secretary
Hitchcock.
- Fulton and Carter were not entirely fair in their attacks upon the
Secretary of the Interior. In the first place, they asserted that a

or) Cong. Rec., Jan. 29, 1907, 1906. For an account of an attack upon the Forest
Service in 1913 because of its policy of selling timber at market prices, see “Lumber
industry,” IV, 62, 63. ;

|
81 Cong. Rec., Feb. 18, 1907, 3183-3206.

198 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

proper construction of the Forest Lieu Act entitled only settles to
exchange their lands. It is true that this construction might have been
given, and as a matter of fact was given by the Commissioner of tha
Land Office, previous to the administration of Hitchcock; but there
was some logic in Hitchcock’s interpretation. The act gave lieu selec-
tion privileges to any “settler or owner of a tract” within a fores
reserve, and certainly the term “owner” might be construed to include
a railroad owner; indeed, that seems the most obvious construction,
Had Congress, in passing the act, wished its provisions to apply onl
to settlers, it seems that it would have used the term “settler,” and let ~
it go at that, without adding the further alternative, “or owner of
a tract.” In the second place, Fulton and Carter intimated that
Hitchcock was the only secretary who had included railroad lands
within forest reserve limits.** Carter said that the policy of Secretary ~
Bliss, preceding Hitchcock, had been to draw the boundaries of the
reserves in such fashion as to leave out the odd numbered sections—
the railroad lands. As a matter of fact, the proclamation of August —
17, 1898, establishing the San Francisco Mountains Forest Reserve,° a .
was the only one issued during the incumbency of Bliss in which that
particular scheme had been used, and even there it had not worked —
successfully. The abuses under the Forest Lieu Act had arisen before
Hitchcock became secretary.** j
The defense of the forest reserves was taken up by men from a 1
sections of the country. Senator Dolliver of Iowa thought the criti- |
cism directed against the Forest Service was “especially to be de-
plored.” “Here in the Senate and in the other House of Congress,” :
he said, “we find a petulant stream of criticism directed at the in-
tegrity of his [Hitchcock’s] motives, and the wisdom with which he
has undertaken to administer the great trust which has reposed upon
him during the last eight years. . . . I undertake to say that he has”
by his public service piled up a mountainous presumption of plain
honesty which is not to be overcome by speeches upon the floor of
either house of Congress.”*> Senator Beveridge of Indiana, always a —

/

82 Cong. Rec., Feb. 18, 1907, 3184, 3185.

83 Stat. 30, 1781: H. Doc. 613; 59 Cong. 1 sess.
84 Report, Land Office, 1898, 89. %
85 Cong. Rec., Feb. 18, 1907, 3183-3195; Feb. 19, 3281-3297; Feb. 21, 3521-3542, ;

a ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 199

= staunch friend of Roosevelt, Spooner of Wisconsin, and Proctor of
_ Vermont likewise took up the defense of the administration; and they
_ were ably supported by a number of western men—Newlands of
_ Nevada, Smoot of Utah, Dubois of Idaho, Warren of Wyoming,** and
Perkins and Flint of California. It is true that the strongest opposi-
tion came from the West, but it was no longer strictly a case of West
4 versus East on the question of timber conservation; and after several
_ days of debate, it seemed that the forest reserves were safe.
On February 23, however, Fulton arose in the Senate with an
- amendment, “That hereafter no forest reserve shall be created, nor
_ shall any addition be made to one heretofore created, within the limits
_ of the states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Colorado or
_ Wyoming, except by act of Congress.”*' Heyburn did not think this
_ quite radical enough, so Carter tried to tack on a provision opening
_ some of the lands which had been reserved, but, at the suggestion of
_ Patterson of Colorado, this attempt was abandoned. Heyburn made
_ it perfectly clear, however, that while he would accept Fulton’s
_ amendment as sufficient for the time, ultimately the forest reserves
_ already created would have to be reduced in some way.** It seems
_ reasonably clear that Heyburn was prepared with a filibuster on the
_ appropriation bill if Fulton’s amendment were not agreed to, and
_ that the Senate understood this perfectly well, for after considerable
_ debate, the amendment passed without even a call for the yeas and
nays,” and in neither of the conference committees was it in any way

{ changed.

THE ACT OF 1907

_ The appropriation bill as finally passed,” like the act of June 4,
_ 1897, was a series of compromises ; but, unlike the earlier act, it made
_ the most important concessions to the anti-conservationists. The con-
_ servation party secured a $1,000,000 increase in the appropriation

_ 86 The attitude of Warren at this time was creditable to him, for he had just
been involved in a bitter contest with Hitchcock regarding certain fences on the
_ public domain, and he might easily have taken a more active part in the attacks
_ upon the secretary. (See H. Report 1335; 62 Cong. 3 sess.)

87 Cong. Rec., Feb. 23, 1907, 3720.

88 [bid., 3722.

89 Cong. Rec., Feb. 25, 1907, 3869.

90 Stat. 34, 1269.

200 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

for the Forest Service, and an increase in salary for some of the
officers of the Bureau, including the chief forester. They also secured
a provision permitting the export of forest reserve timber beyond the
boundaries of the state wherein it had been cut. This provision was
necessary before the management of the forest reserves could be put
on any business basis. The forest reserves, by the way, were hence-
forth to be known as “national forests.”

The anti-forest reserve party secured concessions of considerably
greater importance. In the first place, Fulton’s amendment meant
that, in the six states of the Northwest which contained the vast bulk
of western timber, there could be little further extension of the system

of forest reserves, for it was not likely that Congress would ever -

establish many reserves. It meant the repeal of the act of 1891, the
most important act in the history of the forestry policy, as far as it
provided for forest reserves in most of the timber lands of the West;
although President Roosevelt took most of the sting out of this
provision by proclaiming twenty-one new reserves in the six northwest
states, on March 2, before he signed the bill.”* .

A further concession was made to the anti-conservationists, in the
abolition of the forest reserve special fund, by which, since 1905,
receipts from the sales of timber and grazing privileges had been

available for the work of the Forest Service. For the fiscal year 1905-

1906, the Forest Service had received $514,086 for grazing permits
and $242,668 for timber sold—a total of over $750,000; while in
1906-1907, the receipts were more than double that amount—over
$1,530,000.°* Thus the abolition of this special fund more than bal-
anced the $1,000,000 increase in the appropriation.

A third concession to Fulton’s party provided that 10 per cent of
the receipts of each forest reserve should be given to the state for
schools and roads in the counties in which the reserve was situated.
As a final slap at the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture
was required to submit to Congress each year a classified and detailed

91 Stat. 34, Part 3. It was stated in Congress years afterward that Roosevelt
signed the proclamation creating these reserves and permitted them to be en-
larged afterward. In 1914, there was a great deal of criticism of the manner in
which the proclamation had been issued. (Cong. Rec., Mar. 10, 1914, 4633.)

92 Report, Dept. of Agr., 1906, 278, 281.
93 Report, Sec. of Agr. (abridged edition), 1909, 65.

POET ee ay SV

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 201

rt of all receipts from the Forest Service, and a classified and
etailed estimate of all expenditures. This was a proper enough re-
ement in itself, but the debates show that one of the motives behind
as hostility to the Forest Service, rather than a desire for more
government accounting.

ANTI-CONSERVATION ATTACKS SINCE 1907

The anti-conservation attack of 1907, although in a measure suc-
ful, did not end the hostility to the “national forests,” as they
called after 1907. Almost every year since then, some phase of
reservation policy has been attacked in Congress. In 1909, Sena-
Teller of Colorado, now grown old in the service of “poor set-
y’ led a determined attack on the reserves; and he was supported
Sorah of Idaho, Bailey of Texas, Carter of Wyoming, er Hale
; of

the debates on the appropriation bill of the next year, Mondell
red a strong protest in the House against the “scandalous ex-
agance” of the Forest Service; while the Idaho delegation—Hey-
rn and Borah, and Englebright of California—led a similar fight
the Senate. In 1911, Mondell again led the fight on the Forest
ie ice, backed by two of the Colorado representatives, Martin and
Rucker, and by Floyd of Arkansas and Booher of yidic. oan and in
the Senate by Heyburn and by Clark of Wyoming.”

e debates on the Agricultural Appropriation Bill of 1912 were
occasion of a determined attack by Representative Hawley of
yon, who spoke at length of the hardships imposed on the settlers,
and the consequent unfortunate migration to Canada. Hawley was
backed not only by the Idaho delegation and by some western men,
but by a few from other sections of the country. A determined but un- |
1ecessful attempt to open up Parculbunal lands in the forest reserves
y il be treated in a later connection.”

THE BALLINGER-PINCHOT CONTROVERSY

In 1913, Representative Humphrey of Washington, one of the new
its in the opposition, launched a campaign against the national
94H. R. 27053; 61 Cong. 1 sess., 3222 et seq.

_ 9% H. R. 18162; 61 Cong. 2 sess.: H. R. 31596; 61 Cong. 3 sess.
— Aipae H. R. 18960; 62 Cong. 2 sess. Cross Reference, p. 257.

202 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

forests, which he pushed vigorously during the following years, with q ;
the assistance of several of his colleagues, particularly Johnson. :
Several of the Washington delegation were particularly hostile about
this time; and the numerous references to Pinchot’s candidacy for
the senatorship from Pennsylvania in 1914, to the Ballinger con- e
troversy, and to the Progressive party, indicate that their attitude —
was one aspect of a party squabble. To some extent, the forest reserve
question during the last ten years or more has been a question of party
politics. The split in the Republican party in 1912 was due to Roose- a
velt’s disapproval of President Taft’s stand on conservation. Roose-
velt was the man who, with Pinchot, had really created the Forest —
Service, and had done more than anyone else to create the system of
forest reserves ; and he was of course very anxious that his successor
should carry that policy on with vigor. President Taft, however,
soon fell somewhat under the influence of the reactionary wing of
his party, and evinced what Roosevelt considered a lack of enthusiasm —
for conservation. In the Ballinger controversy, he took sides with
Ballinger, and against Pinchot and Glavis, who were trying to pre- _
vent the patenting of a number of fraudulent coal claims in Alaska.
Taft even dismissed Pinchot from the Forest Service. —
Taft’s stand in these matters was such that Roosevelt could not —
possibly forget or forgive. The dismissal of Pinchot, who had been ~
Roosevelt’s most trusted assistant, was the “last straw.” How keenly a
Roosevelt felt this is indicated, almost pathetically, by the following
excerpt from his autobiography: “I believe it is but just to say that —
among the many, many public officials who under my administration
rendered literally invaluable service to the people of the United —
States, he [Pinchot] on the whole, stood first. A few months after I
left the Presidency he was removed from office by President Taft.”**
Perhaps Roosevelt did not know at that time that President Taft —
had gone so far as to antedate public records in his effort to shield
Ballinger; but he knew enough to distrust Taft’s stand on conser- —
vation. The truth of the matter probably is, not that Taft was under _
any improper influences, although he was somewhat under the sway —
of the reactionaries of the party, but rather that he had a very dif-
ferent point of view from that of Roosevelt. Roosevelt was aggressive
97 Roosevelt, “Autobiography,” 429.

;
Mi; I

isd ah St csi a

raise

me os
Sree Sioes on
A

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 2038

_ and militant, and always ready to do anything that he thought the
public interest demanded, if it was not specifically forbidden. Taft,
on the other hand, was cautious, and did not act unless specifically ©
authorized by law. In an administrative office, the difference between
these attitudes was sometimes very great.

When the question of investigating Ballinger was up in Congress
in 1910, the vote was purely on political lines, the Republicans lining
up with President Taft for a “whitewashing” of the secretary, and
also for the inclusion of the Forest Service in the investigation; while:
the Democrats generally wanted to discredit Ballinger and opposed
the inclusion of the Forest Service in the investigation, as tending to

_ cloud the issue. The Republicans won, and some thirteen volumes of

_ “whitewash” were administered to a case which needed it rather badly.

Humphrey was a staunch Republican, was one of Ballinger’s
spokesmen in the House in 1910, and his sympathies were with Bal-
linger in the investigations. Also, in the fight over the national con-
vention two years later, he defended the selection of the Washington
delegates, who were supporters of Taft, and, according to current
charges, had been fraudulently chosen. The writer ventures no opinion
as to the grounds for these charges, or as to the validity of Taft’s
nomination, or as to the relation of Humphrey to the whole matter;
but the point is that Humphrey’s attitude toward the conservation
policy was a party matter. The upshot of the whole affair was. that
Roosevelt left the Republican party after the Chicago convention in ©
1912, and formed the new Progressive party. His defection naturally
brought up conservation—the most important of his “policies’”—for

_ discussion and criticism.”* ~

Some of the Republicans were in loyalty bound to show that the
conservation policy, the favorite foster child of the founder of the

98 The later work of Mr. Glavis, the man who precipitated the Ballinger con-
troversy, seems to be a rather unfortunate chapter in the history of conservation.
Soon after his dismissal from the government service, he was appointed Secretary

of the Conservation and Water Power Commissions of California; and while thus

a servant of the state, he acted in land transactions as the agent also of certain
lumber companies. There was no particular allegation of fraud or dishonesty, but
his actions had put him in a compromising position, and he was dismissed from -
his position. He had been credited with some excellent work in the recovery of
state school lands. (Outlook, Nov. 23, 1912, 665; Feb. 8, 1913, 289.)

204 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Progressive party, had been conceived in iniquity, reared in dishonor,
and should now be cast into the outer darkness of political desuetude.
- Also, some of the reactionaries in the Republican party saw in the
conservation policy a menace to their own interests. Timber interests,
coal interests, oil interests, water power interests, to some extent
grazing, and even railroad interests, saw that the conservation move-
ment was destined to reduce the opportunities for private exploita-
tion. Thus the Republican party became to a certain extent hostile
to the Forest Service and to conservation generally, the Republican
leaders lining up with the western anti-conservationists and “states
righters.” Representative Bryan of Washington pointed out that
Humphrey’s attack in 1913 was essentially an attack upon Roose-
velt and the Progressive policies, although Humphrey had earlier been
an enthusiastic supporter of Roosevelt.

Bryan spoke of Humphrey’s “never failing allegiance to the inter-
ests of men of great wealth, and those who during the decades past,
through the men who were the leaders of the Republican party,
obtained so many privileges for the few against the interest of the
people.” Representative Murdock, a Progressive leader from Kansas,
in replying to Humphrey’s attack, openly accused the Republican
party of hostility to the reserves: “These are the charges, then, that
the gentleman brings against the Bureau of Forestry. They would not
be of moment if the gentleman did not couple with his resolution the
assertion—made as one of the Republican members of this body, and
speaking for a considerable part of the membership of this body, and
representing really, as I believe, the sentiments of the leaders of the
Republican party—that the policy of national conservation should
be abandoned.” This was not denied by anyone on the floor.”

The attacks on Pinchot and on the Forest Service were also to
some extent connected with Pinchot’s candidacy for the senatorship
in Pennsylvania. Progressives everywhere boomed his candidacy, even
in Congress, while Republicans found it expedient to attack not only
his record in the Forest Service, but even the general conservation
movement, with which he had so long been identified. Humphrey made

99 H.R. 28283; 62.Cong. 3 sess., 2945 et seq.: H. R. 13679; 63 Cong. 2 sess., 4614

et seq.: Cong. Rec., 63 Cong. 1 sess., 1862: Cong. Rec., Mar. 1, 1909, 3534; Jan. 5,
1910, 325.

ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 205

aisles i in Congress attacking Pinchot, with no purpose evidently
but to weaken Pinchot’s campaign; and on one occasion, Moore of
_ Pennsylvania and Johnson of Washington became so engrossed in a
debate on the subject that Mann of Illinois had to urge a point of
order.**°
In the attack of 1916, some men even bit the central and eastern
states evinced a suspicion that the Forest Service was extravagant, if
nothing worse. In the House, Bennett of New York, Steenerson of
Minnesota, Clark of Missouri, Hamilton of Michigan, and Haugen of
Iowa; and in the Senate, Stone of Missouri and Borah of Idaho voiced
_ this suspicion.*”

: THE ALASKA FORESTS

a the anti-conservation attacks of recent years, the Alaska
_ national forests have been subjected to a great deal of criticism.
_ There are two reserves in Alaska, both of them extending along the
_ ecoast—the Chugach, in the Prince William Sound region, far to the
_ north, and the Tongass, which lies just north of the Canadian line.
_ Criticism has been directed mainly at the Chugach reserve, which has
_ the poorest stand of timber. The charge has been made repeatedly
that little (Humphrey once said only 10 per cent) of the area included
is real forest land, and that what timber there is there, is of poor
quality, and not worth the cost of protection.

_ As to the justice of the criticism, it is somewhat difficult to judge,
_ owing to the contradictory nature of the reports. Doubtless there is
much truth in the charges regarding the quality of the timber included
a here. The Governor of Alaska insists that the Chugach National
Forest is largely waste land which will never be utilized, and is not
% _ worth the cost of maintenance; while Mr. Graves, after a careful
ra of these regions, reported that there was a large amount
__ of timber which would at least be useful in the industrial development
4 of the region near the forest. Perhaps mining interests have been

: 100 Cong. Rec., Jan. 7, 1910, 388, 393, 406; May 16, 1912, 6531; June 3, 1913, 1884;
_ June 17, 1913, 2058; Nov. 22, 1913, 5971, 5972; Mar. 12, 1914, 4755; Mar. 14, 1914,
_ 4867; Jan. 22, 1915, 2146; Apr. 18, 1916, 6395: H. J. Res. 103; 61 Cong. 2 sess.:
_ Outlook, May 14, 1910, 57; Sept. 10, 1910, 60: World’s Work, 25, 246.

101 H. R. 20415; 63 Cong. 3 sess., 2148 et seq.: H. R. 12717; 64 Cong. 1 sess.,
6886, 6450, 6589, 10326 et seq.

206 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

nearly as important as timber interests in the Chugach forest. One
corner of this forest contains some coal claims in the Behring field,
and in the controversies arising out of the Behring coal claims, it was
charged that the existence of this national forest prevented their
development. This charge was not true, for the existence of the forest
had no effect on the legality of the claims; but, perhaps with some
reason, mining companies weed usually prefer to operate outside of
a national forest.*°” q

102 Cong. Rec., Feb. 10, 1913, 2945: 4m. Lwmberman, Sept. 25, 1915, 49: Outlsok: | 4

Mar. 22, 1916, 679: Report, Dept. of Int., 1916, Vol. II, 401, 402: S. Doc. 77; 62 a
Cong. 2 sess.

CHAPTER VI

F FOREST RESERVES IN THE APPALACHIAN AND WHITE
MOUNTAINS

Few would have been so bold as to predict, when the Forest Reserve
Act was passed in 1891, that the government would ever go so far as
to buy up denuded timber lands for forest reserves. As has been
pointed out, the Forest Reserve Act, which provided only for the
retention of forest lands already owned by the government, did not
have the support of Congress when it passed;? and the policy of
bi ying up lands was a step far in advance of this, a step which might
well have seemed impossible at the time. Furthermore, as long as the
government was selling its valuable timber lands for next to nothing
under the Timber and Stone and Cash Sale acts, or giving it away
under some of the other land laws, there was little apparent wisdom
in buying up worthless timber land, no matter how cheaply it might
be obtained. However illogical the idea may seem when viewed in this
way, it is nevertheless true that agitation for the purchase of lands
for national forests in the Appalachian Mountains arose within less
han ten years after the passage of the Forest Reserve Act; and
on a second decade, had resulted in important legislation.

EARLY AGITATION FOR APPALACHIAN RESERVES

_ In November, 1899, the Appalachian National Park Association
was organized at Asheville, North Carolina, with members from vari-
ous parts of the country; and early in the year 1900, memorials from
this association, from the Appalachian Mountain Club of New Eng-
; and, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
ar d from the American Forestry Association, were presented in Con-
gress, asking that measures be taken for the preservation of the

fa Cross References, pp. 114-118.

208 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

southern Appalachian forests.” Senator Pritchard of North Carolina
took up the cause in Congress, and secured an appropriation of $5000 —
to be used to investigate forest conditions in the Appalachian Moun- —

tains.* The investigation was completed in about a year, and Secre-

tary of Agriculture James Wilson made a report recommending the
establishment of Appalachian reserves, a recommendation in which -

President McKinley concurred.*

About a week after Secretary Wilson made his report, Senator
Pritchard introduced a bill appropriating $5,000,000 for the pur-
chase of not less than 2,000,000 acres in the southern Appalachians.”
This bill was favorably reported by Senator Beveridge of Indiana,°

but made no further progress, and in December, Pritchard introduced
another bill of similar provisions, which was likewise favorably re-
ported, and even debated somewhat, but never came to a vote.’ A bill i

introduced by Senator Burton of Kansas in the same session, however,

}

was not only favorably reported, but after considerable debate, passed 4
the Senate with very little opposition.* Senator Depew of Néw York —
was the most conspicuous friend of this bill, while Nelson of Minne- —

sota, Bailey of Texas, and Spooner of Wisconsin—the last named an ©

old friend of conservation—furnished what little opposition there
was. In the House, the bill was favorably reported but was not dis-
cussed.°

Thus as early as 1902, a decade after the passage of the Forest
Reserve Act, a bill passed the Senate with very little opposition,

authorizing the purchase of national forests in the southern Appa-—
lachian Mountains at a cost of $10,000,000. Such action in the Senate
seems rather strange when viewed in connection with the general atti-
tude of that body toward forest conservation. The vote of the south-
ern senators is easy enough to explain. Some of them were sincerely ~

2S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 158-165.

3 Cong. Rec., Jan. 15, 1900, 801; Apr. 21, 1900, 4508: Stat. 31, 197.

4S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 166-168.

5S. 5518; 56 Cong. 2 sess.

6S. Report 2221.

7S. 492; 57 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., Apr. 26, 1902, 4710-4714,

8S. 5228; 57 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., June 7, 1902, 6429-6432; June 24, 1902,
7281-7287.

9H. Report 2913.

’

FOREST RESERVES IN THE EAST 209

interested in the preservation of the Appalachian forests, others were
_ anxious to have the Federal government come in and buy up timber
lands, because such a procedure furnished a possible market for some
ds of little value, and insured their protection at Federal expenses.
Just what other section or sections of the country joined with the
| South to effect the passage of such a bill, it is impossible to say from
any evidence appearing in the Congressional Record.
In the House, Appalachian forest bills were introduced in the fifty-
seventh Congress by Brownlow of Tennessee, and by Pearson and
oody of North Carolina; and here as in the Senate the committee
_ report was favorable, but nothing was accomplished.*’ It seems rather
_ strange that even a favorable committee report should have been
_ secured as early as this.
_ During the next few years, a number of Appalachian forest bills
_ were brought forward; in the Senate, by Burton of Kansas and Over-
_man of North Carolina, and in the House by Brownlow and Gibson of
_ Tennessee.”

THE DEMAND FOR FORESTS IN THE WHITE MOUNTAINS

_ The movement for Appalachian forests had been under way only a
cc. years when agitation arose for national forests in the White
Mountains also, and Senator Gallinger and he cee ap Currier
of New Hampshire introduced several bills into Congress,” but none
of these passed either house. These men did not have as effective an
0: ganization as the southern men, but they presently saw that a com-
nation with the southern men would put the whole movement on a
better basis; and in 1906, Senator Brandegee of Connecticut reported
a bill for the acquisition of $8,000,000 worth of national forests in the
“Appalachian and White Mountains.” This bill passed the Senate
without a comment.** Thus the curious combination of New England
and the South seemed to be very effective in the Senate.**

10H, R. 3198, H. R. 6543, H. R. 12138, H. R. 13523, H. Report 1547; 57 Cong.
1 sess.

11S. 887, H. R. 1196, H. R. 5065; 58 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 408, H. R. 40; 59 Cong.
1 sess.

12S. 2327, H. R. 7284; 58 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 34, H. R. 181; 59 Cong. 1 sess.

_ 4185, 4953; 59 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., June 22, 1906, 8952.

_-14See Cong. Rec., June 24, 1910, 8989.

210 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY.

The House was at no time so favorably disposed toward buying up 4
forest reserves. The rulings of Speaker Cannon were claimed to be
responsible for the failure of House bills to come to a vote, and doubt-

less there was truth in this assertion, for Cannon was opposed to the
idea, and was of course in a position to make his opposition felt.”
Aside from his influence, however, the interests favorable to this legis-
lation were certainly not so strong in the House as in the Senate. In
spite of the situation in the House, an amendment to the Agricultural
Appropriation Bill passed both houses in 1907, granting $25,000 for
the survey of lands in the Appalachian and White mountains.*® The
House vote on this proposition shows New England and the southern
states leagued in favor of the proposition, while the north central and
western states were generally opposed.*’

In the sixtieth Congress, an increasing interest was shown. Sena-—
tors Brandegee of Connecticut and Gallinger of New Hampshire did |

aggressive work in the Senate, and a bill fathered by the former,
appropriating $5,000,000 for the purchase of forest lands, passed
the upper house in spite of rather vigorous opposition from some of

the western anti-conservationists—Teller, Heyburn, Fulton, and —

Clark.** This bill, with a number of amendments, also passed the

House, by a narrow margin—157 to 147 ;*° but when it came back to — :

the Senate as amended, a determined filibuster was undertaken by
Teller, Heyburn, Clark, Borah, and Carter, and the measure was
finally lost.”°

A number of bills were introduced into the House by Lever of South
Carolina, Currier of New Hampshire, Pollard of Nebraska, and Weeks
of Massachusetts; but none of these ever received favorable considera-
tion.”* A bill reported by Scott of Kansas, chairman of the Committee
on Agriculture, passed the House, however, by the decisive vote of

15 Forestry and Irrigation, Jan., 1907, 30; Apr., 1908, 178, 179.

16 Stat. 34, 1281.

17Cong. Rec., Mar. 2, 1907, 4489. ;

18 S, 2985, S. 4825; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., May 15, 1908, 6328-6330; May
16, 6385-6401, 6403-6409.

19 Cong. Rec., Mar. 1, 1909, 3566.

20 Cong. Rec., Mar. 3, 1909, 3749-3751.

21H. R. 10456, H. R. 21920, H. R. 21221, H. R. 21357, H. R. 21767, H. R. |

22938 ; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 26295, H. R. 26923, H. R. 27056; 60 Cong. 2 sess.

sat

ay Caer Oe eo eee

tg (Scone

FOREST RESERVES IN THE EAST 211

205 to 41. The decisiveness of this vote is explained by the fact that
the bill merely appropriated $100,000 for codperation with the states
3 forest protection, and created a commission for further investiga-
tion. Many of the advocates of national forests voted for the bill
because they thought it was the best obtainable, while many opponents
, roted for it because they thought it might stave off something more
radical.** The bill followed the views of Speaker Cannon in shifting
re ss esponsibility largely to the states, and was for that reason viewed
wi th disfavor by the American Forestry Association; but it never
came up in the Senate.”°

Sy.

INCREASING SCOPE OF THE MOVEMENT

_ Not for the southern Appalachians and White mountains alone were
zational forests demanded. In 1905, Representative Dovener of West
Virginia introduced a bill for the protection of the Potomac water-
hed, and Representative Hubbard and Senator Elkins, also of West
Virginia, called for the same thing.** Representatives Shakleford and
Lamar of Missouri wanted a national forest in the Ozarks ; Lindbergh
of Minnesota wanted one at the head of the Mississippi River; and
3radley of New York wanted the Highlands of the Hudson preserved ;
vhile Stephens of Texas made several efforts to secure a reserve at
the head of the Red River.”
_ Thus, at the end of a decade of agitation, the movement for the pur-
shase of forest lands had attained a very broad scope as well as great
strength; and friends of the movement entered the sixty-first Con-
sss, in Taft’s administration, with high hopes. Austin and Brown-
ow of Tennessee, Weeks of Massachusetts, and Guernsey of Maine
ntroduced forest reserve measures into the House;* and Gallinger of
Yew Hampshire brought up a bill in the Senate,”* which was debated
22 Cong. Rec., May 21, 1908, 6688-6705.

_ 28 Forestry and Irrigation, June, 1908, 356.

«24H. R. 5365, H. R. 13784, S. 3504, S. 4271; 59 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 11357; 60
; =H, R.. 11749, H. R. 15938, H. R. 16972, H. R. 20186, H. R. 20887, H. R.
302, H. R. 21487; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 63; 61 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., Mar.

1 3908, 4179.
20H. R. 11, H. R. 105, H. R. 11798; 61 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 21589; 61 Cong.

27S. 4501; 61 Cong. 2 sess.

212 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

at considerable length. Gallinger’s bill was finally postponed in favor
of the “Weeks” bill, which was destined to mark a new epoch in the ©
history of the United States forestry policy.

THE WEEKS BILL
On July 23, 1909, Representative Weeks introduced a bill, “to —
enable any state to codperate with any other state or states or with —
the United States, for the protection of the watersheds of navigable ©
streams, and to appoint a commission for the acquisition of lands for ~
the purpose of conserving the navigability of navigable rivers.” This —
bill appropriated $1,000,000 for the current year and $2,000,000 —
each year until 1916, for the purchase of forest lands in the southern — 4
Appalachian and White mountains.
The House Committee on Agriculture, after exhaustive hearings
covering a period of nine months, reported the bill favorably; al-
though with a strong minority report signed by seven members of the} ;
committee, including the chairman, Charles F. Scott of Kansas.” 3
Once before Congress, the bill aroused more spirited debate than é
had been stirred up by any conservation measure in several years.
Conservation measures had usually had two or three active advocates,
almost never more than a half dozen, and perhaps as many bitter
opponents from the western states; but the Weeks Bill bes debated —
with great energy by men from every part of the country.” 5

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE BILL

A great number and variety of arguments were brought forward ©
in support of the bill, in the debates or in the reports. The assumed
purpose, as expressed 1 in the title, was to conserve the navigability of i
navigable rivers. The protection of forests on the watersheds was
assumed to conserve navigability in two ways: first, by preventing ©
the erosion incident to deforestation and thus preventing the deposit —
of silt along the lower watercourses; and second, by insuring a more —
regular waterflow, thus rendering the rivers navigable for a greater
period during times of drouth.*° 3

28 H. Report 1036; 61 Cong. 2 sess.

29 Cong. Rec., June 24, 1910, 8974-9027; June 25, 9045-9051; Feb. 15, 1911,
2575-2602.

30S. Report 459; 60 Cong. 1 sess., pt. 2, pp. 2-4. See also U. S. Geological
Survey, Professional Paper 72, 1911; and Forest Cire. 143.

FOREST RESERVES IN THE EAST 213

_ With the prevention of erosion was of course involved the preserva-
_ tion of the soil in the interests of agriculture:** while greater regu-
_ larity of streamflow was expected to be of benefit, not only because of
_ its effect on navigation, but because it would lessen damage from
_ floods and would increase the amount of water power available for
- commercial development.*? Some rather elaborate figures were given
_ to show the value of even a small increase in the minimum flow of
_ streams used for generating water power.**
_ The question of forest conservation was given more weight in the
_ debates than was the matter of stream navigability. The need of a
_ future supply of the valuable hardwoods of the southern Alleghanies
_ was pointed out, and some even went so far as to predict that the
buying up of these lands would be a paying investment for the
_ government.**
_ The value of the forest lands as summer resorts was urged as an
_ argument for Federal purchase,** although the bearing of this argu-
_ ment is not clear. It was, for instance, pointed out that the income
_ from the summer resort business in New Hampshire alone was more
_ than $8,000,000 annually, and complaint was made that many people
_ who had formerly frequented the White Mountains now spent their
_ summers in Canada, because the forests in the White Mountains were
_ being destroyed.*®
___ Among other arguments for this bill were some of a distinctly
_ “pork barrel” flavor. Thus Representative Gillett of Massachusetts
_ wanted national forests in the East to balance the river and harbor
_ appropriations which had been going to other sections of the country ;
and Gallinger of New Hampshire thought that since the government
_ was spending money on national forests in the West, it should in fair-
_ hess maintain some also in the East.**

___-81.Cong. Rec., June 24, 1910, 8986; Forest Cire. 176.

82 Cong. Rec., June 24, 1910, 8991, 9007: S. Report 459; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 2-5:
_ U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 72, 1911, 13, 14.

a 83S. Report 2537; 59 Cong. 1 sess., 5, 6: S. Doc. 91; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 13: Forest
Cire. 144.

& 84 Cong. Rec., June 24, 1910, 8992: S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 162: S. Doc. 91;
_ 60 Cong. 1 sess., 9-12.

d 85S. Report 2742; 58 Cong. 3 sess., 2, 3. _

86S. Report 2537; 59 Cong. 1 sess.

87 Cong. Rec., June 24, 1910, 9014; Feb. 15, 1911, 2578.

214 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE BILL

Among the arguments against the bill, the most prominent was that
of unconstitutionality.** It was argued that the real purpose of the
bill was not the conservation of navigable streams, but the conserva- —
tion of forests, and that there was therefore no basis for Federal —
action. Without question it is true that the main purpose of the act —
was not the conservation of navigable streams, and the relation of —
forests to stream navigability, while it had some slight weight, was —
a minor consideration and was accented merely to meet the question ©
of constitutionality. In a report made in 1904, on one of the White
Mountain bills, the question of conserving navigable rivers had been —
given a secondary place; and Senator Gallinger admitted that it was —
later given prominence merely to meet the question of constitution- —
ality.®® In 1908, the House Committee on the Judiciary had reported —
on the matter of constitutionality, and while there was a wide variety
of opinions in that committee, the majority thought that if it
appeared that forest reserves would aid navigation, Congress had the ©
power to acquire such reserves.*® Of course the South, with its strong § ;
states’ rights notions, was in a peculiar position in urging such an —
extension of Federal functions as this. i

The question as to whether forest protection is an aid to navigation —
cannot be discussed in detail here, for it is still a mooted question. —
The general consensus of opinion is that a forest cover has some
effect, by preventing erosion and thus reducing the deposit of silt in —
the lower watercourses, and by insuring a more regular streamflow.

On the first point, regarding the prevention of erosion, there is a —
fairly general agreement among authorities. There cannot be any |
doubt that unprotected land will sometimes erode worse than land —
which has a forest cover. As to the effect of forests in equalizing water-
flow, there is no such agreement. Most authorities seem to think that —
forests have some such effect, but others deny it, and are able to cite —
respectable evidence in support of this view. It is certain that the —
influence of forests in this respect, like their influence on climate, has —

38 Cong. Rec., June 24, 1910, 9017, 9018, 9021; Feb. 15, 1911, 2578: H. Res. 365;
60 Cong. 1 sess.

89 Ibid., Feb. 15, 1911, 2578: S. Report 2742; 58 Cong. 3 sess.
40H. Report 1514; 60 Cong. 1 sess.

FOREST RESERVES IN THE EAST 215

been greatly exaggerated by many writers, and was grossly exag-
gerated in the debates in Congress.**
Of course those who did not believe in the vital relation of forests
stream navigability did not believe that forest reserves: would have
any great influence in the prevention of floods. Unquestionably, too,
_ there was much logic in this position. Some of the arguments of the °
conservationists on this point were not tempered with good judgment.
us Senator Smith of South Carolina seemed to assume that the
y thing necessary to prevent future floods was the preservation of
1e forests at the headwaters of rivers; and the loss of $18,000,000
rth of property in the Piedmont plateau in 1901 and 1902 was
often pointed out as loss which would in large part have been avoided
had there been good forests in the mountains.** Forest destruction
_ was referred to as the cause of the increasing destruction of property
_by floods along the rivers below; while other factors, such as the
eaking up of lands into farms, the crowding of cities down near the
_water’s edge and the development of valuable manufacturing plants
along the rivers—factors no doubt more important than forest de-
ruction—were never mentioned. The opponents of the bill were
istified in saying at least that the effect of forests on floods and on
avigability was greatly exaggerated.
An important argument against the bill was the great ultimate
t of the new reserves. While the amount appropriated by the Weeks
ill was only $11,000,000, many feared that it was launching the
overnment on a policy which would ultimately prove very expensive. '
if course the danger here was purposely exaggerated by some of the
pponents of the bill, for mere rhetorical purposes. Thus Representa-
tive Rucker of Missouri spoke repeatedly of the $1,000,000,000 which
_ was eventually to be wasted in this way.** It was not open to question

41S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 123 et seq.: S. Doc. 676; 60 Cong. 2 sess., Vol.
; 95 et seq., 687-710: H. Report 1036; 61 Cong. 2 sess., 6-17: Independent, 68,
998: Am. Forestry, Apr., 1910, 209: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., 1895, 24
pers 1897, 139, 165: Scientific American, May 23, 1908, 372; Oct. 29, 1910, 334:
_ He s before the House Committee on Agriculture, Dec. 9, 1908; 60 Cong. 2
_ $ess., “5 16: Forest Cire. 143, 144: Forest Bul. 85: Agr. Yearbook, 1903, 279.

_ 42Cong. Rec., Feb. 15, 1911, 2601: H. Report 1547; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 3: S.
ac 459; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 7.

48 Cong. "Ree., Mar. 1, 1909, 3531.

216 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

that the appropriation under the Weeks Bill was regarded by the
friends of the bill as a mere beginning, and that ultimately much more

should be given, but probably no one contemplated an expenditure of.

$1,000,000,000.** The Secretary of Agriculture estimated that there
were about 2,000,000 acres in the White Mountains and 75,000,000
acres in the southern Appalachians which should eventually receive
protection, which could probably be bought at an average price of
$6 per acre for the White Mountain region and $3.50 for the south-
ern Appalachians; but the secretary recommended the immediate
purchase of only 600,000 acres in the White Mountains and 5,000,-
000 in the southern Appalachians.*

It was foreseen that there was danger of speculators buying up
lands, and Representative Crumpacker of Indiana feared that the
government would have to pay high for all that it bought. This was a
very reasonable fear, but later developments seem to indicate that the
bill was wisely drawn as far as guarding against this was concerned.*°

While some men opposed the bill on the ground of its great cost,
Newlands of Nevada opposed because it was not comprehensive
enough. He showed how the bill was closely related to the waterways
bill and favored a comprehensive waterways bill to include forest
reserves in the East as one of its items. Newlands was, however, later
brought to favor the bill.*”

A final argument against the proposal embodied in the Weeks Bill
was that the states should buy their own forest reserves, as Pennsyl-
vania and New York and some of the other states had done.** In the
case of the White Mountains and Appalachian Mountains this was,
however, clearly impossible for two reasons. In the first place, the
proposition demanded more resources than any one state could com-
mand. It is true that the reserve in the White Mountains would have
cost little more than New York State was spending on her forest
reserve, but New Hampshire was a poor state, and even had that state
been rich enough to handle the proposition, the benefits, as far as
they related to streamflow, would have accrued to other states to the

44 Am. Forestry, Mar., 1911, 168.

45S. Doc. 91; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 32-37.

46 Cong. Rec., June 24, 1910, 9017.

47 Cong. Rec., June 25, 1910, 9049, 9051; Feb. 15, 1911, 2587-94, 2602.
48 Cong. Rec., June 24, 1910, 9020, 9021, 9025; Feb. 15, 1911, 2583-86.

: FOREST RESERVES IN THE EAST _ 217

~ south—Massachusetts and Connecticut. The southern Appalachian

"reserve was likewise too big a proposition for any single state, and
_ it was clearly impossible to get the states to combine in such a way
_ that the expense could be shared according to benefits.*®
__ If the protection of these forests had been assumed to benefit mainly

t by the preservation of the timber, the prevention of forest fires and

the stimulation of the summer resort business, there would have been
- much justice in leaving it to the states; but as far as the proposition
_ rested on the theory of stream conservation, it seemed more properly
a Federal function. At any rate, it was perfectly clear that if the
- forests were to be conserved, the Federal government must take
charge.

a INFLUENCES FAVORING ITS PASSAGE

Various influences favored the passage of the bill. In the first place,
_many of the influential government officials favored it. President Taft
_ approved of the proposal, just as McKinley and Roosevelt had ap-
_ proved of similar proposals before; and of course Secretary of Agri-
‘culture James Wilson and most of the officials in the Forest Service
_ and in the Geological Survey were favorably disposed.
Many influential organizations throughout the country registered
_ their approval of forest reserves in the Appalachian and White moun-
_ tains. Among these organizations were the following: the Adirondack
Murray Memorial Association, the American Civic League, the
American Cotton Manufacturers’ Association, the American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science, the American Forestry Associa-
, the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, the American
Baia) Newspaper Association, the American Paper and Pulp Asso-
ation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Appalachian
National Forest Association, the American Association for the Pre-
servation of the Adirondacks, the Daughters of the American Revo-
lution, the Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association, the
_ Irrigation Congresses of 1907, 1908, 1909, and 1910, the Massachu-
_ setts Forestry Association, the Merchants’ Association of New York,
the National Association of Carriage Builders, the National Asso-
ciation of Manufacturers, the National Association of Box Manu-
| 49S, Report 459; 60 Cong. 1 sess., pt. 2, 7.

218 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

facturers, the National Association of State University Presidents,
the National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, the National
Board of Trade, the National Forest Association (organized at
Atlanta, Georgia), the National Federation of Women’s Clubs, the
National Hardwood Lumber Association, the National Lumber Manu-
facturers’ Association, the National Slack Cooperage Manufacturers’
Association, the National Wholesale Lumber Dealers’ Association, the
Pennsylvania Lumbermen’s Association, the Pennsylvania Water
Supply Commission; and even the United States Hay Fever Associa-
tion. Favorable resolutions were also adopted by the Chambers of
Commerce of various cities; New York, Boston, Cleveland, Pitts-
burgh, and Los Angeles; and by the legislatures of several of the
states; North and South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee, and
Oregon.”°
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL

In the House, perhaps one of the strongest influences against the
bill was the attitude of Speaker Cannon and Chairman Scott of the
Committee on Agriculture. It had been repeatedly charged that it
was only the arbitrary rulings of the speaker that had prevented the
passage of some forest reserve bill long before this;°* and no doubt
his known opposition had great influence, especially since Chairman
Scott of the committee reporting the bill was in full sympathy with
him. In spite of all opposition, however, the bill passed the House on
June 24, 1910, by a vote of 130 to 111.”

50 Forestry and Irrigation, Jan., 1906, 23, 50; June, 1907, 304; July, 1907, 349;
Mar., 1908, 129: Conservation, Dec., 1908, 659; Mar., 1909, 177; July, 1909, 427:
American Forestry, Nov., 1910, 677; Mar., 1911, 187: S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess.,
172-179: S. Report 2537; 59 Cong. 1 sess., 9: S. Report 826; 61 Cong. 2 sess., 46:
Cong. Rec., Jan. 20, 1908, 907; Mar. 28, 1908, 4083; Feb. 11, 1909, 2241.

51 Forestry and Irrigation, Jan., 1907, 30; Apr., 1908, 178, 179, 190, 191: The
Independent, Jan. 3, 1907, 35: Conservation, Oct., 1908, 558; Jan., 1909, 60: Cong.
Rec., Jan. 29, 1907, 1910, 1911: Collier’s, Apr. 4, 1908, 9.

52 See large map accompanying.

Several features of this map are worthy of attention. In the first place, it
should be observed that the West cast a fairly solid vote against the bill. Several
of the central states—Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, and
Indiana—cast strong votes against the measure, largely no doubt because they
saw some of the “pork barrel” influences behind it, and perhaps because they felt
that legislation of this character could do their section little good. New England
cast practically a solid vote for the bill; and the Appalachian sections were gen-

FOREST RESERVES IN THE EAST 219

In the upper house, the opposition was led by Senator Burton of
a Ohio. Senator Burton, like Congressman Scott of the lower house,
_ and indeed like many members of both houses, was undoubtedly
_ actuated by the highest motives in his opposition to what he con-
a Eeminered, and with much justice, dangerous “pork barrel” legislation.
_ In the Senate, however, the uselessness of debate seems to have been
a Biacraily recognized, and after several amendments had been rejected,
y i the bill finally passed on February 15, 1911, by a vote of 57 to 9.

ANALYSIS OF THE FINAL VOTE

_ As might have been expected from the diversity of motives and
arguments entering into the consideration of the bill, the final vote
_ was not clearly drawn along any particular line of cleavage, and
__ cannot be explained as a mere division on the question of conservation.
_ That New England should cast a heavy vote for the measure was to
4 _ be expected, and it was not strange that the South should have fur-
- nished some favorable votes; but it seems rather strange that the
_ Senate, always the stronghold of the anti-conservation forces, should
_ have furnished the strongest majority for the bill. Only three years
_ before this, the Senate had taken away the President’s power to create:

reserves in the Pacific Northwest, and still later had shown a very

aggressive hostility to existing reserves. The Senate generally favored
_ the eastern reserves from the very first ; and even the western senators,
_ those from the Rocky Mountain and Pacific states, turned out almost
_ a solid vote in favor of the Weeks Bill. Clark of Wyoming was the
_ only man from this section to vote against the bill, although Heyburn
_ was paired against it. It is hard to explain the attitude of some of
_ the western senators toward this bill. One explanation suggested is
_ that these men thought if they could secure the creation of some
__ reserves in the East, they could make the East sick of the reservation
_ policy, and thus ultimately secure the abolition of the western re-

erally favorable. This was of course to be expected, sinee these were the sections

_ to be benefited by this legislation. The favorable vote of some of the prairie

states—South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas—was characteristic of the prairie

4 section. The vote of Wisconsin and Michigan may indicate a genuine interest in
- conservation, or it may indicate that the representatives of these states saw in the

x passage of the Weeks Bill the inauguration of a policy which might later be ex-
_ tended to the Lake states. Doubtless Wisconsin and Michigan would be glad to
__haye the Federal government step in and reforest some of their waste lands.

220 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

serves. It might easily be suspected that some of the western sena-
tors had been pacified with some sort of a political trade—a trade on
some irrigation scheme, or on the wool tariff, or on some one of a
dozen other things; but men who were in close touch with the pro-
ceedings in Congress have insisted that there was no political trade.
Perhaps it is more reasonable to assume that the western senators
felt they had no particular reason to oppose this measure since it
applied to another section of the country.”

The House vote and the Senate vote of certain sections of the
country differed widely. Thus, while in the Senate the Rocky Moun-
tain and Pacific states cast a strong vote for the bill, in the House
they voted three to one against it. So the southern states, while in the
Senate almost unanimous in favor of the bill, were in the House almost
equally balanced.

PROVISIONS OF THE WEEKS LAW

The Weeks Bill as finally passed®* appropriated $1,000,000 for the
current year and $2,000,000 each year thereafter until June, 1915,
for the purchase of forest lands in the southern Appalachian and
White mountains. The purchase of these lands was left to a commis-
sion—the National Forest Reservation Commission, consisting of the

53

SENATE VOTE ON THE WEEKS BILL

‘\

AFFIRMATIVE VOTE.
BB neesrive Vors 2}

OO) svares ft wiict NEITHER
SENATOR VoTED OR It WHICH THE, (Vote as mapped includes ;
YOTLD Off OPPOSITE SIIJES. pairs which could be ascertained)

Cong. Rec.; Feb. 15, 1911, 2602
54 Stat. 36, 961.

ie FOREST RESERVES IN THE EAST 221

_ Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
_ Agriculture, two members of the Senate, and two members of the
_ House. Most of the active work of examining and selecting lands for
_ purchase was, however, turned over to the Secretary of Agriculture.
In addition to these provisions, the Weeks Law gave Federal sanc-
__ tion to agreements the states might make among themselves for the
% _ protection of forests ; and appropriated $200,000 for fire protection,
in codperation with those states which were willing to appropriate an
_ amount equal to that furnished by the Federal government. A rather
_ generous provision gave to the states concerned 5 per cent of the
_ receipts from reserves situated within their boundaries, for the benefit
__ of schools and roads. This was later increased to 25 per cent.

LATER CHANGES

_____ The law had been in force only a short time when it became evident
_ that changes were needed. In the first place, it was found that the
_ commission had not wide enough discretion to deal effectively with
_ lands in which minerals had been reserved, or lands in which the stand-
_ ing timber had been sold but not cut. In other cases, it was found that
_ rights of way had been granted “across tracts of lands, and that
_ arrangement had to be made with the owner of the right before
_ purchase could be made.

__ Some desirable lands were offered for sale on which the water power
_ privileges were very valuable, and, while these lands could be ac-
_ quired at a reasonable price without the power privileges, the price
_ would have been prohibitive had a sufficient amount been added to
_ cover the value of the power. The law made no provision for the reser-
_ vation of water power, and apparently the only course was to elimi-
nate from the purchase such land as was required for the proper
_ development of the power. However, this greatly reduced the value to
_ the government of the remaining portions of such tracts, for it
admitted of a situation in which private ownership of a strip of land
_ along the narrow bed of a waterway might render it impossible to
_ remove any portion of the timber from the surrounding watershed.
_ The National Forest Reservation Commission wished the law to be
so modified as to allow the reservation of water power under its own
rules and regulations; and in 1913, this was provided for. At the same

222 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

time the commission was given greater discretion in dealing with lene
subject to mineral or timber reservations.”

That many owners would try to exact very high prices for their
land, was of course to be expected, particularly when they held land

which for any reason the commission was especially anxious to secure;

but the Attorney-General ruled that the commission had the power
under the act of August 1, 1888,°° to acquire tracts of lands by con-
demnation, and two years later the Federal District Court of New
Hampshire impliedly recognized the validity of this decision.”

RESULTS OF THE LAW
In the purchase of lands under the Weeks Law, the National Forest

Reservation Commission has proceeded cautiously. In the fiscal year

- 1911, it approved for purchase only 31,876 acres; in 1912, 255,822
acres; and in 1913, 425,717 acres. It was not until 1918 that the
entire annual appropriation was used. Of the total 1,501,857 acres
approved prior to June 80, 1917, 792,835 acres were cut-over or
culled timber land, and 384,195 acres were virgin timber land. The
average price paid was about $5 per acre, which would indicate that
the virgin timber was of decidedly poor quality. Most of the
land approved for purchase is situated in the Appalachian Moun-
tains; in Virginia, West Virginia, North and South Carolina, Geor-
gia, Alabama, and Tennessee; but nearly 350,000 acres has been
selected in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, and a sinall
amount in Maine. The passage of hostile legislation by the legislature
of Georgia in 1917 led the Reservation Commission to discontinue
purchases in that state until the legislation should be repealed.”

The results of the Weeks Law have thus been very modest, the total

approved for purchase being less than 1 per cent of the total forest

reserve area, but it seems probable that the ultimate results of the
policy it has inaugurated will be very important. There are several
reasons why private initiative cannot usually be depended upon to
undertake the reforestation of cut-over lands. In the first place, the

55 §. Doc. 137; 62 Cong. 2 sess., 2, 3: Stat. 37, 855.

56 Stat. 25, 357.

57 S. Doc. 137; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: U. S. vs. Certain Lands; 208 Fed. Rep., 429.

58 S. Doc. 137; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: S. Doc. 307; 63 Cong. 2 sess.: H. Doc. 564; 65
Cong. 2 sess.: Southern Lumberman, Dec. 15, 1917, 33.

FOREST RESERVES IN THE EAST 228

red for the growth of a forest crop is longer than most indi-
can or will wait for financial returns; in the second place,
er of fire makes such an investment somewhat risky; and in the
| place, in a few instances at least, an irrational system of taxa-
has | prevented private capital from engaging in this work. We

5 per acre land which was sold for less than half that amount,
way, or turned over to perjured entrymen; nevertheless, it

CHAPTER VII

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND SINCE THE PAS-
SAGE OF THE FOREST RESERVE ACT

Tue act of 1891, providing for the establishment of forest reserves, |

resulted in the separation of timber lands into two classes, reserved
and unreserved. The history of the reserved timber lands has been

traced ; and it will now be necessary to return to the consideration of —

the unreserved public lands. This will involve, in general, an account

of the Timber and Stone Act and the free timber acts, with some —
consideration of state activity in regard to forest conservation, and ~

some attention to the later developments regarding railroad land
grants.

THE TIMBER AND STONE ACT ONCE MORE

It will be remembered that the Timber and Stone Act proved a most
pernicious statute, and that, in response to repeated recommendations

for its repeal, Congress had, in 1892, merely extended its provisions

to all public land states.’

The early abuses under the act have already been described, and |
they were not different after 1892, except that they were no longer —
confined to the coast states. In a case brought to light near Duluth, ~
Minnesota, a certain timber speculator hired twenty-five entrymen —
to take up lands, furnishing them with all expense money, including —
$500 each for payment to the government. This timberman hired a ~
lawyer to instruct his entrymen as to how they should answer ques- —

tions, and paid the latter $50 each for their services.* In the Susan-
ville and Redding districts of California, a single investor, Thomas
B. Walker of Minneapolis, in the course of about three years, ac-
quired approximately 700,000 acres of the immensely valuable sugar

1 Cross Reference, pp. 70-78.
2 Olson vs. U. S.; 133 Fed. Rep., 1849, 1850, 1851.

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 225

Paine and western pine timber land, securing a large amount of it
"under the Timber and Stone Act.°

_ Trainloads of women school-teachers were officially reported to
_ have been shipped from Minnesota out to Oregon to enter lands under
_ this act. The lands entered were then transferred to a certain cor-
poration in Minneapolis, the organization of which was very peculiar
indeed. Only the president, C. A. Smith, a wealthy lumberman of
inneapolis, owned any stock; and the other officers in the corpora-
vice-president, secretary, and treasurer—were his wife, son, and
ghter, respectively. S. A. D. Puter, author of “Looters of the
blic Domain,” was Smith’s agent in securing much of his timber
d, but Puter became dissatisfied with the treatment he received,
d published the details of Smith’s transactions, with the result that
nith was indicted by the Federal government and some of his patents
ncelled.*

No residence or cultivation being required, it was easy for non-
ident timber speculators to secure title under the Timber and
one Act, and the amount of land taken up increased greatly during
e first few years of the twentieth century. This is shown by the
ol owing table, compiled from the reports of the Commissioner of the
y and Office :

_ Year No. Acres Year No. Acres5
1891 259,913 1902 545,253
1892 137,539 1903 1,765,222
1893 182,340 1904 1,306,261
1894 158,081 1905 696,677

— 1895 70,066 1906 647,997
~ 1896 66,182 1907 1,444,574 -
1897 40,609 1908 1,437,431
1898 60,955 1909 722,893
1899 59,019 1910 170,989
1900 300,019 1911 143,456
1901 396,445 1912 17,295

8 “Lumber Industry,” IT, 91.

4 Report, National Conservation Commission, III, 389: 181 Fed. Rep., 545: 196
a. Rep., 593. See also Williamson vs. U. S.; 207.U. S., 425: S. Doc. 189; 58 Cong.
4 | +» 26.

_ 5% The comparatively small amount of land taken up during the six years begin-

226 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

In thirty-five years of its operation, from 1878 to 1913, this act
resulted in the sale of over 12,000,000 acres of timber lands, the goy-
ernment receiving the sum of $30,000,000 for lands worth much
more than that, while most of the profit was divided among dishonest
timber speculators and perjured entrymen. Not over a fractional part
of 1 per cent of the timber purchased under the act is now held by
the men and women who made the entries.°

The evil effects of the law were repeatedly pointed out. In 1897,
the committee appointed by the National Academy of Sciences re-
ported: “The act has been used by corporations and wealthy individ-
uals to secure fraudulently . . . most of the valuable redwood lands
of the California coast region, and great bodies of the Sequoia and

sugar pine forests of the Sierra Nevadas, and much of the best timber —

lands on Puget Sound.’ In the same year, the Secretary of the Inte-
rior, C, N. Bliss, stated: “The calamitous results predicted and antici-

pated by the Land Department .. . have been fully verified and ©

realized.’ Four years later, Sessstarh Hitchcock announced that this
act, together with the Free Timber Act, would “result ultimately in
the complete destruction of. the timber on unappropriated and un-

ning with 1893 is doubtless explained by the depression following the crisis of 1893.
(S. Doc. 130; 57 Cong. 2 sess.) The very great increase beginning in the year 1900

was probably due mainly to the speculative boom in the purchase of timber lands — |

during these years. The value of timber lands was rising rapidly, and speculators
were picking up tracts in every way possible; and the Timber and Stone Act was
one of the cheapest means of acquiring timber lands in the West. Furthermore, it
seems at least possible, although at first blush very strange, that the energetic
administration during these years had something to do with the increase in Timber
and Stone entries. Timber lands had been fraudulently acquired, not only under

the Timber and Stone Act, but under the Commutation Homestead Law, the Forest —

Lieu Act, and in various other ways. Secretary Hitchcock had the will and the
funds to suppress frauds wherever possible, and it was possible to suppress, in
some measure, the abuses arising under most of these acts. For instance, an exami-
nation of the homestead entry would indicate its fitness or unfitness for agriculture,
and so reveal any attempt to get timber lands through a dishonest use of the

Homestead Act. Frauds under the Timber and Stone Act were, however, very —

difficult to prove, as has been shown in the case of United States vs. Budd (144
U. S., 154), and perhaps when the administration became so vigilant that the

Homestead and other laws were no longer available for the acquisition of timber —

lands, speculators were driven to use _ Timber and Stone Act even more than
before.

6 “Lumber Industry,” I, XVIII.

7S. Doc. 105; 55 Cong. 1 sess.

8 Report, Sec. of Int., 1897, XV.

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 227

erved public land.”® Almost every report of the Secretary of the
ior and of the Commissioner of the Land Office pointed out the
results of the act and asked for its repeal. Periodicals described
frauds perpetrated under the act and recommended its repeal.*°
e Public Lands Commission stated in 1904: “The repeal of the
aber and Stone Act will unquestionably cure the most obvious
act in the administration of the public lands”; and the next year
; commission again urged the repeal of the law.** In 1906, a com-
ee of the National Board of Trade quoted reports of the Secre-
ary of the Interior showing the evils of the act.” In 1909, the
ational Conservation Commission said: “It is clear that the Timber
Stone Act does not fulfill the purpose for which it was passed,
that it should be repealed.”** Of course the American Forestry
sociation constantly worked for the repeal of the act."
President Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot were well aware of the evils
f this law, and did all in their power to secure its repeal. In 1906,
osevelt sent a special message to Congress, calling attention to the
unsatisfactory condition of affairs, and on the same day, he directed
the Secretary of the Interior to allow no further patents to be issued
until entries had been carefully examined and actual compliance with
the law clearly shown.*® This action of course stirred up a great deal
»f opposition in the West, but Roosevelt stood firmly by his order,
nd called for an appropriation of $500,000 with which to carry it
18 President Taft also sent a special message to Congress in 1910,

2

isking for the repeal of this act.”

FURTHER EXTENSION OF ITS PROVISIONS

ie response of Congress to these urgent recommendations con-
es one of the numerous discreditable chapters in the history of

eport, Sec. of Int., 1901, LXV. In November, 1892, Hitchcock: ordered the
gation of all entries made under the act, in Oregon, California, and Wash-
|; and nearly 10,000 entries were suspended. (Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 316.)
Outlook, Feb. 1, 1908, 239: Atlantic Monthly, July, 1908, 6.

S. Doc. 189; 58 Cong. 3 sess., V, XVII.

2 Forestry and Irrigation, Jan., 1906, 49.

3S. Doc. 676; 60 Cong. 2 sess., Vol. I, 87.

14 Forestry and Irrigation, Jan. 1907, 14.

15S. Doc. 141; 59 Cong. 2 sess.

8S. Doc. 310; 59 Cong. 2 sess.

7 Cong. Rec., Jan. 17, 1910, 682.

228 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

the public lands. For many years, scarcely a single attempt was made

to abolish the law or to improve it in any way, while in almost every
Congress, bills were introduced to relieve purchasers,”* or to liberalize
and extend the provisions of the act.

The Timber and Stone Act originally applied only to unoffered
land in four of the states; and after the act had been extended to all
of the public land states, the most obvious next step was to make it

apply to offered as well as wnoffered land. Congress was not slow to

move in this direction. In the fifty-third Congress, in Cleveland’s
second administration, the House Committee on Public Lands intro-
duced a bill to authorize the sale of offered as well as unoffered lands,*®
and, in spite of the disapproval of the Secretary of the Interior and the
Commissioner of the Land Office, the bill passed both Houses of Con-
gress without a word of opposition.”® President Cleveland did not sign

it, but in the next Congress, Representative Lacey of Iowa brought.

up another bill of similar design.”* This time, Secretary Hoke Smith

and Commissioner Lamoreux approved the proposal, these two offi- —

cials having apparently experienced a change of heart in regard to
the Timber and Stone Act.” The bill was favorably reported by the
Committee on Public Lands, but got no further.

In the next Congress, a House bill introduced by McRae of Arkan-
sas, ““T'’o abolish the distinction between offered and unoffered lands,”
was favorably reported by the Committee on Public Lands, but re-
ceived no further consideration.” The object sought was accom-
plished during this session, however. Another bill, providing for the

18 §, 2275, H. R. 9790; 52 Cong. 2 sess.: H. R. 4726, H. R. 7259; 53 Cong. 2 sess.:
S. 1349, H. R. 14, H. R, 4065; 54 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 9923; 54 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 886;
55 Cong. 1 sess.

19 H. R..7259.

20 H. Report 988: Cong. Rec., July 24, 1894, 7834; Feb. 26, 1895, 2783.

21H. R. 4442; 54 Cong. 1 sess. Lacey’s attitude toward the Timber and Stone —
Act seems somewhat strange. On most other public land questions, particularly the —
question of forest reserves, he always took a firm stand for conservation. He could —
hardly have been ignorant of the gross abuses which had arisen under the Timber ~

and Stone Act, yet he made various attempts to extend its operation. It will be

noted later that he afterward changed his attitude, and tried to secure the repeal

of the act. (Cong. Rec., Dec. 5, 1905, 112.)
22 H. Report 137; 54 Cong. 1 sess.
23H. R. 5877, H. Report 130; 55 Cong. 2 sess.

a edith See)

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 229

e of public lands in Missouri,”* had passed the Senate, and when it
me up in the House, Lacey offered an amendment providing also
for the abolition of the distinction between offered and unoffered lands.
This amendment was agreed to in both houses without opposition, and,
Grover Cleveland being in the President’s chair, it became a law
| May 18, 1898.”
It might seem that the Timber and Stone Act had now been ex-
ded as far as the most enterprising timber speculator could have
ished, but during the next few years, Lacey made efforts to extend
e provisions of the act to Alaska.** In 1900, a bill for that purpose
s favorably reported by the House Committee on Public Lands ;”"
but nothing further was accomplished.
UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO REPEAL OR AMEND THE TIMBER
AND STONE ACT

a In 1900, Commissioner Binger Hermann sought to limit the evil
e ffects of the Timber and Stone Act by providing for the sale of timber
vith out the land, just as in the forest reserves. He drafted a bill for
s purpose and Hitchcock sent it to the i, rsa of the House, but
it was lost in the Committee on Public Lands.”
_ The first efforts to repeal the Timber and Stone Act were of course
1 de by eastern men. In 1902, Representative Power of Massachu-
a tts introduced a bill providing for the repeal of the act,”® but it was
ever reported. A Senate bill, introduced the same day by Quarles of
Wisconsin, to repeal the Timber and Stone and several other acts,
ared somewhat better, receiving a favorable report from the Com-
se on Public Lands.*° In this bill, the question of timber land sales
3 so intermingled with other public land questions, however, that the
report was of very limited significance as far as it concerned the
Timber and Stone Act; especially since a dissenting minority report
was also made.
248. 1586. |
e ie Cong. Rec., May 3, 1898, 4526; May 5, 1898, 4628: Stat. 30, 418.
26H. R. 9291; 56 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 12117; 57 Cong. 1 sess.
27 H. Report 568; 56 Cong. 1 sess.
28 H. Doc. 487; 56 Cong. 1 sess.

: veg R. 15509; 57 Cong. 2 sess.
_ 80S, 6363, S. Report, 3166.

fo

230° UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY ae

During the next two years, Quarles, and also Hansbrough of North
Dakota, made efforts to secure a law providing for the sale of timber —
without the land, but without success.*t This would of course have —
curtailed somewhat the operation of the Timber and Stone Act, —
although it would not have been equivalent to a repeal of the act. One
bill introduced by Quarles was favorably reported by the Committee —
on Public Lands,** and, the western men being pacified by an amend-
ment turning the proceeds of timber sales into the reclamation fund, ~
this bill passed the Senate without opposition. It was, however, never
considered in the House.**

The speeches which indicate most clearly the attitude of the Senate ~
toward the Timber and Stone Act, were made in the consideration of _
an omnibus public land bill, after the above measure of Quarles had
already passed the upper house. In 1904, Gibson of Montana intro-
duced a bill to repeal several public land laws, including the Timber —
and Stone Act, and the Timber and Stone section was discussed at —
considerable length.** Gibson himself, although a western man, spoke _
in no uncertain terms of the great evils which had arisen under the —
act.®*° “Although this act has been in force twenty-five years,” he said, _
“during which time the attention of Congress has been repeatedly —
called in the most urgent manner to the unlawful disposition of the pub-
lic timber lands made possible by it, the act still stands on the statute —
book, a monument to the wastefulness and the injustice of our national —
land policy.” Hansbrough agreed with Gibson as to the need of repeal,
but he feared that, unless another law were passed providing for the —
sale of timber, the repeal of the Timber and Stone Act would simply
be playing into the hands of big timber owners, who would find their ~
own holdings advanced: in value by the limitation of the supply of —
timber available for the market. Hansbrough even asserted that an —

31 §, 370, S. 932; 58 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 4916, S. 5054; 58 Cong. 2 sess.
32 §. Report 1535; 58 Cong. 2 sess. g
38 Cong. Rec., Mar. 17, 1904, 3376. It has been stated that Thomas B. Walker
appeared before the House Committee on Public Lands, and that as a result of his
influence only two members of the committee voted for the bill. Walker, it will be
remembered, used the Timber and Stone Act a great deal in the acquisition of
lands, and no doubt was opposed to any repeal of the law or any provision which ~~
would interfere with its use. (Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, Jan. 1905, 339.)
34 §. 5168; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 4
35 Cong. Rec., Mar. 24, 1904, 3606.

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 231

_ organization of the lumber interests, with headquarters in Washing-
r ton, was working hard for the repeal of the law.** Dubois of Idaho
feared that the scrip holders would be the chief beneficiaries of a repeal
of some of the land laws. As he explained: “The great trouble with us
in the West is not the land laws. The great difficulty that we encounter
; now is the scripping of land. . Almost all of this scrip is owned
by the railroad corporations. The difficulty that we encounter is the
q _ danger from the scripping of these lands by the railroad corporations
_ or by people who buy the scrip from them. . . . I am suspicious
_ sometimes that the owners of this scrip are asia for the repeal of
_ these beneficent land laws. It is apparent that if all the land laws,
' except the homestead, were repealed and the commutation clause of the
Homestead Act done away with, the scrip would become vastly more
_ yaluable.” Without a doubt Dubois was honest, and even fairly accu-
_ rate, in his description of the scrip situation in the West.

__ Newlands of Nevada favored the repeal of the act,** although he
_ devoted most of his attention to the matter of irrigation. Clark of
_ Wyoming was very desirous that nothing should be done to “interfere
_ with the development of the West”; and, like Dubois, he declared that
| _an insistent lobby of scrip holders was the main influence behind the

__ bill.** “Never in the history of public land legislation,” he asserted,

_ “has there been such a determined and such an insistent lobby as has
been behind this proposition for the last three years to repeal the
_ land laws of the United States. It is no secret that they have a bureau
_ established here in this city for that purpose. It is no secret that they
maintain a weekly organ of publication devoted to this and to this
i ~ alone. It is no secret that one of the greatest of these holders boasted
_ in a public speech at a banquet within the last two months that his
% _ company alone had contributed $25,000 to this propaganda.” Like
_ Newlands, Clark was more interested in other matters than in the
Timber and Stone Act, but he evidently did not favor its repeal.
, WD occator Warren opposed absolute repeal of the act unless some other
4 law were passed, permitting the sale of timber.*®

86 Cong. Rec., Mar. 25, 3662, 3663, 3665, 3666.

87 Ibid., 3668, 3669.

i, 38 Ibid., Mar. 31, 4032.

_ «89 Tbid., Apr. 2, 4144. During these discussions frequent reference was made, by

232 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

It thus appeared that, while a few of the western men actively
opposed the repeal of the Timber and Stone Act, others asserted that
they were merely opposed to repeal unless another law for the sale of
timber could be secured in its place. But most of the men, even in the
latter class, probably did not want the act repealed, because they
could never have been persuaded to vote for a general timber sale law
to take its place. That had been demonstrated in Congress over and
over again. Whenever a timber sale bill came up, most of the western
men began to talk about the injustice that would be done to the “poor
settlers” and miners, if they had to buy the timber they wanted.
Furthermore, many of the men, even from other sections of the coun-
try, had shown entire inability to see the logic of selling the timber
without the land. Thus there was little likelihood that Congress would
provide for the sale of timber in the public domain, and therefore little
g tees that any considerable number of western men could be |
* brought to favor the repeal-of the Timber and Stone Act. No doubt
if the issue had been presented squarely, it would have been strongly
opposed by such men as Teller, Clark, and Fulton, and it is hardly
likely that it would have received a favorable vote. It is true that the
bill introduced by Quarles, accomplishing somewhat the same end,
had passed the Senate, but in that case the sop of an addition to the ©
reclamation fund had been used to secure the support of the West.

a sil, ls
Pees LU

Tl pel me ad 9 a oe ne al G

—

Ey Bae

Hansbrough and others, to the good old days when Teller was Secretary of the
Interior, and to the later administration of Cornelius N. Bliss; and it was stated
that Teller was the only secretary in many years who “knew anything about the
public land system from practical experiences,” while Bliss was referred to as a
“great executive officer” who never became “hysterical over alleged land frauds.”
The inference was, of course, that Hitchcock was hysterical in his enforcement of
the land laws. Hitchcock was doing some of his best work in the prosecution of land
and timber thieves at this time, and these criticisms were wholly baseless. It seems
that throughout the history of the public lands, the honesty and efficiency of offi-
cials in the Land Department were in no way so accurately indicated as by the
amount of criticism they received at the hands of politicians from the West. As
Pinchot once expressed it: “It is the honorable distinction of the Forest Service
that it has been more constantly, more violently and more bitterly attacked by the
representatives of the special interests in recent years than any other government
bureau. The attacks have increased in violence and bitterness just in proportion as

the service has offered effective opposition to predatory wealth. The more success-

ful we have been in preventing land grabbing and the absorption of water power

by the special interests, the more ingenious, the more devious, and the more
dangerous these attacks have become.” (Cong. Rec., Jan. 6, 1910, 336.)

Ae een, eas a ee

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 233

Perhaps, after all, it is not so important to speculate upon what
might have happened, as it is to note what really did happen. After
several days of debate, the bill was referred to the Committee on
ablic Lands, and it never emerged from that committee.*®

THE SUSPENSION OF TIMBER AND STONE ENTRIES IN 1906

For several years, there seemed to be very little interest in the
mber and Stone Act. In 1905, Lacey, who had changed his mind in
gard to this act, brought in a bill for its repeal, but the bill was
never reported.** In 1906, the action of Roosevelt and Hitchcock in
‘suspending the issue of all patents under this and other public land
laws,** immediately aroused a spirited discussion in Congress. In
January, 1907, Senator Carter of Montana introduced a resolution
to the Senate to compel the issue of patents in all cases where there
s no evidence of fraud,** and somewhat later made a long and stir-
y speech against the “harsh, cruel and oppressive” order of the
secretary, and against Hitchcock personally. “For the last six years
‘sensational reports of evil doings in the public land states have been
emanating from the Interior Department from day to day, so sweep-
g in their scope as to create the impression in other sections that
e entire western population is, and has been, engaged in a veritable
turnalia of criminal conspiracy, fraud, and perjury, over the whole
broad surface of the public domain,” said Carter. “Since 1901 insidi-
‘interviews and boisterous proclamations have passed from the
rior Department to the public press, reflecting upon all those
ing title to the public domain. The words ‘grafters,’ ‘land grab-
,” ‘conspirators,’ ‘looters of the public domain,’ and like terms
e become a part of the vernacular of the secretary’s office in refer-
to public land entrymen of all kinds. The routine work of the
d Service has been pillaged in quest of items for publication, re-
flecting on individuals and communities. The slightest irregularity
savoring of scandal or possible sensation has been diligently ex-
ploited. . . . Everyone was indicted and no acquittals were ever

tate
40 Cong. Rec., Apr. 12, 1904, 4672.
_ 41H, R. 3019; 59 Cong. 1 sess.
'S. Doc. 141; 59 Cong. 2 sess.
Cong. Rec., Jan. 9, 1907, 804.

234 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

recorded in these scandalous reports. The exploitation of evil reports —
has been a conspicuous feature of the present secretary’s administra- |
tion. Fraud has been constantly and vociferously shouted from the
house tops. . . . On the assumption that our settlers are land thieves
in the main, the most odious, oppressive, and exasperating treatment
has been meted out to them in numerous cases for the last five or six —
years. . . . Should some morbid delinquent pay nightly visits to the —
dens of vice and make morning calls at the police courts in all your

splendid eastern cities, and then announce to the world from day to it
day with loud acclaim, that crime and moral leprosy overwhelmed you 4
all, he would, at his pitiable best, play in your field the part the Sec- Q
retary of the Interior and his cohorts have played as regards the —
_people of the public land states for the last six years.” a

Carter laid the entire responsibility for the “indefensible” order —
upon Secretary Hitchcock rather than upon Roosevelt, who “had j
been deceived and alarmed” by the reports of the secretary. “The

Pa

President and all others misled by the crusade of misrepresentation,”
he declared, “are clearly free from responsibility.” a

Later the same day, Heyburn arose in the Senate and undertook —
to show by a citation of authorities that the President had no legal ©
power to issue the order staying the issue of patents, and to prove —
further that the President’s concern at the “extremely unsatisfactory _
condition of the public land laws”** was without foundation. “Those ;
laws are older than the public experience of any man in this —
body,” he said.** “There is slight ground for complaining of the land —
laws. There never was a more perfect system of settlement, the build- ~
ing up of states, conceived by mortal man than is embodied in these ~
land laws.” This of course referred to the land laws generally, but —
Heyburn specifically approved of the Timber and Stone Act, although ~
he considered that the 160 acres which could be taken up under its —
provisions was too much.** “-

Senator Heyburn was not contented with discussing the issues ;

44 Cong. Rec., Jan. 30, 1907, 1934 et seq. Carter, like Heyburn at other times, —
even entered the field of magazine writing in his fight against the reserves. 3
(Independent, 60, 667: Leslie’s Weekly, Oct. 27, 1910.)

45S. Doc. 141; 59 Cong. 2 sess.

46 Cong. Rec., ‘Jan. 30, 1907, 1960.

47 Ibid., 2019.

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 235

- involved, but wandered off into a criticism of the “vicious system of
_ forest reserves,”*® and fell into some rather obvious inconsistencies in
F that discussion. He made much fun of the National Forestry Asso-
_ ciation, asserting that a vice-president of that organization (Fred-
erick Weyerhaeuser) owned more land that ‘had been obtained by
_ fraud than any other man in the United States.” At this point, Smoot

oe Utah suggested that such holdings as Weyerhaeuser’s were impos-
sible where forest reserves had been established, and Newlands pre-

dicted that if the timber lands in forest reserves were ever thrown open

» entry under the Timber and Stone Act, they would very soon, be
t -aken up by wealthy timbermen. Unquestionably the result which
, =a foresaw would have followed the opening up of the forest
__ reserves, but Heyburn denied it. He said that if the Timber and Stone
_ Act were enforced, as it “easily could be,” fraud and concentration of
ownership would not follow.

At almost every point, Heyburn, like Fulton, Carter, Mondell,
; _ ‘Teller, and some other western anti-conservationists on similar occa-
_ sions, took about the most illogical attitude possible.®® He affected a
3 B great antipathy for the great lumber monopolies, and yet, on almost
every question, he played into their hands. Had his views always pre-
yailed, there is no doubt that practically all of the timber lands of
_ the West would now be in the hands of large timber companies. The
_ preservation of a portion of the public timber lands from the grasp of
_ speculators and timber companies has been due to two things: the
_ creation of the forest reserves, and the enforcement of the public land
laws. To both of these, Heyburn was unalterably opposed. He never
- missed an opportunity to attack the forest reserves, and when Roose-
_ yelt and Hitchcock began a vigorous enforcement of the land laws,
_ Heyburn immediately flew to arms. On the other hand, one of the best
_ tools in the hands of the timber companies was the Timber and Stone
:: Act. Heyburn approved of that act. It is true that he opposed the
Forest Lieu Act, a really injurious statute, but instead of directing
48 Cong. Rec., Jan. 30, 1907, 2021.

49 Tbid., 2200.

50 For an exposition of Heyburn’s methods in debate, see Forestry and Irriga-
tion, Aug., 1908, 445-447. It has been asserted that he did not have the support even

_ of the press in his own section of the country, but it is doubtful if this is true.
ee retry and eration Sept., 1906, 394.)

236 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

his efforts toward the repeal of the act itself, he aimed most of his
venom at the forest reserves.

No doubt Roosevelt’s order of withdrawal and the opposition
aroused by it were among the influences which caused the abolition of
the President’s power to set aside reserves, but otherwise no result
accrued from these rather extended debates. The Timber and Stone
Act was not touched.”

Within a year or two after this, almost all of the public timber
lands of any value outside of the forest reserves had been taken up,”
so that the question of repealing the Timber and Stone Act was of
small and constantly decreasing importance. Most of the efforts in
that direction did not seek repeal of the act itself, but merely aimed
to provide for the sale of timber without the land. Representative
Reeder of Kansas introduced a bill in 1908 for this purpose, but the
main object of his measure, as of the bill which had passed the Senate
several years before,** was not to protect the public timber lands, but
to secure an addition to the reclamation fund.** In 1910, Senator
Nelson of Minnesota, in response to a special message from President
Taft, introduced nine bills relating to the public land laws, one of them
providing for the sale of timber,” but nothing ever came of this bill.
Gronna of North Dakota introduced a similar measure into the House,
and later one into the Senate, but neither was reported.”

SALE OF BURNED TIMBER

In 1910, the question of timber sales came before Congress in a new
way. The summer of 1910 was very hot and dry, and terrible forest

51 It is worthy of note that Roosevelt did not hide behind his secretary on this
occasion, but took upon himself the responsibility of defending the order of with-
drawal and the general policy of the administration. “I wish to express my utter
and complete dissent from the statements that have been made as-to there being
but a minimum of fraud in the actual working of our present land laws,” he said
in a special message to Congress a few days after these debates. He went further
to show by tables that in four districts selected for consideration, 2300 cases had
been examined and in over half of them the law had not been complied with.
(S. Doc. 310; 59 Cong. 2 sess.)

52 Report, Land Office, 1909, 21.

53 S. 5054; 58 Cong. 2 sess.

54H. R. 21140; 60 Cong. 1 sess.

55 S. 5489; 61 Cong. 2 sess.

56 H. R. 23698; 61 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 1586; 62 Cong. 1 sess.

i eta c E | T — ll, A \ E ti

Ce a i

"
h.
‘

Ww
‘

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 237

_ fires in the West burned over vast areas of timber land. The burned

timber would of course only rot if not disposed of, and agitation soon
_ arose for a law permitting the sale of such timber. Bills were brought
_ into Congress by several representatives from the public land states—
_ Mondell, Pray of Montana, and Robinson of Arkansas ; and in 1913,
after the burned timber had been given time to rot, a law was finally
secured authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to sell at public
auction any timber outside of the national forests killed or damaged
by forest fires.°* This is as far as Congress ever went in the sale of
timber on the general public domain. The Timber and Stone Act is
still on the Federal statute books; and the Secretary of the Interior
reported 575 timber and stone entries patented in 1916.

TIMBER SALES WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION

Congress thus never authorized the sale of timber, except burned
timber, on the unreserved lands ;°° but in 1898, the Department of the
Interior attempted such sales, under the Permit Act of 1891.°° The
_ Permit Act merely authorized the issue of free timber permits, under
such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior should provide.” A
_ “regulation” requiring payment for this “free” timber seems hardly
included within the meaning of the law, yet the secretary acted on the
_ theory that this was permissible, and a few small sales were made.”
_ After two or three years’ experience with this system, however, the
department awakened to the ultra vires character of the business, and
_ the regulation providing for sales was repealed.”

Thus the history of the Timber and Stone Act after 1891 was in
almost every respect like the history of that act in the previous period.
_ It was a means of gross frauds, resulting in the concentration of tim-
_ ber ownership in the hands of speculators and large timber companies ;
_ its iniquitous effects were constantly brought to the attention of Con-
_ gress, and Congress, in response to repeated recommendations for its
57 H. R. 29711; 61 Cong. 3 sess.: H. R. 8783, H. R. 4695, H. R. 11475; 62 Cong.
Isess.: H. R. 24266; 62 Cong. 2 sess.

58 Stat. 37, 1015.

59 See however, Stat. 30, 414.

60 “Land Decisions,” 26, 399, 404.
61 Stat. 26, 1093, 1094.

62 Reports, Land Office; 1898, 101; 1899, 127; 1900, 107.
63 Report, Land Office, 1901, 98.

238 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

repeal, merely extended its evil provisions. It will now be necessary to — ;
return to the consideration of the free timber acts, and follow out

their history after 1891.

THE FREE TIMBER ACTS AGAIN

It will be recalled that, in the General Revision Act of 1891, Ean
gress had left the Free Timber Act of 1878 untouched, and had passed
another more generous free timber act, known as the Permit Act,
which provided free timber on the entire public domain, in Colorado,
Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska,
and the gold and silver regions of Nevada and Utah, not only for min-
ing, agricultural, and domestic purposes, but also for manufactur-
ing.°* Thus after 1891, there were two acts providing free timber on
the public domain.

In the years after 1891, just as before, the Free Timber Act of

1878 continued to serve as the means whereby large corporations, .

lumber dealers, and railroad contractors cut timber for all sorts of
purposes. The evils arising under the law would not have been very
serious had it been possible to confine the cutting to mineral lands;
but lumbermen, and even courts and juries, naturally showed a ten-
dency to construe the law very liberally. The true interpretation, as

already pointed out, limited the application of the act to land con-

taining mineral in sufficient quantity to “justify expenditure for its
extraction, and known to be so.”*° The bias of some of the western
courts is well illustrated by the instructions given a jury in an Idaho

case ten years after the Supreme Court of the United States an- —
nounced the true interpretation. The Idaho court construed the act

to allow the cutting of “all timber in the neighborhood of mines, or

within such distances from them as to make it convenient for their use, ©

whether mineral is actually found in the ground or not.” These
instructions also included as mineral “all ground or country of such
character, and so situated with reference to other lands known to

contain mines, that miners would prospect it with the expectation of
finding mines.”** Such a construction as this was a license to cut —

practically all of the unreserved timber in the vicinity.

64 Stat. 26, 1093, 1099. Cross Reference, pp. 68-70.
65 Davis vs. Weibold; 139 U. S., 507, 519.
66 Quoted in Report, Land Office, 1901, 97.

oe eee i ea = Tee i oe re
rr) See su Gan ee ertliing: spo Shwe Be ees

rl ee mee
eoheniein de kee

ae

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 239

any examples might be given to show the extent of the abuses
er this act. The Old Dominion Copper Mining and Smelting Com-
pany of Arizona, for instance, cut several million feet of lumber in
1900 and 1901 from land never proved to be mineral.” A company in
- the Black Hills of South Dakota built and for years operated a rail-
way extending nearly forty miles into the public domain, for the pur-
se of bringing lumber and fuel to its mines, from land never shown
be mineral; and, according to reports, shipped millions of feet of
nber to Omaha for sale there.** It has been claimed that, owing to a
Tule of the Department of the Interior granting permits to cut dead
| and down timber, large areas were burned over year after year in
order to kill the timber, that railroads followed the paths of such
“fires, building merely to accommodate the traffic in burned timber;
; that sawmills were built and a supply of material provided for them
by systematic burning.”
_ The Permit Act was at first perhaps even more destructive in its
d ffects than the Free Timber Act, because its provisions were more
z 2 Be ragently liberal. By allowing free timber for manufacturing pur-
¥ poses, it practically gave away, subject to the regulations of the Sec-
Eietery of the Interior, for all purposes except export, as much lumber
_as anyone happened to want to take. In the first six years of its opera-
a nearly 300 permits were issued, granting to mining and lumber
panies about 300,000,000 feet of lumber. Some of the grantees—
tably the Big Blackfoot Milling Company, the Bitter Root Devel-
ypment Company, and the Anaconda Mining Company—secured per-
ts at different times to cut many million feet."® The Anaconda Min-
ng ng Company for years consumed an annual average of probably more
an 250,000 cords of wood and 40,000,000 feet of lumber, and sup-
ay! pli not only its mines and smelters with timber cut from the public
lands, but established lumber yards in different towns, where not less
than 50,000,000 feet of timber was sold annually.” Part of this timber
as secured under the provisions of the Permit Act.

67 Quoted in Report, Land Office, 1901, 97, 98.
lahad S. Doc., 105; 55 Cong. 1 sess.
_ 9 Proceedings, Society of Am. Foresters, Nov., 1905, 59.
P 0 Report, Land Office, 1897, 76.

_ 71 Ibid., 77. In 1900, the Secretary of the Interior adopted regulations prohibit-
ig the use of free timber for smelting purposes. (“Land Decisions,” 29, 571, 572.)

240 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

The clause providing for regulation by the Secretary of the Inte- — |
rior seems to have been of little avail at first, but in 1898, Secretary

Bliss adopted regulations which greatly restricted the abuses arising
under the law. The policy of granting permits to millmen for large

quantities of timber was abandoned, permits were restricted to the —
_use of settlers, and the amount of timber given was limited to $100
worth annually.” This policy immediately resulted in a great reduc-

tion in the number of permits sought. Thus in 1898, only thirty-six

permits were asked for, whereas six years before, 425 applications had 4 .

been received.”*

The two free timber acts together always constituted an agency
most destructive of the public timber, however, and their evil effects —
were pointed out by the officers of the Department of the Interior, by ~
the committee of the National Academy of Sciences,’* and in 1910,

by President Taft in a special message to Congress.’® Almost every

annual report of the Secretary of the Interior and of the Commis-
sioner of the Land Office called for the modification or repeal of one —

or both of these acts. The response of Congress to these repeated

complaints and recommendations was about the same as had been its —

response to complaints regarding the Timber and Stone Act.

FURTHER EXTENSION OF FREE TIMBER PRIVILEGES

A total repeal of all free timber privileges was hardly to be ex- 4
pected, or even desired, for the free timber acts provided the only way —
by which settlers could get timber from the unreserved public lands. A
repeal of all such provisions would have called for some law authoriz- —
ing the sale of timber; and even had sale been authorized, it would ~
probably have been unwise to abolish all free timber privileges. Such

action would certainly have aroused great opposition in the West, and

the conservation cause might have suffered a serious check. The pro- —

vision granting free timber for manufacturing purposes, however,
should certainly have been abolished. The fact that Secretary Bliss’
regulations of 1898, restricting permits to settlers, resulted in so

72 Report, Land Office, 1898, 100, 101.

73 Report, Land. Office; 1893, 77; 1895, 85; 1898, 100.
74S. Doc., 105; 55 Cong. 1 sess. —

75 Cong. Rec., Jan. 17, 1910, 682.

J Paar peel
Pe ae ee ee ee

iat
aie = "|

Ee ae ee Sees

he
We

| tig
+5
. 7
|
34
+
&
oe’ |
j
H

a THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 241

"greatly reducing the number of applications, indicates that settlers
_ were not the main beneficiaries under the free timber acts.
_ The Permit Act of 1891 had not been in operation a year before
4 aertain members of Congress undertook to extend its provisions to
other states, and in April, 1892, Delegate Smith of Arizona brought
- in a bill to extend the provisions of the act to Arizona and New Mex-
ico." This bill was favorably reported in the House, passed both
houses without a word of opposition, and was signed by President
- Harrison.” In the next year, Senator Squire of Washington intro-
q duced a bill extending the Free Timber Act to eastern Oregon, but it
_ was not reported.”* In 1894, Representative Houk of Tennessee intro-
_ duced another free timber act, applying to the entire public domain,
but it also failed in committee.”® For several years, the question re-
ceived little attention, but in 1900, an effort was made in both houses
_ of Congress to secure free timber for the coast states by means of an
extension of the Permit Act. Moody of Oregon introduced the meas-
ure into the House, and Senator Simon of the same state brought it
up in the Senate.*® The House bill was never reported, but the Senate
“bill passed both houses without opposition,** and became a law on
- March 8, 1901.*
It was the Oregon delegation in Congress that was always most
anxious for the further extension of free timber privileges. Nearly all
_ of the bills introduced after the year 1900 were fathered by men from
that state; and the extension of the Permit Act in 1901 was. not
enough to satisfy these men, for efforts were very soon resumed to
secure still further free timber privileges for the coast states. In
1903, Representative Williamson of Oregon introduced two bills to
amend the Free Timber Act.** The next year, Senator Mitchell of that
state brought up a bill to provide free timber for Oregon, Washington,
_and California.“ Senator Fulton reported it favorably from the Com-
16H, R, $268; 52 Cong. 1 sess.
_ 7H, Report 1379; 52 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 8268; 52 Cong. 2 sess.: Stat. 27, 444.
_ 78S. 612; 53 Cong. 1 sess.
_ 19H, R. 7818; 53 Cong. 2 sess.: Cong. Rec., Vol. 26, p. 8328.
80H. R. 8065, S. 2866; 56 Cong. 1 sess.
_ 81Cong. Rec., Mar. 19, 1900, 3036; Mar. 2, 1901, 3481.
82 Stat. 31, 1436.

# 83 H. R. 8143, H. R. 8144; 58 Cong. 2 sess.
oe, e+ S. 2994; 58 Cong. 2 sess.

242 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

mittee on Public Lands, and it passed the Senate without comment,*”
but never came up in the House. The next year, Senator Fulton in
duced a bill into the Senate to extend the Free Timber Act to '
coast states, but it was never considered.** From 1905 to the present
time, little effort has ever been made to secure a further extension of
free timber privileges. a
UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO CURTAIL FREE TIMBER ~

PRIVILEGES

It seems strange that while extension of free timber acts was thins” 4
secured in every case without any opposition or comment, several bills —
were introduced into Congress to restrict the provisions of these very E
acts. In 1894, Representative McRae of Arkansas introduced a bill ©
“To prevent the free use of timber on the public lands, and to revoke ~
all permits heretofore granted.”*" This bill, amended so as to ‘abolish —
only the provision allowing free timber for manufacturing Purposes,
was favorably reported by the House Committee on Public Lands,* —
and in spite of the opposition of Coffeen of Wyoming and Bell of ~
Colorado, who saw in it great hardship for the millmen, passed the
House.*® It never came up in the Senate, however. For several years, —
McRae made persistent attempts to secure some modification of the —
free timber acts, but without success.°? On March 2, 1900, Secretary
Hitchcock sent a bill to the Speaker of the House and to the President -
of the Senate,’ but it was not reported in either chamber. The next ©
year, Jenkins of Wisconsin introduced a bill of similar nature, which 3
likewise failed of a report.” ‘
The question of free timber received no attention for nearly ten q
years after this, and when, at the request of President Taft in 1910,
Senator Nelson brought in a bill to regulate timber disposal,”® almost —
all of the timber of unreserved lands was gone, and the failure of this

85 §. Report 1364; Cong. Rec., Apr. 19, 1904, 5080.

86 S, 268; 59 Cong. 1 sess. ;

87 H. R..7854; 53 Cong. 2 sess.

88 H. Report 1400.

89 Cong. Rec., Dec. 5, 1894, 52-57. ; 4

90 H. R. 40; 54 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 4090, H. R. 10878; 55 Cony 2 SESS. : H. R. -
1032; 56 Cong. 1 sess.

91H. R. 10405, S. 3498; 56 Cong. 1 sess.

92H. R. 4371; 57 Cong. 1 sess. f

93 S. 5489; 61 Cong. 2 sess.

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 243

bill was not of very serious consequence. The two free timber acts,
3 like the Timber and Stone Act, had outlived the forests which it was
_ their function to destroy, and, like the Timber and Stone Act, they
are both on the statute books today, reminders of a discreditable
_ chapter in the congressional history of the public lands.

J.

CONSERVATION ACTIVITY IN CONGRESS: INCREASING
APPROPRIATIONS FOR TIMBER PROTECTION

a /

Congress did not in all ways do as badly as in regard to the

_ Timber and Stone and the free’ timber acts. During the same time

that the provisions of these acts were being extended, some real

_ advances were made in other directions. In the first place, appropria-

_ tions for the prevention of timber depredations and fraudulent entries,

_ although during several years considerably reduced, were ultimately
4 apreatly increased, as the following table clearly shows:

Year Appropriation Year Appropriation®4
ee 1891 ~=$ 120,000 1904 $ 250,000
a 1892 120,000 1905 250,000
= 1893 140,000 1906 250,000
1894 60,000 1907 250,000
1895 90,000 1908 500,000
1896 90,000 1909 1,000,000
1897 90,000 1910 750,000
1898 110,000 1911 650,000
1899 110,000 1912 500,000
et i, 1900 125,000 1913 500,000
E>, 1901 125,000 1914 475,000
% 1902 150,000 1915 475,000
1903 ' 185,000 1916 475,000

_ Previous to 1896 or 1897, protection against timber deaeciattous
was always somewhat ineffectual. The committee of the National

_ Compiled from the Statutes at Large. These figures do not include deficiency
ay ppropriations, of which there were several during this time. The decrease of appro-
riations in 1893 was due, perhaps partly to Democratic economy, and partly to the
crisis of that year, which greatly reduced the demand for land and timber and so
_ permitted a reduction in the fund for protection. The increase in appropriations
‘in later years was certainly due in considerable measure to the influence of
Roosevelt, Hitchcock, and Pinchot.

244 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Academy of Sciences estimated in 1897 that in the preceding decade —
over 11,000,000,000 feet of timber had been illegally taken from the ~
public domain,” and the committee gave figures showing that during —
that time the government sued for over $26,000,000 and recovered —
something over $1,000,000—about 4 per cent of the amount sued for. —

In the late nineties and thereafter, however, a considerable increase —
in efficiency is indicated. Thus, in 1895, a total of about $47,000 —
was recovered for timber trespasses,®° while in the next year, over —
$182,000 was recovered. In 1909, with the appropriation of $1,000,- _
000, 216 special agents were employed, and nearly $350,000 was —
recovered for various acts of fraud and trespass.” In 1911, 386 civil —
suits were instituted for frauds and trespass, largely on timber lands,
and of these, 304 were won, while 124 criminal convictions were —
secured, and 47 prison sentences imposed.” It is not to be supposed —
that the greater number of cases reported, suits instituted, and the ~
greater amount of money recovered, in later years, was due to a —
greater amount of fraud and trespass committed, for without doubt —
land frauds decreased pretty generally throughout the period under —
consideration. The larger appropriations were resulting in more effi- —
cient enforcement of the laws; and then, of course, Hitchcock, Pinchot, —
and Roosevelt injected a new spirit into public land administration. ~

OTHER HELPFUL LEGISLATION

Congress did more than merely appropriate money. In the first —
place, as pointed out in connection with the forest reserves, a law was —
passed in 1897 imposing a heavy penalty for setting out fires on the
public domain.® This law was secured, it may be noted, in spite of the
opposition of Congressman Bailey of Texas and Little of Arkansas,
Bailey being opposed to the heavy penalty—a fine of not more than _
$5000, or imprisonment for not over two years—while Little opposed —

?
hee
wit 5

95 S. Doe. 105; 55 Cong. 1 sess., 33, 34. George F. Schwartz, of the United States ~
Forest Service, estimated in 1909 that the government prosecutions then pending ~
involved a total value of over $114,000,000. (Report, National Conservation Com-—
mission, II, 396-399.)

96S. Doc. 105; 55 Cong. 1 sess., 33, 34.

97 Report, Land Office, 1912, 11. .

98 Ibid.

99 Stat. 29, 594.

be

Saber, od

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 245

deral jurisdiction in such matters.**° The amendment of this law in
- 1900 has been discussed in the preceding chapter.’"* The laws of 1897
and 1900 applied to reserved and unreserved lands alike.

4 In 1906, a law was passed forbidding the boxing of trees on the
i: public domain to get pitch, turpentine, etc.*** This of course applied
_ mainly to the southern states, where the lack of such a law had
i: already resulted in the destruction of great forests of yellow pine.
_In yet another matter, Congress voted for conservation, by passing,
in 1908, a law permitting registers and receivers to compel the attend-
q ance of needed witnesses.*** Such a law had been needed by the depart-
_ ment for nearly twenty years, and even when finally secured, it was
‘somewhat defective in not permitting the registers also to require
witnesses to produce papers, books, and documents ;*** yet it was of
considerable value in the enforcement of the public land laws.

_ Several much needed laws have never yet been secured from Con-
gress. The great timber frauds of 1908, 1904, and 1905 brought out
_ prominently the need for a law specifically providing for the punish-
ment of persons who fraudulently obtained, or’ attempted to obtain,
title to public lands. Many of the indictments in the Oregon frauds
were for conspiracy to defraud the government; and conspiracy was
often difficult to prove, even where the facts clearly showed fraud. In
1905, Commissioner Richards sent to Congress a bill providing a
heavy fine for any attempt to gain title fraudulently, with the urgent
request that it be passed; but nothing was ever done with it,** and no
such law has ever been passed.

_ Another item of legislation which has been much needed is an amend-
ment of the law regarding perjury. Section 5392 of the Revised Stat-
utes provided that every person falsely swearing under an oath admin-

+100 Cong. Rec., June 10, 1896, 6395, 6396. An interesting forest fire measure was
introduced about this time by Shafroth of Colorado, providing for the clearance
of fire lanes 1000 feet wide at intervals of five or ten miles. This bill was favorably
reported in the House, but Commissioner Hermann considered it impracticable,
and it did not pass. (H. R. 9124, H. Report 1976; 54 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec.,
Dec. 9, 1896, 53. See also H. R. 832, H. R. 9123; 54 Cong. 1 sess.)

101 Stat. 31, 169.

102 Stat. 34, 208.

108 Stat. 32, 790.

_ 104 Report, Land Office, 1911, 43.

_ 105 H. Doc. 214; 59 Cong. 1 sess.

246 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

istered, “in any case in which the laws of the United States authorize —
an oath to be administered,” should be guilty of perjury. In the exe- —
cution of the public land laws, it was often necessary that certain facts: —
be established by oaths which were not specifically required by the —
laws of the United States, but were required by department regula- 4
tions or orders, oaths essentially necessary in disposing of the public —
lands. It was repeatedly held that a charge of perjury could not be —
based upon an affidavit required only by departmental regulations,”
and in 1905, the Commissioner of the Land Office urged upon Congress _
the amendment of this section, but such an amendment has not been 3
made. « §

During the past thirty years or more, a great many efforts have |
been made in Congress to secure grants of land to various states for —
forestry purposes, but, as previously stated, these attempts were of —
little importance as indications of an interest in forest conservation.
In 1904, 20,000 acres of land were granted to Minnesota, and two 4 |
years later, a similar grant was made to Wisconsin. Since then there

106

have been several efforts to secure grants for forestry purposes, but,

except for the grant of some. small islands to ‘Wisconsin, no results q
have accrued from these efforts.*”

RAILWAY LAND GRANTS ONCE MORE

The land grant forfeitures hitherto referred to were for failure to q .
build the road.,In 1907 and 1908, however, the land grant question ~
came up from a new angle—the failure to comply with the conditions
regarding the sale of granted lands—the chief offender in this respect _
being the Oregon & California Railroad Company, now owned by the ~

Southern Pacific. In the grants to this road, a provision had been ~

inserted, requiring the lands to be sold to settlers in tracts not exceed-
ing 160 acres, at not more than $2.50 per acre.1°* Even as early as
1872, according to the Attorney-General, the Oregon & California

106 Report, Sec. of Int., 1905, 339. ay

107 Stat. 33, 536; 34, 517; 37, 324: S. 1438, H. R. 7096; 61 Cong. 1 sess.: s. 6247,
S. 7902; 61 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 5076; 62 Cong. 2 sess. A bill introduced by Senator
Dixon of Montana passed the Senate i in 1912, granting $7500 a year to state univer-
sities in the forest reserve states for the training of forest rangers. This bill, how-
ever, never came up in the House. (S. 5076; 62 Cong. 2 sess.)

108 Stat. 14, 239; 15, 80; 16, 47, 94.

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 247

’ PRatiroad violated these provisions, in some instances selling land at
_ prices largely in excess of $2.50 per acre, and in quantities exceeding
1000 acres to each purchaser; but the worst violations came after
_ 1890, after the Southern Pacific system had secured control of these
“lands. 2 One of the first things the Southern Pacific did was to organ-
_ ize an effective land department, employing land examiners and timber
_ cruisers to ascertain and appraise the value of each tract of land con-
- tained i in the grant. About this time, some of the experienced timber-
men of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota learned the value of the
_ Oregon timber lands, and the railroad company was quick to see its
_ opportunity to profit by selling to these timbermen in large tracts.
Late in the year 1902, the Southern Pacific adopted a new policy,
_ and permanently withdrew all of its lands from sale. There then re-
_ mained in its hands approximately 2,000,000 acres of the old Oregon
_& California grant, besides 300,000 acres claimed but not patented.
_ After liaving disposed of approximately 800,000 acres, most of it in
violation of the terms of the grants, the Southern Pacific resolved
_ upon the plan of asserting a permanent estate in the remainder. Vari-
_ ous excuses for this step were given. The San Francisco fire was used
_ as an excuse for some time, the railway explaining that the records of
_the company had been destroyed, and with them its information con-
cerning its holdings. In March, 1907, however, the attention of the
United States Department of Justice was called to the state of affairs,
and an investigation was made, which showed that a total of over
ie: 3¢ 0,000 acres had been sold at an average price of about $5.50—
nearly double the price provided in the granting act—and that, of
this total of over 800,000 acres, only 127,418 acres had been sold
a. ccording to the Rdistions provided by the act.**® The Coos Bay
Wagon Road grant,’” now practically all held by the Southern Ore-
gon Company, had been made subject to conditions similar to those
imposed upon the Oregon & California, and similar violations were
al ieged to have occurred.*”

4 Early in the year 1908, a Senate resolution introduced by Tillman

ae 109 S, Doe. 279; 60 Cong. 1 sess.
110 Tbid., 9.

. _ 111 Stat. 15, 340.

j _ 112 “Lumber Industry,” I, 251.

248 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

of South Carolina was adopted, calling upon the President for infor- —
mation in regard to the alleged violations, and asking what action the —
Department of Justice had taken.** In accordance with this resolu- —
. tion, a representative of the Department of Justice was sent to Ore- —
gon to make a complete investigation of the subject, and a report was —
soon made to Congress, asserting the truth of the charges against the —
railroad.
At the same time that Tillman introduced the resolution call?

ing for information, he also introduced a joint resolution directing q

the Attorney-General to enforce compliance with the conditions of the
grant, and restore the lands to the public domain." In the Senate, the
latter resolution was opposed by Gallinger of New Hampshire, Teller —

of Colorado, and Foraker of Ohio, on the avowed grounds that con-
gressional action was unnecessary to give the Department of Justice .
the right to forfeit,° but the resolution was adopted without any ~

serious difficulty.**° In the House, Fordney of Michigan was much —
concerned about the timbermen who had bought lands from the rail- ~
roads, and he offered an amendment providing that the resolution —
should not apply to purchasers who had received patents.’ The reso-
lution itself threatened no injustice to innocent purchasers, and Ford- —
ney’s amendment was merely an attempt to defeat the measure, for
any amendment would probably have been fatal; but in spite of the

efforts of Fordney and Denby of Michigan, Jenkins of Wisconsin, ~

Smith of Iowa, and Keifer of Ohio, Fordney’s amendment failed, and 4 .
the resolution was adopted by a vote of 247 to 8. About forty-four ~

representatives had been voting with Fordney on his amendment, but _

in the final vote on the original resolution all but ais of them ran —
for cover.*** a

The Tillman resolution directed the Attorney-General to institute
suits, and determine the rights of the United States in regard to oy #

113 S, Doe. 279; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec., Feb. 3, 1908, 1449.
114 Cong. Rec., Jan. 31, 1908, 1367.
115 Tbid., Feb. 18, 1908, 2111-2114.

116 [bid., 2277. 2
117 Cong. Rec., Apr. 22, 1908, 5093. Fordney was interested in the lumber busi-
ness in Washington, and this probably explains his attitude in this matter. (Cong. _
Rec., Apr. 18, 1916, 6397.) For a reference to his work for a lumber tariff when
the Payne-Aldrich tariff bill was before Congress, see “Lumber Industry,” IV, 65.

118 Cong. Rec., Apr. 23, 5122-5139.

i THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 249

grants to the Central Pacific, the Coos Bay Wagon Road, and the
_ Portland, Astoria & McMinville Railroad;**” and four years later
Congress passed another act, ratifying and confirming all clainis of
_ forfeiture which had been asserted by the Attorney-General.”

_ To the government suit for a general forfeiture of the unsold por-
_tions of the grant, the Southern Pacific entered a demurrer, but the
Federal District Court of Oregon overruled the demurrer, sustaining
the government in its contention that the grant was “on condition
_ subsequent,” and thus forfeitable if the condition were broken.*** The
railroad company of course appealed from this decision, and on June
- 21, 1915, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a
decision, reversing the decision of the lower court. The Supreme Court
denied the government the decree of forfeiture asked for, on the
’ ground that the condition imposed upon the railroad company regard-
ing the disposal of lands to settlers was not a condition subsequent, as
_ the lower court had held, but was a covenant, and that therefore the
_ remedy for the breach of the condition was not forfeiture, but an
injunction against further violations of the covenant. This seemed a
_ somewhat inadequate remedy, but it did not prejudice any other suits,
_ rights, or other remedies which the government might have by law or
_ under the joint resolution of April 30, 1908, or under the act of
_ August 20, 1912. The railroad company was enjoined, it may be
noted, not only from selling in violation of the conditions imposed in
the granting act, but from disposing of the lands in any way, until
Re erces should have a reasonable opportunity to provide for their
disposition. Thus the entire matter was thrown back upon Congress.*””
Tn April, 1916, Congress took up the question of the disposition of
these lands, and, after a few days of spirited debate, succeeded in
‘passing a law which is a fitting climax to the long list of blunders
dealing with the — forest lands.

: THE ACT OF 1916

F This law provides, in the first place, that the Secretary of the
Interior, coéperating with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall classify

Mh 119 Stat. 14, 239; 15, 80; 15, 340; 16, 47; 16, 94; 35, 571.
120 Stat. 37, 320.

121186 Fed. Rep., 861, 923.

12235 Sup. Ct. Rep., 606, 926.

250 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

the lands into power-site lands, timber lands, and agricultural lands;
and provides different rules for the disposition of each class. Power- —
site lands are to be retained by the government. Timber lands are to —
be stripped of their timber, and then are to fall into class three as —
agricultural lands. The timber is to be sold by the Secretary of the —
Interior, in codperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, under —
such plans and regulations as he may consider wise, as rapidly as —
“reasonable prices” can be secured in a “normal market.” All lands —
other than power-site and timber are to be classed as agricultural, and
these are to be disposed of under the law applying to land released
from national forests, $2.50 being charged for the land, except for @
cleared timber lands, which are given free of all charge. No commu-_ 4
tation is permitted. 4

The main fund arising from the sale of timber and lands is to be q
disposed of as follows: first, the Southern Pacific is to receive an =
amount sufficient to bring its. receipts up to the $2.50 per acre
intended in the original granting act; second, 25 per cent of the
remainder is to go to the state of Oregon for an irreducible school
fund; third, another 25 per cent is to go to the various counties
involved, for roads and highways; fourth, 40 per cent is to go to the ~
reclamation fund, for the reclamation of arid lands; and, finally, 10. &
per cent drips into the United States treasury. 4

In several ways this statute was unwisely drawn. In the first place, q
it proceeds on the assumption that all of the lands involved are agri- —
cultural lands, or will become such as soon as the timber is removed, ~
while all the evidence available indicates that many of the timber lands, ~
perhaps most of them, are rough mountain sides that will never be ~
fit for cultivation. There is no provision that looks to the reforesta- —
tion of these natural forest lands. There is no recognition of the q
possibility that they may grow another crop of timber. 4

In the disposition of the fund arising, the provisions are unduly —
generous to the state of Oregon. Half of the fund goes direct to the —
state or to the counties in which the lands are situated, while 40 per
cent more goes to the reclamation fund, and on this fund Oregon will ~
probably have some priority of claim. Only 10 per cent is to go to the
United States treasury, although $100,000 had to be appropriated
immediately for the expenses of classifying the lands. In its generosity

THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 251 |

’ to the state of Oregon, this act contrasts with the general law relating
_ to public land sales, which gives only 5 per cent to the states in which
the lands are situated. It was explained by the Oregon delegation in
‘4 Congress that this was only justice, since the Southern Pacific, by
“refusing to sell to “settlers,” had greatly “interfered with the devel-
opment of the state”; and the Federal government had been party to
the wrong by failing to assert its right to forfeit the grant. It is
cur necessary to dwell much upon the logic of this position, but a gov-
el rnment investigator, reporting on these lands, stated that for a long
_ time the railroad company was unable to get $2.50 per acre for what
were then almost valueless timber lands, and that, since they were
inly forest lands, they could never have been taken up by settlers
| anyhow. Several men in Congress, even several from the West, as well
as the House committee reporting the bill, complained that the act
was too generous to the state of Oregon; and former Speaker Joe
Cannon offered an amendment cutting off the 40 per cent to the
reclamation fund and turning it into the United States treasury, but
this amendment was lost. Representative Sinnot of Oregon complained
that his state was not even getting enough out of the deal. It seems
to have been necessary to treat Oregon very generously in order to
_ get the bill through Congress promptly. The court decision had given
Congress six months to provide for the disposition of the lands, and
it was necessary to legislate without delay.

4 The question naturally emerges, Why were not these lands placed
in a forest reserve? That would have been the logical procedure, and
it doubtless was the policy favored by most of the government officials ;
t it seems that the Oregon delegation in Congress was strongly
opposed to any such disposition of the lands, and probably they repre-
sented the attitude of the people of the state. The Oregon State Land
‘Grant Conference, which met at Salem in September, 1915, expressed
8 ‘unalterable opposition” to any further increase of forest reserves
in Oregon. A government investigator who was sent out to look over
® lands asserted that this conference was not representative of the
J people as a whole; but the Oregon senators and representatives, who
‘may be assumed to have sounded out public opinion, seem to have been
: Seerally hostile to the inclusion of more lands in reserves. It was
suggested by Representative Johnson of Washington that the lands

252 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

would ultimately be included in reserves anyhow, and this seems a —
reasonable guess. Lands which have been cleared and found unfit for
agriculture will need to be reforested, and the state of Oregon will —
probably be willing that this should be done at Federal expense, —
through inclusion in a national forest reserve. : a

The value of timber involved here has probably been exaggerated
in many discussions of the matter. Government officials have estimated
that there is a total of some 70,000,000,000 feet of timber here; but —

it is doubtful if anything like $50,000,000, or perhaps even $30,000,- |
000, will ever be realized from the sale of the timber or of the lands. ~

Certainly it will be a long time before any such sum can be realized, q
for there are vast resources of timber to the north in Washington, ~

and to the south in California, which are more accessible to the

market than much of this timber.?”*

THE NORTHERN PACIFIC LANDS

The facts in regard to the Northern Pacific grant were somewhat —
different from those regarding the Southern Pacific, being compli- —

cated with the various mortgages on that road. The act of 1870, ~

authorizing the Northern Pacific to issue mortgage bonds, had pro- ~

vided that all lands not sold or subject to the mortgage, at the expira-
tion of five years after the completion of the entire road, should be —
disposed of to settlers at not over $2.50 per acre; but it also pro- —
vided that in case of foreclosure, mortgaged lands might be sold at —

public auction, in tracts not larger than a section.*** At the fore- —

closure of 1875, the lands, being mostly unpatented, were not sold.
At the foreclosure of all later mortgages in 1896, all patented lands —

were sold at public auction; but the new railway was reported in —

every instance the highest bidder,” and in 1910, the Northern Pacific ~

still held nearly 10,000,000 acres of land, over 3,000,000 of which —

was timbered. It had sold vast tracts to the Weyerhaeuser Timber —

Company, 900,000 acres being thus disposed of in one block in 1900 —

at $6 per acre.’”®
123 H, R, 14864; 64 Cong. 1 sess.: Stat. 39, 218 et seq.:
124 Stat. 16, 379.

125 “lumber Industry,” I, 235.
126 [bid., 236, 237.

CHAPTER VIII a

HOSTILITY TO THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN RECENT
YEARS: OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL POLICY
OF RESERVATION

Hostitiry toward the national forests, in recent years, has arisen
from somewhat the same causes that were operative in earlier times;
yet it will be appropriate at this point to note briefly the various —
grounds of opposition. These grounds of hostility may be classified —
into: first, those which rest on the assumption that the policy of ~
reservation is fundamentally wrong in principle; and second, those ~
which pertain not so much to the general policy of reservation as to ~
the manner in which the Forest Service has carried out that policy.* —

OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL POLICY OF RESERVATION: INTER-
FERENCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST p |
~The general policy of reservation has been opposed for various —
reasons, but probably no reason has been advanced more frequently —
than that this policy “interferes with the development of the West.” —
This line of reasoning, as old as the forest reserves, is still heard fre-
quently in Congress. Some western senators have been wont to en-—
large upon the “civilization” the western people have built up—a_
civilization which would of course have been impossible “if Mr.
Pinchot’s system of managing the forests had existed.” Representa-
tive Johnson of Washington once complained that the people of his
state were “literally being conserved out of existence.” There has~
been a general argument that the “farmer, the home builder, the tiller ©
of the soil,” rather than the “coyote and the panther and the bear,”
are the real “foundation of our growth and development.” As a west-
ern writer in the North American Review (191, 474) once expressed it: |

1 For a good statement of the reasons for opposition to the reserves, see memo-
rials of western states presented in Congress. Cong. Rec., Dec. 5, 1907, 167; Apr.
28, 1909, 1567; May 14, 1909, 2019. a

- HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS 255

he forest reserv¢ system hampers all forms of industrial develop-
nt. We have an area larger than many a European kingdom put
to its lowest instead of its highest economic use. We have a policy
which is an absolute reversal of more than one hundred years of
national habit and tradition; a policy which holds barrenness a
blessing, and settlement a sin; which fines, instead of encouraging,
the man who would develop a natural resource.”
In the anti-conservation attack of 1912, there was much complaint
about the emigration of settlers to Canada, which was claimed to be
due to the greater liberality of the Canadian settlement laws. Senator
Be ah was particularly anxious that something be done to make the
aws of the United States so liberal that settlers would no longer
have to go to Canada to secure homes. Senator Smoot of Utah very
perly pointed out, however, that in many respects the Canadian
land laws are less generous than those of the United States.*
a Without a doubt, many of the complaints about the interference
the development of the West were made in all earnestness and
‘ood faith; but in general they were based upon a narrow view of the
nterests of the country as a whole, often on a short-sighted view of
A th e development of the West itself.

INCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Eta no way has the reservation policy “interfered as much with the
de relopment of the West,” perhaps, as by the inclusion of agricultural
ds within the forest reserves. This has of course been a cause of
ve tern hostility since the very beginning of the reservation policy.
Re presentative Taylor of Colorado once asserted that the opposition
of the West was directed largely at the “conservation of sage brush,
“a us, and buffalo grass. “he
_As indicated in a previous chapter, an act was passed 1 in 1906 pro-
ding that the Secretary of Agriculture might examine and segregate
ny lands within forest reserves which were chiefly valuable for agri-
ulture and might be so used without injury to the forest reserves.
i in e this law left the opening of lands to the discretion of the Secre-

" _ 2 Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3222, 3223, 3226; Feb. 1, 1910, 1353; May 19, 1910,
21; May 14, 1912, 6397; Mar. 10, 1914, 4637; 63 Cong. 1 sess., Appendix, 465:
0. Am. Rev., Apr., 1910: Independent, 68, 697.

ong. Rec., Feb. 1, 1910, 1352.

256 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY: “a

tary of Agriculture, however, it was always far from satisfactory to.
many people in the West, who thought the reserves should be open
to anyone wishing to try to make a home there—who thought the —
decision as to what was agricultural lands should rest, not with the —
Secretary of Agriculture, but with the entryman himself. As Senator —
Heyburn once stated it: “It is not within the power of the bureau to
determine whether a man can make a farm out of a particular piece —
of land. If the land is agricultural land, the only man who can deter-
mine that is the man who is willing to go there and devote his energies -
to making it a home and expend his effort in an attempt to do so.” ~
Representative Rucker of Colorado expressed the idea in similar lan-
guage: “The man who wants a home, who perhaps has spent the most —
of his days upon the farm, acquainted with soils, a long resident of —
the West, knowing the adaptability at different altitudes for a given ~
kind of a crop, and willing to take his chances, is met with a denial -
of his right by some youngster just from the city, or college life, and ~
is curtly informed the land is not suitable for agricultural pursuits.”*

EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE AGRICULTURAL LANDS: toe
NELSON AMENDMENT

Within the past decade, repeated efforts have been made to secure .
some modification in the law of 1906. The appropriations of 1912\—
were held up several weeks by a disagreement between the two houses, —
largely on the question of agricultural lands in the national forests. —
No sooner had the appropriation bill been brought up in the House
than Representative Hawley of Oregon launched a determined attack
on the Forest Service, for inflicting so many hardships on the “set-
tlers” whose “almost incredible heroism, toil, and suffering” had -
brought civilization into the West. Martin of South Dakota suspected
that the Forest Service often appropriated the residences of home- —
steaders for ranger stations, and offered an amendment to preven is
that. Three of the Colorado delegation, with Dies of Texas, Booher —
of Missouri, and Fitzgerald of New York, expressed their disapproval |
of the reserves on various grounds, while Mondell veered around to a ~
very fair and reasonable attitude, although still somewhat hostile. |
After considerable debate the appropriation bill got past the House
4 Cong. Rec., Feb. 10, 1911, 2291.

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS. 257

_ without serious mutilation, but in the Senate a more decided hostility
was immediately manifest. Senator Heyburn promptly assumed his
_ familiar réle, supported of course by his colleague Borah, and by
‘other western men, and also by men from farther east—Cummins of
Towa and Gallinger of New Hampshire. One of the chief objects of
criticism in these debates was the inclusion within national forests of
ee and other non-timbered lands.

_ After several days of debate, Senator Nelson of Minnesota arose
with an amendment directing and requiring the Secretary of Agri-
culture to select, classify, and segregate as soon as practicable, all
lands within the boundaries of natural forests that were fit for agri-
cultural purposes, and opening such lands to settlement under the
Bprcrtend laws.

_ Senator Nelson’s amendment aimed a very severe blow at the forest
reserves. In the first place, it directed and required the Secretary of
Agriculture to segregate the lands, thus leaving him no discretion in
the matter. In the second place, it provided for the elimination of all
lands suitable and fit for agricultural purposes. The Forest Home-
stead Act of 1906 had provided for the elimination of lands chiefly
—. for agriculture which might be so used without injury to the
rest reserve, and which were not needed for public purposes. Nel-
son’s amendment provided for the opening of agricultural lands irre-
spective of their value for other purposes, or of the need for them for
| a i ‘blie use. Thus heavily timbered lands of only a slight value for agri-
eu Iture would have been opened up to exploitation under this amend-
ment, even though the value of the timber might have been ten times
greater than the agricultural value of the soil when cleared. Such a
provision as that would inevitably have resulted in gross frauds.
Entrymen would merely have taken up claims and sold them to large
amber owners, and the “poor settlers” would have built no “homes”
ifter all. Also it should be noted that all ranger stations ‘or other
% ots necessary to the efficient management: of the forests would have
een opened up under this provision, if they possessed even a slight
‘ ue for agriculture.

- Thus the Nelson amendment was calculated to do immense injury
0 the national forests, perhaps to overthrow the entire reservation
olicy, and the American Forestry Association sent a vigorous peti-

258 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

tion against it ; but it was accepted in the Senate with little opposition.
The House, however, refused to accede to it, and the bill went to a
conference committee, which, in its report, left out the worst features
-of the amendment. The Senate, by a vote of 36 to 27, refused to accept
the conference report, as did the House also, and the bill went back to
the conference committee a second time, but the second report again
refused to accede to the Senate amendment; in fact, it was further
from the Senate view than the first report had been, but after some
debate the Senate finally adopted the report. The House conferees
received felicitations for “outgeneraling’”’ the Senate members of the ©
committee. The amendment, as finally passed, directed and required a
the Secretary of Agriculture to segregate all lands that “might be? |
opened to settlement and entry under the homestead laws applicable
to the national forests.” “Homestead laws applicable to the national
forests” meant, of course, the Forest Homestead Law of 1906, so that —
there was really no change in the law, except that the duty of the
Secretary of Agriculture to open up lands was now mandatory. The 4
sum of $25,000 was appropriated to cover the expense of opening
these lands, and each year since 1912, $100,000 has been provided.
for this purpose. |
Thus the national forests successfully weathered the storm of 1912. —
There have been other attacks since, but it seems likely that this com- —
plaint regarding agricultural lands will gradually disappear. As a —
result of the appropriations mentioned above, a total of about 15,000,- —
000 acres has been eliminated—by no means all strictly agricultural —
lands. Nearly 6,000,000 acres have been eliminated from the Chugach —
National Forest alone.

JUSTICE OF THE COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE INCLUSION OF f
AGRICULTURAL LANDS

The fact that some agricultural lands have been eliminated from — {
the national forests indicates that there was some basis for complaint. Fr
It is certain, however, that the great majority of “settlers” who told 4
such pitiful tales of hardships endured in trying to build their homes —
in the forests, were not bona fide settlers at all, but merely entrymen '
who were trying to get possession of timber, mineral deposits, power —
sites, or other natural resources, with no intention of building homes.

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 259

ful investigation of 116 perfected homestead claims in Idaho and
fern Washington disclosed the fact that, of the timbered claims,
ut one half of 1 per cent were later reduced to cultivation. Another
stigation of 160 claims in Idaho revealed 100 claims with no lands
septible of cultivation, 40 or 50 claims with about five acres each
th might be cultivated after the timber was removed, 20 claims
vith an average of 10 acres, and only 10 claims with an average of
(0 to 80 acres of cultivable lands. A careful study of 95 timbered
jomesteads in the Kaniksu National Forest showed that only 1.34
per cent of the cultivable land had been put to agricultural use. A
i ilar examination of 71 claims in the Clearwater National Forest
tho showed that only slightly over 1 per cent of the claims had
cultivated. Of a total of 12,330 acres in certain contested claims
Northwest, only 47 acres were found to be under cultivation—
aban four tenths of 1 per cent.°
_ Almost all of the heavily timbered land, of course, found its way
it ithe hands of lumber companies. Figures were obtained on nine
ov wnships in Idaho adjacent to the St. Joe National Forest, and it
found that, of 264 homesteads patented, 208 passed to lumber
pmpanies within three years after patent was issued, and nearly all
e rest were being held for speculation. In another township in the
ame state, investigation of 100 patented homesteads revealed the fact
at, abet in many cases patent had only recently been issued,
f the homesteads had passed to lumber companies.
: t the earnest solicitation of some of the Washington delegation
Congress, over 400,000 acres of land were eliminated from the
yic National Forest in Washington, on the ground that it was
icultural land. The land thus eliminated for agricultural use was
gely taken up under the Timber and Stone Act, which required
‘h h that the land is “valuable chiefly for timber but not fit for agri-
wre’; and ten years later the total area in cultivation was only
| acres.” Many other examples might be given to show that very
ty of the efforts to secure the elimination of alleged agricultural
ids were not made in good faith at all, but were really attempts to
ure valuable timber, minerals, or other resources.

, Forester, 1914, 2, 3, 4.
mber Industry,” I, 267: Cong. Rec., June 17, 1913, 2061.

260 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Some of the appeals made in Congress in behalf of the “settlers” —
were so maudlin as to be even highly ridiculous. Representative —
Johnson of Washington once read a letter in the House purporting —
to be from one of these settlers : “Brother Johnson, while we are slowly —
starving to death the work of conservation goes on. We have no
Christmas, we have no New Years, and are getting old before our time —
because of no money and no way of getting employment to earn money. |
We have no hope. We have nothing to look forward to but the visit of
the forest ranger.’

Although the charge has been made repeatedly that the Forest 4
Service has been hostile to settlers within the national forests, and
has tried to put unnecessary impediments in the way of settlement, ite
seems doubtful if this has often been true. A Federal bureau would g
naturally be slow in its action upon claims and would perhaps require
considerable “red tape” in applications. A few of the officials ee
been arbitrary, some have been ignorant of local conditions and needs, —
but there is no reason why the Forest Service should be generally
hostile to settlers in the reserves. Settlers on or near a national forest,
under a proper administrative policy, help both its protection and
development. The greatest single task of the government is to paren
forest fires, and the force organized for this purpose is recruit
largely from those living in or near the forest. Settlers are also a help
in locating fires, and by means of ig eerie connections are able to
report quickly to the forest officers.*

THE QUESTION OF RANGER STATIONS

The charge has often been made that the Forest Service uses con- ¥
siderable areas of valuable agricultural lands for ranger stations.
Senator Heyburn was particularly bitter about this, and on sundry

oe, ee

Stat. 34, 233; 37, 287, 842; 38, 429, 1099; 39, 460: Am. Forse! Aug., 1912, 5 i, '
536; Sept., 1912, 585: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1909, 377; 1911, 352; 1912, 481; 1916,
160: Report, Forester, 1914, 2, 3, 4: Report, Land Office, 1906, 43; 1907, 21: Agr.
Yearbook, 1914, 70 et seq. See also H. R. 14053; 58 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 519; 60 Cong.
1 sess.: H. J. Rés. 54; 62 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 7203; 62 Cong. 2 sess. For opposition #
the national forests in Arkansas, see H. R. 18889, H. R. 20683, H. R. 20684, H. Res.
314, H. Res. 332, H. Res. 491; 61 Cong. 2 sess.: H. R. 6149; 63 Cong. 1 sess.: 64
Cong. 1 sess., Appendix, pp. 893 et seq.: S. Doc. 783; 62 Cong. 2 sess.

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS. 261

rtin of Colorado likewise regarded this as one’ of the worst abuses
‘the reservation policy, and in the debates on the Agricultural Ap-
‘opriation Bill of 1911, as a slap at the Forest Service, he offered an
‘amendment reducing the cost of rangers’ cabins from $650 to $500—
a figure which Mondell thought was still 50 per cent too high. This
was a favorite method of attack upon the reserves, and almost every
year some effort was made to cut down the cost of rangers’ cabins, or
impose some restriction on their construction or use. In 1912,
resentative Martin of South Dakota secured an amendment for-
ng the Forest Service to use the residences of homesteaders for
er stations.®
The Forest Service has denied that there is any real justification
r complaints regarding the appropriation of administrative sites.
mn response to a Senate resolution in 1918, demanding information
this point, Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson made a report
ring that in the state of Washington, with about 10,000,000 acres
tional forests, 424 administrative sites had been withdrawn, with
area of about 40,000 acres, and of this total only 272 acres
under cultivation. Over 80 per cent of the area of these adminis-
ive sites was reported to be under heavy timber or permanently
suited to agriculture by climate or soil.*’ It is of course sometimes
ecessary for the Forest Service to use sites for administrative pur-
yoses which are not absolutely worthless for agriculture. Successful
ection of the forests requires not only an adequate force, but a
well-placed force of rangers. Furthermore, since ranger stations must
placed where forest officers can either actually live with their fami-
u cashes the greater part of the year, or make headquarters
uring the summer months with sufficient feed for their saddle and
< horses, it is necessary to select for this class of sites areas which
h a fair pasture. The Forest Service must obviously provide for
wn needs; but it does not displace settlers already in possession,
‘reject ons for the listing of land in order to take the land
yr public. purposes.*
£ Cong. Rec., Mar. 8, 1910, 2891; Feb. 4, 1911, 1957, 1958; Mar. 7, 1912, 2982:
. 37, 280.

S. Doc. 1075; 62 Cong. 3 sess.
Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912, 487.

262 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY
GRAZING IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS

The grazing lands included in the national forests have continued —
to claim considerable attention, just as in the earlier period, although —
it is probable that the hostility arising from this cause has decreased —
considerably in recent years. Some of the western men have always
insisted that the Forest Service has no right to make any charge at —
all for grazing. As Representative Taylor of Colorado once (1910) —
expressed it: “It has been one of the important rights and privileges
of the settlers of every state in this Union for a hundred years to use,
free of charge, the public domain for the grazing of their stock, and
why should not our cattle be allowed to eat government grass which —
would otherwise go to waste? It did not cost Uncle Sam a dollar, and —
why should the government, now for the first time in a century, inflict
a tax upon the people of the West for the grazing of that grass???
Mondell, in similar vein, pointed out that the charge for grazing had
never been specifically authorized by Congress. a

To those who denied the right of the government to exact any _
charge at all for grazing, even a very small charge would seem too
high; and there has been much complaint that the fees are too high;
but as a matter of fact they have been only about one third as high
as the fees charged by private owners in the same districts. Within
the past few years, there has been some complaint in Congress because _
this charge was so low, and the Forest Service made plans for a “revi-

oy

sion upward,” but later abandoned them because of the war. In time, —
the grazing fees should be raised, because, at their present figure, the |
demand for grazing privileges on most of the forests far exceeds the "
carrying capacity, and the granting of privileges necessarily involves ~
discrimination in favor of certain applicants. {

The Forest Service has sometimes been accused of discriminating i
in favor of large owners. Mondell claimed in 1910 that it was the rich
and powerful men in the National Live Stock Association who were ae

aN

most friendly to the Forest Service; that they were given permits ©
while small men were denied; and that big sheepmen often got control —
of large areas by having each sheep herder file application for a per--
mit. Representative Rucker of Colorado has expressed similar views.”

12 Cong. Rec., Feb. 1, 1910, 1352.
13 Cong. Rec., Feb. 1, 1910, 1338, 1339; Feb. 10, 1911, 2291.

aes
cates

Bee eee es

‘HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 268

ndell claimed that thorough grazing of the forest reserves was the
of all safeguards against the spread of forest fires, and that the
rest Service, by interfering with grazing, had actually in some
es increased the fire hazard. His theory was that under the manage-
nt of the forest reserves previous to 1910, the grasses grew year
iter year, died, and finally formed a mat through which fire, under a
_ wind, ran with great rapidity.**

- Doubtless there has been occasional justification for the criticism
the management of grazing lands, but in general the control of
+h lands by the Forest Service has resulted in a great improvement
range conditions. Previously, overstocking had caused the destruc-
n of some ranges, and in many regions a decrease in carrying capac-
. Perhaps the greatest evil was the “transient” or “tramp” herds
sheep, usually bands of sheep being driven from distant ranges to
ints of shipment, or being driven between summer and winter ranges,
ch were often long distances apart and sometimes located in differ-
states. These bands just drifted around in search of good feeding
unds and camped wherever such areas were found, often grazing
land far too close. This and other evils the Forest Service has now
er fair control. The criticism that the Forest Service has favored
large cattlemen and sheepmen has certainly not been valid. The
icy of the service has been to favor the smaller owners. It was once
lained in Congress that, in disagreements between the stockmen
1 the Forest Service, the wealthier stockmen could hire adequate
nsel to look after their business, and were less likely to cherish any
svance; but the Forest Service has tried to promote the organiza-
n of local livestock associations, and through these associations the
ller owners are able to secure somewhat the same service as the
ger owners. These associations assist, not only in the settlement of
disputes, but in the salting of stock, in the improvement of breeds of
sattle, and in many other ways. One of the great advantages arising
m government control of ranges has been the prevention of the
ge “wars”—the quarrels among grazers, particularly the deadly
euds that were waged between the sheepmen and the cattlemen.*®

_ As to what is really the attitude of the majority of the stockmen

4 Cong. Rec., Feb. 2, 1911, 1855.
£3 38 Forest Bul. 62, 1905, p. 17.

264 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

toward government regulation, the evidence is somewhat conflicting.
The Public Lands Commission of 1903 sent out 1400 inquiries to
stockmen, asking their views on this, and 1090 of the replies received
were favorable to government control, while only 183 were opposed. In
the opinion of the writer, however, this does not represent accurately
the attitude of the stockmen toward such control as the Forest Ser-
vice has exercised—a control that involves the exaction of a fee for
grazing. The complaints of various western men in Congress, and
other evidence as well, indicate that many of the stockmen are still
opposed ; and probably when the grazing fees are raised to something
approximating a commercial level, this opposition will become even
stronger.*® Some stockmen, it is true, feel that the inclusion of grazing
lands within the national forests is an advantage to grazers, because
it protects them against the encroachments of settlers. This rests upon
the assumption that the national forests are closed to settlement, an
assumption that is valid at least as far as fraudulent settlement is
concerned, Some of the reserves being closed to sheep, it is natural
that many cattlemen in those districts should look favorably upon the
system which protects them from their bitterest enemies. It has been
claimed that practically all of the cattlemen in some sections are —
strongly favorable to the reserves. |

MINING IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS

Complaints that the national forests interfere with mining develop-
ment have not been as common as in an earlier period, yet they are
still heard occasionally. The contention is that it is difficult to say,
in the early stages of a mining claim, whether it is going to be a
success or a failure, and that no mining prospector cares to search
for minerals, knowing that his work and his judgment have to be sub-
mitted to some forester to determine their validity. It has been claimed
that prospectors have tended to leave the forest reserves, because of ©
the exactions of the Forest Service.

It is doubtful whether the Forest Service has discouraged legiti-
mate mining industry. The discouragement has generally been placed
in the way of a wrong use of the mining laws, and extravagant use of
the timber resources; and that is the reason for many of, the com-

16 Forest Bul. 62, p. 24.

ange
Tie:

ot inn in nae

ff

af nde caeirs MEY eer ey bre
NE Shere 9 ry Pow

&

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 265

laints. Senator Smoot of Utah called attention in 1909 to numerous
ttempts that had been made to gain title to timber lands in the West
_ through the mining laws; and Senator Flint of California asserted
_ that several million dollars worth of timber in his state would have
3 been taken up in this way, had it not been for the vigilance of the
Forest Service. In 1908, the Commissioner of the Land Office decided
_ adversely on a number of placer mining locations in the Plumas
_ National Forest, made by H. H. Yard and the North California
- Mining Company. These locations covered timber worth several mil-
dollars. In one instance a large livestock company, in order to
tablish a complete monopoly of the surrounding range, proceeded to
_ put mining locations and mill sites upon all the watering places, with
_ the exception of two or three which were covered by scrip location.
No mineral development was attempted on any of these claims. The
4 locations were upon formations containing no mineral showing what-
_ ever, and the alleged development work consisted of tunneling and
y trenching for the diversion of water, and in the building of corrals,
_ tanks, and pipe lines for the handling and watering of the cattle. In
this way, waterholes were secured which gave control of approximately
500, 000 acres of valuable range. In another instance, a certain sheep
a _ owner located a mining claim covering a spring and some abandoned
placer diggings, and applied for a patent, claiming as his $500 worth
_ of development the work done by those who had abandoned the claim,
d work done by some Chinamen who had occasionally worked the
claim when they couldn’t find anything else to do. The sheep owner was
trying in this way to get control of the only water supply for a
nsiderable area.
Tn still another instance, certain individuals made application for
the patenting of some placer locations, alleging the existence of valu-
able minerals. Investigation showed no mineral at all except a sort of
; ‘s hale, which the locators alleged had some value for cement making.
‘In the application, the locators alleged $1500 worth of work, and
bis nvestigation showed that all the work that had been performed was
‘in grading for driveways and for building locations, and that it
a peelly amounted to less than $300. It appeared also that the
ators had incorporated a company for the exploitation and sale
3f building sites for summer homes, this location being in the moun-

+.

266 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

tains, directly on an electric car, line leading from a city of consider-
able size. Along the Grand Cafion there are many mining claims,
locations made years ago, ostensibly for mineral, but in reality cover-
ing portions of the cafion rim and trails in such a way as to give the
claimants the right to exact a charge upon the traveling public.”
Attempts on the part of power companies to procure title to power
sites by locating mining claims have been fairly numerous.

Thus abuses of the mining laws have been much the same in recent
years as in earlier periods, except that, with the increasing vigilance
of the government, such abuses are undoubtedly much less frequent
than formerly. Most locations are made in good faith; in fact, certain
officials have estimated that four fifths of the locations are bona fide.

The man who engages in mining as a legitimate, permanent indus-

try has no serious grounds for complaint against the national forests

5

or the Forest Service. He is not limited as to the time within which he _

must apply for patent, but is at liberty to develop the ground and >

extract the mineral to any extent, subject only to the mining laws of
the state. The miner has no trouble in applying for patent under the
mining laws if the ground is chiefly valuable for minerals. The one who
has trouble is the man who tries to secure, under cover of the mining

laws, a town site, a summer resort, valuable timber land, a water —
? «it
power site, watering places in the desert, or mineral springs in the

mountains; or the man who tries to capitalize a worthless hole in the
ground, and sell mining stock to the gullible public.

There is one way in which the Forest Service has perhaps retarded |

the development of mining in the reserves, and that is by restricting

the use of timber for mining purposes. In an earlier period, miners took
vast quantities of timber absolutely free of cost, and under such cir-
cumstances could of course develop their mines very cheaply and

rapidly. However, as Pinchot has pointed out, the Forest Service, by _ 4
its conservation policy, provides the only practicable future supply of —
timber for mining, and so provides best for its long-time develop- —

ment.?®

17 Am. Forestry, Apr., 1917, 225 et seq.: Report, Forester, 1914, 3.

18 See Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3040; Mar. 8, 1910, 2893; Mar. 1, 1911, 3772;
Mar. 12, 1914, 4752, 4753: Forest Bul. 67, 13: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1908, 415; 1912,
475: Report, Forester, 1914, 3. ;

SR Am

ios

MER ii det one de

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 267
_ WATER POWER DEVELOPMENT IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS

_ Agricultural, grazing, and mineral lands are not the only natural
ources that the national forests have been accused of “bottling up.”
ere has recently been a great deal of complaint that the national
orests included many valuable water power sites and that the policy
f the Forest Service was so exacting as to prevent adequate develop-
nt of these resources. It is estimated that there is within the
tional forests approximately 12,000,009 horse power which can be
veloped from natural streamflow, and that this amount can be
eased very greatly by the construction of storage reservoirs.

The act of 1891, providing for the creation of forest reserves, made
provision for the development of power. One of the sections of that
t, however, provided that rights of way across the reserves might
granted for irrigation purposes; and seven years later, this was
panded to include the development of pes providing it was “sub-
iary to the main purpose of irrigation.” In 1901, this proviso was
noved, and the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to permit
use of rights of way through the public lands and reserves for
ric plants. Under this act, the permit must be approved by the
ief officer of the department concerned, and might be revoked by
» Secretary of the Interior at his discretion. This is still the law on
subject, although a section was added in 1911, authorizing the
e of permits for rights of way, for not to exceed fifty years. The
ue of such permits is, however, still at the discretion of the Secre-
-y having jurisdiction over the land.”

Under. the regulations adopted by the Forest Service in 1910, a
‘tain charge was exacted of those who used power sites, and this
s of course aroused some opposition. Representative Martin of
lorado spoke of the “dog-in-the-manger” policy of the government
charging this rental. “The proposition of the government is this,”
said, in discussing the agricultural appropriation bill of 1912:
t is true we do not own the water in the stream, but we happen to
n the land bordering the stream, land that is probably not worth
ming. We happen to own the only desirable and available place
19 Stat. 26, 1101; 28, 635; 29, 120; 30, 404; 31, 790; 33, 628; 34, 163; 36, 847,

3. See also Opinions, Atty.-Gen., 25, 470; 26, 421; and Proceedings, Society of
‘Foresters, Apr., 1913, 5 et seq.

268 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

along this stream anywhere to build a dam and reservoir and create
power. Now, we will not let you buy this land. There is no price on it.
You can not condemn or buy it. We will lease it to you for a period
of years, and will not simply charge you a rental for the land, but we
will impose a charge that will be equivalent to a tax upon the value
of your plant and the proceeds of your entire business.’ ”*° In some-
what similar vein, Representative Taylor of Colorado complained of

the effort of the government to get water power companies to pay —

royalties into the Federal treasury, pointing out that the East was
not paying any royalty for the use of its water.”

There has been much dissatisfaction also with that provision of
* the law which authorizes the revocation of permits at the discretion
of the government. It is urged that on account of this clause, it is very
difficult to obtain capital for development. Water power development
is said to have cost many capitalists their fortunes, even when the
terms were most liberal, and the restrictive policy of the government
is claimed to have made the field even more uncertain.

There is a large element of justice in the complaints of western men
regarding the water power situation. It is easy to see how they would

resent the payment of rentals to the government. As far as conserva- .

tion is concerned, it appears that the speedy development of water

power resources would be an excellent means of conserving other ©

resources, furnishing electric power for railways and for other pur-
poses, and thus saving the coal and oil and wood which are now used as

fuel. This would greatly decrease the number of forest fires also, since —

a large proportion of such fires are started by locomotives, and so
would conserve the supply of timber. It might easily seem that the
government should encourage the development of water power in every
way possible, instead of imposing a tax upon it.

In answer to this, however, Forest Service officials argue that it is
not unreasonable to impose some charge for the use of a valuable
natural resource, and point out that by requiring the payment of this
charge, and by requiring development to be made within a reasonable
time, they have been able to keep better control of the water power
situation, and keep out speculators who otherwise would have appro-

20 Cong. Rec., Mar. 7, 1912, 2991..
21 Cong. Rec., Mar. 2, 1911, 4016.

[Ae LE RE eh Sa eeeete he a
PLR PET ge a ae Wm ale me hae. Vm ar Ne!

até

oie i anes
ona

ne VE es] Lar ee,
ipa eaten baeed tert 4

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 269

priated sites, perhaps held them out of use, merely with the intention
of selling at an advance to someone who really wished to develop. The
rest Service claims that its policy results in some cases in more
rapid development than would otherwise occur, by preventing specu-
1 _ lators from getting control and holding sites out of use.
-. The provision giving the Secretary of Agriculture power to revoke
water power permits is clearly one that is open to criticism. It is true
that permits for projects of more than 100 horse power total capacity
re usually for fifty years, but they may specify a shorter time or
ay be indeterminate, and permits for projects of 100 horse power
or less are always issued for indeterminate periods, subject to revo-
cation by the Secretary of Agriculture. Also, in order that the inter-
ests of consumers of power may be protected, permittees are required
abide by reasonable regulation of rates and of service by the state,
if the state does not exercise such regulation, by the Secretary of
iculture.
It is easy to suppose that under such restrictions as these, the
water power resources in national forests would not present a very
vttractive field for the investment of capital; and yet the Forest Ser-
vice claims that water power development has proceeded much faster
_ in the West than in the East, that the development per capita of the
i western states in 1912 was two and one half times as great as in other
yarts of the country, that there is even a “considerable overdevelop-
nent in nearly all the power centers of the western states, California,
Jregon, and Washington in particular showing installations far in
cess of maximum demands.”
The water power question is still unsettled, and it is not the pur-
se of this book to point out any solution. The present situation is
ainly not satisfactory in all respects. On the other hand, it must
noted that the present situation is vastly better than it would be if
Forest Service had not guarded the power sites very carefully, for
government can still turn these over to private exploitation at
_ any time it sees fit, while it would have very serious difficulty regain-
_ ing control if it had once given up its title. It is not so important that
“the matter should be settled immediately as it is that it ocr be
_ settled wisely, for it involves the interests of future generations.”
Bi 4 22 Report, Sec. of Agr., 1916, 173 et seq.; 1912, 527: Forest Service, Use Book,

270 ° UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

One thing is certain, at any rate, and that is that if it had not been _
for the aggressive and persistent efforts of Pinchot, many of the water — 9
power resources of the country would now be under control of a few
powerful interests, and might present a far more difficult problem than
they do. Pinchot’s interest extended not only to water power in the
national forests, but also to water power development on navigable
streams elsewhere. He had a vision of the future importance of elec-
tricity in the West. “Let us suppose a man in a western town,” he
wrote in 1908, “in a region without coal, rising on a cold morning, a
few years hence, when invention and enterprise have brought to pass
the things which we can already foresee as coming in the application
of electricity. He turns on the electric light made from water power;
his breakfast is cooked on an electric stove heated by the power of the
streams; his morning newspaper is printed on a press moved by the
electricity from the streams ; he goes to his office in a trolley car moved
by electricity from the same source. The desk upon which he writes
his letters, the merchandise which he sells, the crops which he raises,
will have been brought to him or will be taken to market from him in
a freight car moved by electricity. His wife will run her sewing
machine or her churn, and factories will turn their shafts and wheels
by the same power. In every activity of his life that man and his
family and his neighbors will have to pay toll to those who have been —
able to monopolize the great motive power of electricity made from
water power, if that monopoly is allowed to become established.””*

= eT ~ ee ea uy sina sia’ . 4 eee ee
eR ae eee ee eee Pe re ee ee ee ee

WITHDRAWAL OF OTHER RESOURCES a

Hostility to the reservation policy was increased by the temporary
withdrawal of lands, not only timber lands, but coal, oil, and gas,
power sites, and public watering places. Roosevelt inaugurated the
policy of withdrawing land pending the enactment of further legisla-
tion for its best use, and considerable areas were thus withdrawn at
the time Taft became president. Taft questioned the legality of this
1915, 123 et seq.: Cong. Rec., 60 Cong. 1 sess., p. 167; 61 Cong. 3 sess., 1856, 3771;
62 Cong. 2 sess., 2991, Appendix, 591 et seq.; 63 Cong. 1 sess., 1974; 64 Cong. 1 sess.,
6388, 6391: No. Am. Review, 191, 472; Apr., 1910. See also the Report of the Com-
missioner of Corporations on Water Power Development in the United States,

1912; and Senate Doc. 274; 62 Cong. 2 sess.
23 Farmers’ Bul. 327.

mos Tah wie inet Sided 34 eee e aes pi ta ear laa dees §
i at a alt i a nha it i

ee

5 ns

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 271

tion, but instead of restoring the land to the public domain, he
ed from Congress in 1910 an act specifically authorizing such
rithdrawals. The effect of this legislation, it later developed, was to
strict rather than enlarge the authority of the President, for the
preme Court later held that previous legal authority was sufficient.
June, 1916, the total withdrawals amounted to nearly 50,000,000
res, of which 45,935,954 acres were coal and oil lands, 2,852,652
"es were power sites, and 193,272 acres were public water reserves.
iturally this policy brought various interests, other than the timber
ests, into a position of hostility to the reservation policy.”*

OPPOSITION TO SAVING FOR POSTERITY

argument that interference with the immediate development of
> West might yet be a good thing for posterity, has not appealed to
1e of the western men, for some of them have not been at all con-
ed about the interests of posterity. As Senator Teller said in
gress a decade ago: “I do not believe there is either a moral or
any other claim upon me to postpone the use of what nature has given
me, so that the-next generation or generations yet unborn may have
opportunity to get what I myself ought to get.”

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE WEST

great many complaints have always been made that the West is
being denied the same advantages the East had in an earlier period.
; Senator Carter once expressed it: “The state of Maine and the
tate of Illinois and Iowa and Missouri and Wisconsin enjoyed,
the operation of the laws that have heretofore obtained within
heir respective boundaries, the full benefit of the natural resources
1 great Creator had placed there; but these states of the Rocky
: untains and the western slope, where nature presents the hardest .
itions settlers have ever faced on this continent, must conduct
local affairs subject to a tribute to the Federal government upon
he natural resources within their borders.”*° Representative Martin
4 Stat. 36, 583, 847, 855; 37, 497: Report, Sec. of Int., 1916, Vol. L, 174, 510:
d “appeal eu a 41, 528: Wilcox vs. Jackson; 38 U. S., 498: Wolsey vs.

Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3226.
Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3245.

272 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

of Colorado observed that “the less public domain and the less natural —
resources a member [of Congress] has in his state, the more enthusi- —
astic he is about conservation.” In similar humor, Representative -

Taylor of the same state denied that the land and resources of the
West are the common property of the people of the country. “Those
resources,” he announced in Congress, “are the property of the peo-

ple who go there and develop them. If you want a share of them, come ~
out to our country and help us reclaim the forest and the desert land —
and develop the water power. We will extend to you a hearty greeting, —

and you are welcome to your share of it. But you have no right to
remain cosily in the East and put a tax upon our industry in trying
to build up those great western states.””’

As to the logic of this plea, it can only be said that the proper
policy for the government is not so much a question of abstract “‘jus-
tice,”
without restriction is no reason why the West should do the same

thing, unless the results have demonstrated the wisdom of that policy. —

as of expediency. The fact that the East exploited its lands

at
es Siociestmel hei 2 sca San se ers

PO a ae

As far as agricultural lands are concerned, results have justified the —
policy the government pursued, but as to natural forest lands, coal, —

oil, gas, and mineral lands, perhaps also power sites, it seems that the

government should have adopted the policy of reservation at the start. —
The fact that the country adopted an unwise policy with respect to

such lands at the time the eastern states were being settled is no reason

for clinging to that policy after its evil effects have become apparent. —

OPPOSITION TO GAME PRESERVATION

A few of the western men evinced considerable hostility toward the »

work of the government in game preservation. Several big game pre-
serves have been established outside the national forests, under the
jurisdiction of the Biological Survey, and three have been created, by
special act of Congress, within the national forests. The Forest Ser-
vice is also trying to protect certain kinds of wild game in the other

national forests. Senator Heyburn was particularly indignant about —
this policy. “It was suggested here,” he complained, “that the gov- —
ernment had great game preserves, and that the beautiful deer might —
be preserved from destruction. I would rather have one Alderney cow —

27 Cong. Rec., Apr. 7, 1910, 4376; Mar. 2, 1911, 4017.

ee agin eee

jig

ab eats asm iain dy

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 278

m all the herds of deer that you could put upon acres of ground. I

we no doubt that the beautiful spotted fawns would look more beau-
ful to our friends from the East, when they come out there, but they
rhaps would not care a snap about seeing the western people driv-
z up the lowing kine. They would rather see them shooting deer; but
are talking about practical life and practical government and
actical things, and we are substituting cities for forests; we are
ading off the timber for civilization, and you come out there and
dJertake to stay our hand!” Senator Borah complained of the elk
»wding the sheep out of the reserves. Governor Richards of Wyo-
ing suggested that the West wanted “‘to raise agricultural products,
yt wolves, bear, and other game for the purpose of making Wyoming
game preserve for eastern sportsmen.””*
‘There is room for a difference of opinion as to the advisability of
blishing extensive game preserves; but it is to be noted that the
ement for the preservation of our wild life has made a great deal
headway in the past decade, and almost no session of Congress
es without a number of bills being introduced for the establish-
mt of such preserves.

LOSS OF TAXING POWER

ew arguments against the reservation policy have been urged as
n as the argument that it causes a serious loss in the taxing power
the states and local units in the West, and, by reducing the number
taxpayers, throws a heavy burden on the few who reside in or near
forest reserves.

was as a compensation for this loss in taxing power that the
icultural Appropriation Bill of 1906 provided for the payment
0 per cent of the revenues from national forests to the various
and territories, for the benefit of the public schools and roads
yf the counties in which the reserves were situated. This was not satis-
uctory to the West, however, and in 1908, the amount was raised to
cent ; but even 25 per cent was not enough, and repeated efforts
been made since to have this further increased.

A very determined effort was made in 1910 to amend the Agricul-

"28 Cong. Rec., Mar. 7, 1910, 2845; May 15, 1912, 6485: No. Am. Review, 177, 217:
‘oss Reference, pp. 302-305.

274 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

tural Appropriation Bill to increase this contribution from 25 to 85
per cent. The amendment was added in the Senate Committee on Agri-
culture and Forestry, and passed the Senate without difficulty, but the
House, taking its usual stand, refused to agree to it. Representative
Mann of Illinois immediately opposed this “hold up,” as he called it,
on the ground that 10 per cent of the annual revenue of any business
was a very large per cent. “Doubtless there are cases where it is a
difficult thing to maintain schools without the help of the general goy-
ernment,” he said, “but we gave them school lands for the purpose of
maintaining schools, which are neither needed nor maintained. We
build the roads in these forest reserves, as a general proposition. .. .
There is not a farmer in any forest reserve state that would not think
he was being robbed at the point of a pistol if he had to pay 85 per
cent of his gross receipts as taxes. It is expected that we shall pay to

the states 35 per cent of the value of the timber which we sell, after

we have let it grow, after we have kept the fires out, after we have
protected it for a long time at national expense. I have never seen a
proposition which seemed to me so rank in the way of giving prefer-
ence to one part of the country over another.”

Morse of Wisconsin pointed out how unjust such a provision would ~

A ia i ae

be in its application to the Appalachian forests, where the government _

was already buying the lands for more than they were worth. Stanley
of Kentucky declared that this attempt to “mulct the national treas-

ury,” if it were “proposed as a matter of substantive law instead of —
being done by subterfuge,” would not get twenty votes in the House.
Other men were almost equally outspoken in their opposition—Hitch- °

cock of Nebraska, Keifer of Ohio, Tawney of Minnesota, and Payne
of New York. Scott of Kansas, who had the appropriation bill in
charge, was strongly opposed to the amendment, but stated that it
was the belief of the House conferees that it would be impossible to

get the Senate to agree to the conference report unless the increase —

were allowed.

Many of the western congressmen rallied to the support of this
proposition. Englebright of California mentioned one county in Cali- |
fornia in which the government forest reserve included $50,000,000 E
worth of property, yet had sold only $445 worth of timber and so had —
turned over only $100 to the state in lieu of taxes. Martin and Rucker

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 275

Colorado argued that 35 per cent was not enough, since the other
tes had got all. As Martin expressed it, “We regard it in the light
having returned to us 35 per cent of what you have first taken away
m us.” Appealing to Payne of New York, he continued: “Your
te has had the benefit of its public domain and all its resources,
nd now you propose to take away all that remains of the public
jomain in our state, its water power, its coal lands, its oil lands, its
phosphate lands, and everything else, and turn them over to a Federal
ureau to milk them perpetually as a source of Federal profit.” Martin
of South Dakota enlarged on the “burden of maintaining order” in
th reserves, which, of course, was saddled on the states. Taylor of
orado called upon Congress to “give the pioneer settlers of the
st a fair share of the hard earned fees they are paying into this
s refund, and let them build their roads, maintain their schools,
cate their children and build up the West as you have the East.”
Miondell claimed that the localities should have a return somewhere
ear what they would receive if the lands were in private ownership
nd taxed, and pointed out that it was the people of the West who
the grazing fees, and, in fact, all the revenues of the forests.
ey of Oregon argued that since the people living near the forest
es were of great assistance in fighting fire, they ought to be
npensated by a larger percentage of the forest reserve receipts.
yen one eastern man, Sulzer of New York, expressed sympathy with
ims of the West.

In spite of the efforts of these men, the House absolutely refused to
cede to the 35 per cent amendment, and sent it back to a conference
r ee twice. The conference committee was long unable to come
any agreement. The House conferees—Scott of Kansas, Cocks of
hes and Lamb of Virginia—stood out for the elimination of
; amendment, and the Senate conferees—Dolliver of Iowa, Warren
W Vyoming, and Money of Mississippi—insisted upon its retention.
er considerable wrangling, the Senate finally receded from its
er dment.*® This attempt of the western men to secure more of the
mal receipts for schools and roads thus failed, but that did not
op the ent, nor the efforts to secure a larger share of the

| See debates on H. R. 18162; 61 Cong. 2 sess.

276 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Considerable complaint was made because the roads built through
the forests were inadequate, some men claiming that western communi-—
ties often had to bear the cost of building these roads, since the goy-
ernment did not do it, and some roads were necessary to preserve ade-
quate communication with the rest of the world. In 1912, the Senate
inserted an amendment to the Agricultural Appropriation Bill, pro-
viding that in addition to the 25 per cent for roads and schools in the
counties where the national forests were located, another 25 per cent
should be used to build roads and trails in the national forests them-
selves. The House refused to agree with this, but finally 10 per cent
was secured for this purpose. Efforts have been made since to get this’
increased but thus far without success. In 1916, however, Congress”
appropriated $10,000,000 for the construction of roads in the
national forests, $1,000,000 to be available each year for ten years.”

JUSTICE OF COMPLAINTS REGARDING LOSS OF TAXING powEn}

The question as to the justice of the complaints regarding the loss
of taxing power, and the consequent excessive burden of maintaining
schools and roads, etc., is not free of difficulty. Senator Heyburn once
claimed that in one county in Idaho the taxes paid by private citizens
amounted to $190,000, while the government contribution was only H
$767.87, although the government owned two thirds of the property
in the county. “In that county,” he said, “the men who are there to”
represent the government receive, first, the benefit of the law that
affects them in their personal and property rights. They receive, next,
the benefit of the local law, the state law, that protects these forests”
from fire. The state of Idaho did thus, pursuant to the laws of the state
of Idaho, expend $10 where the government expends $1 in the protec-
tion of the government’s timber. Upon that vast area, and that re-
serve is nearly twice as large as some of the states of the United
States, there is just as much and the same necessity for protection of
the law administered at the expense of the state and counties as there
is elsewhere. There are post offices, villages, public schools, and other

30S, Report 696; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: Cong. Rec., May 30, 1912, 7411; Feb. 10, 1913,
2957; Feb. 27, 1918, 4137; Mar. 10, 1914, 4629: Stat. 37, 288. See also H. R. 81,
H. R. 1667, H. R. 8476; 63 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 20994; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: H, R.
27012; 62 Cong. 3 sess.: Cong. Rec., Jan. 24, 1913, 1049, 1950: Stat. 39, 358.

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 277

institutions of public benefit maintained upon the very forest reserves
mselves. . Would it be fair to have a non-resident landholder
the state ated from contribution to the expenses of the state
the local government? Should the United States be exempt from
contributing to the cost of its own protection and the protection of its
own property?” Senator Heyburn once claimed that it cost one county
in Idaho $8000 in one. year to try cases that originated upon the
est reserves.**

Representative Humphrey, in connection with an effort a few years
later to secure an investigation of the Forest Service, claimed that
the state of Washington had received $14,400 a year where the taxes
on the timber would have yielded at least $7,593,500 annually.*? Rep-
resentative Johnson of the same state asserted that it cost one county
in Washington $100,000 to “help out the Forest Service” ; while the
25 per cent contribution from the government amounted to $24.65.
eaking of the withdrawal of 700,000 acres of so-called agricultural
and from the Olympia National Forest in 1901, Johnson admitted
rat the land fell mainly into the hands of the big timber owners; but
Dissisted that “the money they paid the settlers was the money that
that part of the country going” and that the “wages they pay in
camps, mills, and offices is to this day the principal support of the
ountry in question. But for the withdrawal of 1901, another county
vould have been bankrupted.”** Hawley of Oregon claimed that his
ta ite was getting $50,000 a year in lieu of about $1,000,000 which
1e would have got by taxation, had her timber lands been in private

34
Se

Py.

ere is no doubt some justice in these complaints. The Forest
ce admits that in some cases the national forests impose a heavy
ur¢ en on settlers, and as Mr. Graves puts it: “There is little com-
Bis the man who, with a handful of neighbors, must pay heavy
a es for roads, schools, and other purposes, in the thought that at
iI e time in the more or less indefinite future, conservation will mean
iereased local prosperity. He bears his burdens now. Though the
"81 Cong. Rec., Mar. 7, 1910, 2842; Mar. 8, 1910, 2893.

Cong. Rec., 63 Cong. 1 sess., 1867.

Cong. Rec., 63 Cong. 1 sess., 5972; 63 Cong. 2 sess., 4635.
Cong. Rec., 64 Cong. 1 sess., 6404.

278 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

forests had been bought up and were being held undeveloped by specu- 4
lators in order to take toll of the public later, he would at least, if
they were in private hands, be able to make them pay their share :
toward the expenses of local self-government.””*° i

The loss in “taxing power” has generally been grossly exaggerated, ;
however. The complaints of such men as Heyburn on this as on other i
subjects, have been biased in spirit and exaggerated in statement of —
fact. While some communities suffer hardship, others doubtless get —
more from the 25 per cent fund than they would from taxation, if
the land were in private hands, and as time goes on this will become 4
more and more generally true. Mondell once admitted that he believed —
the 25 per cent would eventually yield just as much for the western
states as they would get from taxation.

Contributions to the western states from forest reserve receipts in —
1916 were as follows: . 4

School and road ~ Road and trail

State moneys (25 per cent) moneys (10 percent)
Montana $ 79,589.78 $ 31,835.91 3
Idaho 75,651.15 30,260.46 |
California 67,611.87 27,044.74
Arizona 59,807.89 23,923.16 {
Colorado 59,218.60 23,687.44 j
Oregon 49,675.88 19,870.83 3
Utah 48,675.96 19,470.88 '
Wyoming 43,086.86 17,284.75 (0
Washington 37,445.56 14,978.23
New Mexico 31,786.46 12,714.58 . @
Nevada 16,244.58 6,497.81
South Dakota 12,988.11 5,195.25 4

The states of Arizona and New Mexico received additional shares of

national forest receipts amounting to over $40,000 for their school — a

funds, on account of school lands included within national forests.*®
The growth in the amount available for the states is indicated by

85 Cong. Rec., 63 Cong. 1 sess., Appendix, pp. 465 et —
36 Report, Sec. of Agr., 1916, 278,

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 279

ne following table, showing the total contributions for the road and
school fund since 1908—the year when this contribution was raised
om 10 to 25 per cent:

1908 $ 447,063 1918: -’ $ 632,141
1909 441,552 1914 639,893
1910 510,907 1915 649,067
- 1911 515,073 1916 610,797
1912 554,380 1917 695,541

Much of the reasoning regarding this loss in taxing power has been
uperficial, or worse. In figuring what revenues would have been
oyed if the reserves had been subject to taxation, the assumption
usually been made that the standing timber would be taxed,
ecording to the unscientific system common in the United States. A
ational tax should of course be levied mainly on the annual cut,

ather than on the standing timber; and, if it is true, as even govern-
ment officials are now inclined to admit, that lumbermen have not gen-
erally made any profits during the past decade (previous to the out-
break of the world war), it appears that the tax on the annual cut
should in justice be a fairly light tax. This was recently pointed
in Congress by Representative McLaughlin of Michigan, when
umphrey and Johnson were bewailing the fact that many sawmills
the West were being run at a loss, and that private individuals could
rdly afford to own timber lands. McLaughlin pertinently sug-
ted that if private individuals could not afford to own lands, they
d hardly afford to pay taxes on the lands.*’ Even if it had been
sible to levy a heavy yield tax on timber lands, it would have
ded little revenue in some sections, for much of the government
ber is inaccessible at present prices.

Much of the reasoning on the subject takes only a short-time view
of the matter. If the government timber were turned over to private
exploitation, there can be no doubt that most of it would be exploited
“more rapidly than it is now, and that some of the communities
‘involved would enjoy an era of what Americans commonly regard as
osperity” ; but if such a policy resulted in the speedy and wasteful
ruction of this timber, such a “prosperity” would be short-lived.
87 Cong. Rec., Apr. 19, 1916, 6458.

280 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

The government, in its forest reserve policy, is aiming at long-time
results.

It is commonly assumed in these complaints about the loss of taxing
power, that if the national forests were turned over to private owner-
ship, and sawmills were built to saw up the timber, the only effect on
the financial balance sheet of the community would be an increase in
tax revenues. No attention has usually been given to the fact that
these mills would need a large number of employees, and that, with
an increase in population, would come an increased expense for
enforcing justice, providing schools, etc. These expenses might not
increase in the same proportion as the revenues, but they would
certainly increase somewhat. .

As a matter of general reasoning, it seems probable that conserva-
tion does not involve any general sacrifice for the present or for future
generations, even in the West. It is true that it may result in a slower
rise in rents and land values, and may at first involve all the disad-
vantages that arise from sparseness of population, but in some regions
it has not retarded the growth of population, and even where it has,
it must be remembered that sparseness of population has its own
advantages. Perhaps the average standard of comfort in the West is

just as high as it would be if there had never been any national for- _

ests; and if it is true that the reservation policy means a wiser and
more economical use of resources, the standard of comfort in the long
run will be higher than would otherwise have been possible.**

Of course any policy that hinders rapid growth and expansion
would seem most iniquitous to many people of the West, because
western people are characteristically “boosters” of the most enthusi-
astic type, keenly intent upon “growing” as rapidly as possible, and
sometimes careless as to whether their development is along safe and
sane lines or not.

It is not the policy of the Forest Service to shut the people out of
the national forests. The general policy is to put to its most produc-
tive use every foot of land in the forests. Those areas most valuable
for agriculture are to be used for that purpose; those most valuable
for mining should go to the miner; those most valuable as water

38 See an able article by Professor W. I. King, in the Quarterly Journal of
Economics, May, 1916, 595.

59]

<a

SA ei EP iach Ney aba ae
FOG ge a ee ae ee ee ee ee

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 281

rer sites or for irrigation should be put to the proper use. There
can be only one way to accomplish this development, and that is to
g farmers to farm land, miners to prospect and develop mines,
er power companies to build construction works, lumbermen to
y timber, stockmen to put in their herds to feed on the grass. In
ier words, people are needed in the forests to use the resources.

It should be noted finally, that, even if the complaints of hardship
m loss of taxation be given full credence, it is not probable that the
way to help unfortunate communities would be to increase the ©
‘centage of national forest receipts, for where little use of the for-
s has as yet been developed, the receipts would not do much good
a if they were all given. The remedy for such a situation must be
found in some other way. It would be unwise for the government to
increase this fund above 25 per cent; but it is not at all impossible
it the western men may yet secure an increase. The proposition has
rk barrel” flavor which might make an irresistible appeal to
ngress, under certain circumstances. Furthermore, it presents a
rather attractive and indirect way of attacking the reservation policy.
Tf the opponents of the national forests could get something for their
constituents, and at the same time increase the “insolvency” of the
reserves by cutting down the share of revenues available for their
protection, and thus turn some of the eastern men against them, they
uld be attacking the forests in the safest and most effective way. It
; not certain that the average congressman from the West gains
Du a ic favor, even among his “home folk,” by attacking the reserves
rectly, but if he can attack them in the guise of a statesman seeking
*pork,” he can hardly fail to win votes, and at the same time perhaps
serio uly prejudice the reserves. It is notable that several of the
scent attacks on the reservation policy have been inaugurated by an
ttempt to secure an increase in this fund.

INCLUSION OF STATE LANDS IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS

ad a complaints have been made regarding the inclusion of
te lands in the national forests. It has been claimed that, in some
ases, the value of state lands has been reduced to almost nothing;
= in almost every session of Congress a great many bills are intro-
uced to “adjust the claims of the States and Territories to lands

282 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

within National Forests.” The Forest Service has been exchanging
lands outside the reserves for state lands included wherever it is pos-
sible to do so, however, and it is hoped that this complaint will be
heard less frequently in the future. It is to the advantage of the
Forest Service as well as the states that the reserves should be con-
solidated wherever possible. Wherever Congress has authorized ex-
changes they are being made.”

* ROBBING THE WESTERN FORESTS FOR THE EASTERN FORESTS

Within recent years there has been some complaint that the gov-
ernment is “robbing” the western forests for the benefit of the new
Appalachian reserves. As Mondell once expressed it: “We are now
trying to maintain a good-natured attitude toward the Appalachian
Forest Reserves, but I fear that we cannot, if gentlemen insist on

*
Eick

*

; ee
—, a

robbing our reserves of proper appropriations in order to appropriate —

money for the maintenance of the Appalachian Reserves. I notice

this, that while you take this money away from our reserves at the
rate of 2 cents an acre, . . . you apply it to the Appalachian Re-

a4

serves at the rate of 20 cents an acre, so that it is going to cost, right —
off the bat, 10 times as much per acre to take care of this Appa-

lachian land as it does to take care of the western forest land.’’*°

OBJECTION TO AN “ALIEN GOVERNMENT.”

Just as in an earlier period, many western people have been com- —

plaining that the reservation policy subjects them to the exactions

of a bureaucratic, alien government. The West is said to be “rele-

gated to the position of Federal provinces,” governed by a “gigantic
feudal landlord, ruling over unwilling tenants by the agency of irre-
sponsible bureaus; traversing every local right, meddling with every

¢
ot i ee ne. T

rs a ra ee

private enterprise.” The entire policy is pronounced a “transplanted —

exotic from monarchial Europe, wholly out of harmony with American —
institutions.” “Mr. Pinchot makes his own laws, construes them and
executes them,” declared E. M. Ammons—later governor of Colo-
rado—in a speech a few years ago. “He is the legislative, the judiciary —

89 Report, Sec. of Agr., 1909, 399; 1912, 473; 1916, 45: Report, Forester, 1914,
27; 1915, 20.
40 Cong. Rec., Mar. 9, 1912, 3108.

ri
“a

STILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 283
ecutive. . . . He is in fact a very sovereign”; while as to
»f the West, “their souls are not their own; their American
subdued ; there is ringing in their very souls a hatred of

nt.”? It has often been claimed that the Forest Service, in
t of the reserves, was accustomed to disregard the state

., Apr. 98, 1909, 1567; May 14, 1909, 2019; Feb. 1, 1910, 1351; May
9; Feb. 27, 1912, 2529: No. Am. Review, 191, 465; Apr., 1910.

CHAPTER IX

HOSTILITY TO THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN RECENT

YEARS (continvep): CRITICISM OF THE
FOREST SERVICE

THe complaints mentioned above were directed at the general policy
of reservation. There were also many complaints, not regarding the
policy itself, but regarding the way in which that policy has been
carried out, complaints of inefficiency and malfeasance on the part
of the Forest Service.

THE “INSOLVENCY” OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS AND ALLEGED
EXTRAVAGANCE OF THE FOREST SERVICE
The alleged failure of the national forests to support themselves
has brought much criticism in recent years. Pinchot predicted in 1907
that within five years the reserves would be self-supporting, but
enemies of the reserves have produced figures purporting to show that
every year but one during the next decade, there was a deficit of from
$300,000 to $1,400,000.*
This so-called “insolvency” of the reserves was attributed to the

extravagance of the Forest Service; and complaints on this point have |

1 Receipts rrom Nationat Forests anp Amounts EXPENDED FOR
MaAInTENANCE OF Forests From 1908 ro 1917 INcLUsIVE
EXPENDITURES

RECEIPTS FOR MAINTENANCE DEFICIT .
1908 $ 1,788,255.19 $ 1,622,413.17 $ —165,842.02
1909 1,766,088.46 2,093,781.68 327,693.22
1910 2,041,181.22 2,791,275.62 750,094.40
1911 1,968,993.42 3,395,730.77 1,426,737.35
1912 2,109,256.91 3,433,285.36 1,324,028.45
1913 2,391,920.85 3,396,762.44 1,004,841.59
1914 2,437,710.21 3,337,048.83 899,338.62
1915 2,481,469.35 3,261,455.16 779,985.81
1916 2,823,540.71 3,427,140.41 603,599.70
1917 3,457,028.41 3,868,562.60 411,534.19
Total $ 23,265,444.73 $ -30,627,456.04 $ 7,362,010,39

|
4
¢ I
i
|
a
{

ee ee ey

Po aae

fh es

Pe] pore
Lie tine Se ole 2 +5

,

- HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 285

me not only from Mondell and Heyburn and the other western anti-
nservationists, but from farther east—from Tawney and Steener-
n of Minnesota, Fitzgerald, Perkins, and Bennett of New York,
irk and Stone of Missouri, Haugen of Iowa, Hamilton-of Michigan,
and others.

The extravagance of the Forest Service is alleged to have been
own in various ways. Mondell claimed in 1911 that not over 15 per
it of the annual appropriations for the Service in the previous six
ars had been used directly in protection of the reserves, a consider-
le share of the rest going for an unnecessarily large clerical force,
eling expenses, for unnecessary junkets, and for the prepara-
m of newspaper and magazine articles for advertising the Forest
rvice.” Various men have complained of the payment of traveling
mses of forestry officers, who “stand before the national geo-
uphic societies and other learned societies with impressive titles and
]l them how the world ought to be run.’ In 1908, an amendment to
e Agricultural Appropriation Bill provided that none of the money
ypropriated should be used to pay traveling expenses of any forest
fice except on business directly connected with the Forest Service ;
t it was often charged even afterward that government funds were
ed to pay the expenses of officials who were merely going about
uring to conventions and associations.*

he “press bureau” of the Forest Service has often been criticised,
charge being that the Service devotes considerable time to the
preparation of bulletins and articles, often of a self-laudatory nature,
to send out to the newspapers and magazines. Mondell pointed out in
910 that the Forest Service had a mailing list of 750,000 names.°
908, the appropriation bill was amended to prevent the use of
ey for the preparation or publication of such articles, but it has
charged that the Forest Service often evaded this.°

rs c JUSTICE OF THESE COMPLAINTS
The weight to be given to these complaints of extravagance in the

Cong. Rec., Feb. 2, 1911, 1836.
Speech of Senator Heyburn, Cong. Rec., Mar. 1, 1911, 3774.
4Stat. 35,259.
Cong. Rec., Feb. 1, 1910, 1359.
6 Stat. 35, 259.

286 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Forest Service will depend somewhat on the point of view taken. Com-
pared with private business enterprise at its best, probably nearly
all government bureaus are inefficient and extravagant; but the Forest
Service has been one of the most efficient bureaus in Washington. As
a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons why the Service was sub-
ject to so much criticism during Pinchot’s régime. The Service was
going ahead with much the same energy and enterprise that is sup-
posed to characterize private business, and this brought it into con-
flict with interests which were represented in Congress. Officials and
bureaus that follow the humdrum, cut-and-dried methods of the aver-
age office in Washington are seldom or never criticised. As a rule,
nothing speaks so well for a public official or department as a generous
amount of criticism from the politicians.

The figures given above, to show the “insolvency” of the reserves,

do not really prove anything. The reserves were self-supporting in __

1908, and they might have been maintained on that basis had that —

been a wise policy to pursue. In 1908, however, Pinchot recommended
a change of policy, recommended that there should be provision for
more effective protection and administration of the reserves, even if it
resulted in a deficit, and this policy was adopted. It should also be

noted that some of the figures given for expenses include, not only the

actual cost of forest administration, but a great many items—sal-
aries, rents, cost of investigative work, etc.—which have nothing
directly to do with the national forests.

The statement that only 15 per cent—later 25 per cent—of the
money appropriated went directly to the protection of the forests, is
at least misleading, for it is difficult to say what money is used
directly in the protection of the reserves. It can hardly be said that
the work of a clerk or draftsman is less essential to the protection of
the forests than the work of a ranger. A great many clerks there are
in any government office, but this seems to be required by the “red
tape” of officialdom. When Henry Graves was made chief of the Ser-
vice, he took some steps toward a greater decentralization of the
administration and tried to use more of the appropriation for pro-
tection and investigation."

7 Forest Quarterly, 12, 397 et seq.

]

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS. 287

‘There might easily be a question as to the justification for any con-
lerable expenditure for expenses of officials going to deliver lectures.
Rather of members of the Forest Service have at different times
rformed such work, but it was usually incidental:to other work. As
rule, addresses before eduéational institutions, associations of wood
srs, commercial and civic organizations, and general audiences, are
made by men en route and without cost to the Forest Service, except —
the expenditure of time involved.* Even so, however, this has not been
an altogether negligible item, for, as late as 1916, 425 addresses were
ven by members of the Forest Service. Whether this be a proper
function of the Forest Service or not is a question concerning which
ere may well be an honest difference of opinion.®
Regarding the preparation and publication of articles by the Forest
ice, much the same must be said. Almost all investigators em-
oyed by the Forest Service who have done work of any considerable
rtance, have doubtless been engaged at some time in writing
utter for publication, either in official bulletins or in magazines or
newspapers. The Forest Service always has a number of men employed
in investigative work and it is desirable that the results of such work
should be made available to the public. The Service has for many
ears had in its employ one or more men engaged primarily in editing
manuscripts for official publication, and these editors have sometimes
en matter for publication, both in official bulletins and circulars
| in periodicals and newspapers. At times the Service has had men
whose function was chiefly or entirely to diffuse information through
1e press. At one time the Service had a mailing list of 750,000 names
nd from five to seven men were employed in editing and.sending out
serial. That the work of attending to this mailing list is an expen-
apelin may be inferred from the fact that the installation of an
sssing machine by the Forest Service in 1908 is reported to have
rec Hiced the clerical force of the Service by thirty persons.
some ways, this publicity work has been about as much needed
id as valuable a line of work as any that the Forest Service performs.

H. Doc. 681; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912, 466 et seq. See also
9c. 485; 60 Cong. 1 sess.

9H. Doc. 681; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912, 466 et seq. See also
Doe. 485; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: Report, Chief of the Division of Forestry, 1891, 195.

288 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Twenty years ago, the average man in the United States, even the
average educated man, had absolutely no idea as to what forestry

meant. The average man looked upon forestry, as a prominent forest
official once said, as “something in the nature of a frill for rich men —
embellishing their estates, or a combination of tree planting-and the

‘Woodman, spare that tree’ idea.” Pinchot, and others with him, saw —
the need for education of the public, saw the desirability of utilizing ©

the press of the country as a means of disseminating information. It

was one of Pinchot’s virtues that he was a good advertiser, for if he —
had not been he never could have accomplished all that he did. Nat-
urally some of the material published has tended to “boom the —

national forests, and that has brought criticism.*°
The Forest Service has tried to diffuse information in various ways:

by advice to individuals, given on the ground, or by correspondence;
by the preparation and distribution of publications; by public ad-—
dresses; by the loan and sale of lantern slides, pictures, and other
material for the use of lecturers, writers, and others; by codperation

with teachers, public school officials, and others connected with educa-
tional work; by exhibits at expositions; and by the preparation of

official information concerning forestry, in brief typewritten or

mimeographed statements, which are given to the newspapers for
publication.

The Forest Service could doubtless make the reserves pay their own —
way, if such a policy seemed wise. If the Service were to increase the —
grazing fees sufficiently, make a special effort to sell a larger amount
of standing timber, and cut out, or greatly reduce, the amount ex-—

pended for permanent improvement, investigative work, etc., it could
doubtless make the reserves pay a net profit to the government; but —

the Forest Service has wisely declined to adopt any such course. —
Probably the grazing fees should be generally increased, but any —
decrease in expenditures for permanent improvements would be short-
sighted economy. Perhaps most of what is spent. on the forests each ©
year should be regarded as an investment. This applies not only to
expenntgrss for road and trail construction but likewise to “—-

protection.”

10 Reports, Sec. of Agr., 1907, 347; 1908, 438 et seq.; 1909, 407 et seq.; 1916, 190,

11 Am. Forestry, May, 1917, 305: 4m. Lumberman, May 27, 1916, 58.

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 289
_ THE TIMBER SALE POLICY OF THE FOREST SERVICE
_ The receipts from timber sales could perhaps be augmented, but in
considering this possibility, it is necessary to go briefly into the ques-
tion of the timber sale policy of the government, for this has long been
th : object of severe criticism and, perhaps strangely, on diametrically
opposite grounds. Some critics have asserted that the price charged
ie government was too high, while others, although not so many,
charged that the price was too low.
ith the increase in lumber prices since 1897, it was inevitable that
people should suspect the working of a lumber trust and that
should wonder why the government did not at least try to keep
: down, by selling its own timber at a price somewhat below those
ished by the so-called “lumber trust.” The charge has often been
ude that the government not only did not undersell the “trust,” but
ully established a price somewhat higher than that of private own-
the same vicinity. E. M. Ammons, later governor of Colorado,
sised the Forest Service for its method of selling timber to the
bidder, and charged that the “lumber trust” bid just high
ai to get it, and then added correspondingly to the consumer’s
. Senator Heyburn called attention to a conference between the
orestry officials and the lumber operators to fix a scale of prices, and
sserted that the Forest Service had increased prices 100 per cent.
tepresentative Humphrey of Washington charged the Forest Ser-
~e > with being largely responsible for the timber “monopoly” in the
est, and alleged that the big “interests” Frederick Weyerhaeuser,
P| “Hi, and others—were among the most prominent influences in
e conservation movement. He asserted that the “so-called forest-
aservation movement” had “operated solely to bull the lumber and
nber market.”
a fuch of the complaint regarding the high price set by the govern-
at on its timber was not made in any spirit of sincerity. Men who
liked the system anyhow found here a good line of attack—one
ich would make a strong bid for popular support. This is clearly
: lice ted by the following extract from a confidential letter which the

as 12 Cong. Rec., May 19, 1910, 6527; May 16, 1912, 6545; Mar. 10, 1914, 4621,
8; Mar. 12, 1914, 4759, 4760; June 2, 1913, 1865; Apr. 18, 1916, 6388: H. Res.

a

290 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

board of governors of the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Asso- :

ciation circulated among the members of that association in July, —
1913: |

“Dear Sir: (Confidential. )

“There is good reason to believe that an attack is to be made upon
the administration of the Forest Service, with particular reference -
to the present methods of selling timber from the national forests.

“For your confidential information, will say that certain members —
of Congress, whose antagonism to the Forest Service is well known,
are said to be planning to make the charge, as soon as pending tariff —
and currency legislation is out of the way, that the policy of the
Forest Service in disposing of government timber is dictated, or at
least influenced to a degree, by timber owners.”

Representative Johnson of Washington criticised the Forest Ser-
vice for selling stumpage too cheap. He admitted that the price of -
the government was nominally higher than the market price, but said
it was really lower because the government gave purchasers five years
without interest to remove timber purchased. Johnson was in close
touch with lumber interests; in fact, he apparently had lumber inter-
ests of his own, and this would easily explain his attitude.*

On the whole, there is exceedingly slender basis for the criticisms
of the policy of the Forest Service with regard to timber sales. In the |
first place, the Service is required by law to sell at actual market —
prices, and is not subject to criticism for following the provisions of
the law. Furthermore, even if the law did not require this, it would
be the only wise policy to sell at the regular market price. If the price 1
were raised above the market price, the government would be unable
to sell at all; a revenue of over a million dollars a year would be
lopped off ; and a large amount of mature timber would be left to rot”
in the forests. Much of the government timber is mature, some even —
deteriorating. Even at the price set, the Forest Service has never sold
anything approximating the annual growth of the national forests;
in fact, it has been stated that it never sold as much as one sixth the
estimated annual growth previous to 1913. If, on the other hand, the

13 “umber Industry,” Pt. IV, 61 et seq.
14 Cong. Rec., Apr. 18, 1916, 6390, 6392 et Seq.

HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 291

were put below the prevailing market price, it would only tend
ease the demoralization which has existed in the lumber industry
of the time during the past ten years.

is not certain that the government revenues could be greatly |
ased by reducing the price, even if that were possible. In those
ets where the amount of government timber is not large enough
‘ect the market greatly, no great increase in sales could be
ted, no matter what the price, and in regions where the govern-
Seber’: is an important factor in the market, reduction in price
‘simply compel private owners to reduce too, and thus leave the
aount of government sales somewhat the same as before. It is stated
hat the reason why the government has not sold more is not that the
ice is too high, but rather that it is impossible to dispose of inac-
le blocks of timber at any price. Much of the government timber
aparatively inaccessible, and large investments are necessary to
s dev: elopment on any considerable scale.

B: en from the point of view of the consumer, very little is to be
vic for a reduction in the government price of stumpage. Unless the
ount of such timber is so great as to have an important influence
market, it is likely that if the government lowered its price the
te purchasers of this cheap stumpage would nevertheless sell
roduct at the regular market price, and pocket the profits
y. Under any circumstances, it is of course the long-run inter-

consumers rather than their mere immediate interests which
be considered.”
ht be possible for the Forest Service to increase its revenues
at: by charging for the timber which it has for many years
giving away free to settlers ; but the amount of timber thus given
as not been very great—120,000,000 feet in 1916—and even
re a very considerable item, it is not certain that it would be
0 expedient. to charge settlers for it.
s already stated, the Forest Service should increase the grazing
e rates allowed in the past have hardly been fair to all con-
ied. Not only has the government been meeting an annual deficit
, Sec. of Agr., 1908, 422; 1912, 491; 1916, 157 et seq.: Report, Forester,

9, 10. See also “Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry,
. B. Greeley; Dept. of Agr., Office of Sec., Report 114.

292 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

while the stockmen were getting the grazing for half what it was
worth, but the states lose a share of what they ought to receive under
the present scheme of apportionment. Thirty-five per cent of the loss —
falls upon them. The Forest Service was planning a gradual increase ~
in rates at the time the recent war broke out, but this was postponed —
because of war conditions. The livestock associations protested
vigorously against the increase.*°

THE FOREST LIEU ACT AGAIN

The difficulties arising under the Forest Lieu Act of 1897 have
been discussed in a previous chapter; but it is necessary to note here
that those difficulties did not end with the repeal of the act in 1905;
and even within very recent years, there has been a great deal of dis-
cussion of this act, largely in the way of a criticism of the Forest
Service for a part it was alleged to have played. a

Senator Heyburn always. maintained that the evils of the Forest |
Lieu Act should be attributed to Secretary Hitchcock, and to the
conservation movement generally. Humphrey of Washington later
took a similar position, especially charging the Forest Service with
having backed the bill for the creation of the Mount Ranier National
Park, and asserting that it was the conservationists who blocked the -
passage of the act repealing the Forest Lieu Act until the Northeray
Pacific could get its scrip located.

The merits of the Forest Lieu controversy have been discussed § in-
a previous connection,” but it may be pointed out here that only a
vivid imagination could trace any of the evils of the Forest Lieu Act
to the door of the Forest Service. Previous to 1905, the forest reserves ‘
were under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, while
the Division of Forestry—later known as the Bureau of Forestry,
and after 1905 as the Forest Service—was in the Department of
Agriculture. The officials in the Division—or Bureau—of Forestry _
could hardly be criticised for not protesiee against same ine which
was officially none of their business.**

,

P|

16 Am. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 177: dm. Lumberman, May 27, 1916, 58. 4
17 Cross Reference, pp. 176-190.
18 Cong. Rec., May 14, 1912, 6383, 6384; June 2, 1913, 1863, et seq.; Mar 10,
1914, 4631; Mar. 14, 1914, 4867; Jan. 27, 1915, 2148 et seq. a3

ce

HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS 298

_ Criticisms of the Forest Service naturally involved a considerable

ticism of Gifford Pinchot, for many years the head of the Service.
> was accused of ruling over the reserves as a feudal lord over his
mesne ; and “Pinchotism,” in the vernacular of certain congressmen,
s meant to imply all that was arbitrary, unreasonable, and despotic.
2 fact that he was an eastern man, wealthy, and represented by
ne as an aristocrat, did not raise him in the estimation of some of
. western people.’® Representative Humphrey also criticised Pinchot
not having protested against the operation of the Forest Lien
and several western men accused him of being in large measure
onsible for the frauds arising under that act.”°

HEYBURN’S CRITICISMS

is perhaps hardly worth while to point out all the various criti- |
s made by Senator Heyburn in his opposition to the Forest Ser-
fice: his assertion that the Forest Service was in politics; that for-
ry officials in Idaho had admitted they were instructed to see that
was not reélected to the Senate; that forest rangers were accus-
d to get their tree seeds by robbing squirrels’ nests, thus leaving
peeerels to starve, etc. There may have been truth in some of his
zes, but, as pointed out ina previous chapter, Senator Heyburn
50 highly lacking in judicial poise when he spoke of the Forest
ice that his statements have to be received with considerable
tt
nator Heyburn was wont to tell a great many stories about the
trocities committed by the Forest Service. One story he several times
counted was that of Robert Byrne, a miner, who was shot from
mbush for refusing to vacate ground from which he had been ordered
ra forest ranger. Another story was of the mayor of Senator Hey-
in’s town, who, riding along the road with his family one day, met
19 Something of the acerbity of some of the western writers may be judged from
ollowing editorial from one of the western newspapers: “Of the asininity of
chotism, of the unfeeling selfishness with which mad theorists plan to build up a
eral empire in the sovereign states of the West and in Alaska, . . . Seattle long
shad knowledge.” (Cong. Rec., Mar. 10, 1914, 4636.)
Cong. Rec., Jan. 7, 1910, 393-399 ; Mar. 10, 1914, 4636; Jan. 22, 1915, 2151,

2; Apr. 18, 1916, 6390, 6395; Jan. 6, 1910, 366: Forest Bul. 67, 1905.
21 Cong. Rec., Mar. 8, 1910, 2885, 2893; Mar. 1, 1911, 3771, 3774.

a forest ranger, but did not give him enough of the road, whereupon

294 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 7
:

the ranger pulled a revolver and commenced shooting at him. These,
Heyburn declared, were “merely little instances of the manner of
administration.”

THE REAL ATTITUDE OF THE WEST

Perhaps the question may be raised as to the real attitude of the |
West toward the national forests in recent years—Are the people in —
western states still generally hostile, or have they become reconciled —

to the reservation policy?

To this question it is difficult to give a general answer. Certainly —
the attitude of the people varies with the different states, counties, and

communities, as well as with individuals. Much of the evidence on the
subject is conflicting, anyhow. It is commonly asserted that the West

has finally come to look with favor on the forests ; yet, even in recent
years, some western politicians have staked their political hopes on a —

record of hostility, and have won. Senators Heyburn and Dubois of

Idaho always represented opposite sides of the question, and both —

seemed to feel assured of popular support. So, in later years, Hum-—

phrey and Bryan of Washington represented opposite views; and —

other similar examples might be given. Senator Warren attributed his —
defeat in one election to a speech he made in Congress in favor of —
ceding the forest reserves. to the states. On the other hand, Congress- i
man Taylor of Colorado once claimed that three representatives from 4
Colorado had failed of reélection because they failed to get some of

the Colorado reserves opened to settlement.

Senator Smoot of Utah said not many years ago: “The approval :

of the work of this service on national forests by the great body of the —

people, and particularly by the western people whom it most affects, —
has grown steadily until it is probably more general and more em- —
phatic than the popular approval of the work of any other Federal —
agency.” Heyburn and Borah of Idaho would never for a minute have —
admitted any such statement as this; yet Mondell, a pretty consistent — }

opponent of the forest reserves, stated recently: “The people in the

Mountain States, in the main, believe that the reasonable establish- —

22 Cong. Rec., Mar. 8, 1910, 2893: Forestry and Irrigation, Aug., 1908, 445. For :

a similar story told by Senator Carter, see Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3233. ‘e

_ HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 295

t of reserves, that is, the establishment of reserves within reason-
boundaries, properly and wisely administered, is a good ae
hat country and for the country as a whole.”

1e conservation writer concludes that Colorado is now friendly
the reserves, because the people of northern Colorado petitioned
gress for a law permitting the President to add a half million
s to one of the Colorado forests. Only three years before this,

ever, the legislature of Colorado had adopted a memorial to Con-
ress strongly protesting against the reserves. It will be remembered
hat when the question of the disposition of the forfeited railroad
nt in Oregon was up in Congress, certain representatives of Oregon
sed “unalterable opposition” to the creation of any more
es."* It seems that the hostility which led to the withdrawal of
esident’s power in 1907 has not disappeared entirely, for in
the section forbidding him to create national forests in the six
ostern states was reénacted, and in 1912, the state of California
dded to the list.** In the fall of 1912, Gifford Pinchot sent out
juestionnaires to representative individuals in the western states,
: their opinion as to the value of the forests. Of the 1500 replies
ed, 90 per cent were claimed to be favorable to the reserves.”
er illustrations might be given, but enough has been said to indi-
that general statements are misleading, if not meaningless. It
probably be safe to say, however, that in general the people
West are gradually abandoning their hostility to the national
Since 1910, following the Ballinger row and the dismissal of
»t from the Forest Service, Mr. Henry Graves was appointed
loonded and his administration was far more acceptable to
n people, for some reason. Even Senator Heyburn once ex-
od his belief in “the fairness and justice of the new régime.”
BF inicht perhaps be worth noting that some states have generally
n less hostile than others. Thus, Utah and California have been
orb than Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, probably be-
ise irrigation is more important in the first-named states. The

m. Forestry, July, 1917, 399: Outlook, May 3, 1913, 9.
tat. 36, 848; 37, 497.

. Rec., June 17, 1913, 2066.

ong. Rec., Mar. 8, 1910, 2894; Feb. 4, 1911, 1958.

296 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

attitude of Utah men in Congress, Senator Smoot, for instance, has ©

doubtless been influenced by the attitude of the Mormon Church;
many of the Mormons are farming irrigated lands. The sentiment of
the people of the West varies according to the occupation of the
people. A grazing section usually presents a different attitude from
a section peopled by small settlers, or miners, or “lumberjacks.””**

SAFETY OF THE NATIONAL FORESTS

The question finally arises—Are the forests safe, or is there still a
possibility that they may be turned over to the states, or opened to
private exploitation? Prediction of the future is always dangerous,
but many signs indicate that the reserves are probably safer than ever
before. Even the radical opponents of the forest reserve policy have in
recent years apparently realized the hopelessness of their fight. As
early as 1910, Mondell declared in Congress: “Forestry and forest

+ ieee

reserves have been a fad with the American people for a few years past

and it does not seem to matter to them how much it costs. I realize
that, and I have exposed myself to all sorts of criticism by being one
of the very few people who have had something to say about the
extravagance of the service. I have gone into it quite fully in other
sessions of Congress. I realize it did not do a particle of good. . . .
I realize that the committee proposes to give the Forest Service what-
ever it asks and without much question.”** Senator Heyburn likewise
seemed, at least occasionally, to realize that the sentiment in Congress
was overwhelmingly against him. “Mr. President,” he said at the close
of a vigorous attack on the Forest Service in 1911, “I have very little

hope of reformation in this hour. This is not the hour of reforms. It is —

the hour of chaos—political chaos, governmental chaos, and I will
wait until conditions settle down and men begin to think.”” Senator
Heyburn’s “hour of reforms” is probably more distant now than it
was in 1911.

Various lines of reasoning would point to the probable indefinite

: 27 Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3231, 3239; Feb. 1, 1910, 1340; Mar. 8, 1910, 2891,
2893; June 17, 1913, 2059, 2066; Apr. 18, 1916, 6406: Proceedings, Society of Am.

Foresters, Nov., 1905, 70-76: Outlook, Nov. 7, 1908, 553; May 14, 1910, 57: Report, —

Montana Commission on Conservation, 1911.
28 Cong. Rec., Feb. 1, 1910, 1338.
29 Cong. Rec., Mar. 1, 1911, 3774.

3 HOSTILITY TONATIONAL FORESTS 297

ntion of the national forests. The tendency of governmental policy
early away from the “laissez-faire” policy and toward government
ership and control at least of certain classes of lands. Further-
e, the trend is toward Federal control rather than state control.
0, it is being made clearer each year that the government made a
ous mistake in alienating so much of its timber lands. The lumber
stry for some time previous to the war had been in a very unsatis-
sory condition, that is, private ownership had worked badly, even
r those i in the industry itself, while the threat of a future shortage
timber is always before the consumers. All this is being brought
and more clearly before the public through government and
ate investigations; and the purchase of timber lands under the
sks Law indicates a purpose of seeking out a remedy, even at
; expense. It would be very strange if the government, after going
msively into the purchase of pennies lands, should sell the tim-
land it already has.
e it hardly seems likely that the government will soon, or per-
s ever, abandon its great reserves, it should be noted that there
ways in which the reservation policy could be seriously perverted.
rill be remembered that the attack on the forests in 1912 took the
of an attempt by the western states to get a larger portion of
roceeds. They now get 25 per cent—which for certain communi-
ti is doubtless too high—and have tried to get this raised to 50
yer cent. Perhaps they will not be successful, but anything in the
ny of a “pork” grab has some chance of success in Congress, because
e to be benefited are very zealous, and the rest of the members are
ly to be less interested in defending the public treasury than in se-
g some “pork” of a different kind for their own constituents. If
are given to the western states should be raised to 50 per cent, or
erhaps even higher, and the receipts were to increase greatly, as they
rte inly will in the future, the national forests might be a source of
svenue to the West, while the country as a whole might still be hold-
ing the sack for the millions it has spent for permanent improvements
' the forests, and for the cost of purchases under the Weeks Law.
oe. to imagine a situation in which the West, and perhaps
e eastern states in which reserves were being bought up, would be
7 pleased with the reservation policy, while the rest of the coun-

298 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

try would turn to a position of actual hostility. A complete reversal

of this kind seems unlikely, and yet a few scattered indications of —

such a change may perhaps already be observed. There will probably
be a constant issue in Congress on the question of the percentage of
forest reserve receipts which shall go to the western states, and this
percentage may be fixed at such a point as to seriously affect the
value of the reserves.

This represents only one of the possibilities i in the future develop-
ment of the reserves. Another possibility is that the Stock Raising
Homestead Act of 1916, under which settlers and speculators may
enter 640 acres of grazing lands, may some day be extended to the
national forests.

There have always been some people who favored turning the na-
tional forests over to the states. Mr. James J. Hill has been one of the
most influential champions of this policy, but in Congress, Senators
Heyburn and Borah of Idaho, Fall of New Mexico, and Bailey of
Texas, and Congressman Lafferty of Oregon have been actively fa-
vorable to such a disposition of the reserves. A considerable number of
western men would probably vote for the proposition if it were pre-
sented in Congress. About 1912 or 1913, there were a great many
_ efforts in Congress to effect this change. Even such consistent oppo-

nents of the reserves as Carter and Mondell, however, have been |

unwilling to go so far. Such a step at the present time would of course
mean the abolition of most of the reserves, for most of the western
states would not take care of reserves placed in their hands.*°

On the whole, it seems that the national forests are reasonably safe.
All the probabilities in the case point to a retention and even an
extension of the reservation policy.

30 Cong. Rec., Feb. 26, 1909, 3230, 3231; May 14, 1912, 6390; May 15, 1912, 6477,
6478; May 16, 1912, 6561; Aug. 7, 1912, 10338; June 10, 1913, 1970: H. R. 2890;
62 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 1793; 63 Cong. 1 sess.: Outlook, Sept. 17, 1910, 90; Dec. 28,

1912, 935: Scientific American, Sept. 6, 1913, 176: Report, Oregon Conservation
Commission, 1913.

Se ree es emmeinn nt Ty Diese f nealal iens © Wet tigen re | Sat Sl fe

CHAPTER X

THE WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE

is the purpose of this book to treat of the congressional forest
cy, rather than the internal administration of the national forests
of other timber lands; nevertheless it seems appropriate to note
y some of the developments in the administration of the national

work of the Forest Service has broadened greatly during the
t decade or more, particularly since Gifford Pinchot assumed the
office of chief forester in 1905; and at the present time the Service
performs a great variety of important functions.

ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE OWNERS

the first place, the Forest Service offers expert advice and assist-
to private timber owners. As early as 1899, the appropriation

rtance. The advisory work of the Service may assume various .
s. In a limited number of cases, it may take the form of advice

de only when several examinations can be made on neighboring
tracts, and on condition that the owners bear part of the expense.
In some cases, the advisory work of the Forest Service consists in
ing owners to the proper state officer, especially in cases where
woodlot examinations are desired, the state officer being presumably
in closer touch with local conditions within his state, and able to make
examinations at less expense than a Federal officer. Owners who
ire to obtain planting stock, either seeds or young trees, with
which to reforest waste lands, or establish farm woodlots or wind-
‘aks, are supplied with lists of dealers in such stock.

300 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

In the development of this function of assisting private timber —

owners, three stages may be recognized. In the first stage, repre-
sented by the period preceding the transfer of the forest reserves to
the Department of Agriculture, much attention was given to exami-
nations of private lands and preparation of working plans. The in-
creasing value of stumpage led many large timber owners to look
with some favor upon plans for the best utilization of the timber;
and the foresters rendered important assistance in two ways. In the
first place, they showed many lumbermen that they could actually
increase their profits by reducing the waste involved in cutting high
stumps, in throwing away too much of the tops, and in failing to
utilize more of the material left on the ground. Doubtless the lumber-
men would in time have seen the loss involved in their methods of
operation, but the change to more careful methods spread more
rapidly as a result of the early codperative work. In the second place,
these early efforts of the foresters led to better methods of fire pro-
tection. This was done largely by educating the public up to a more
intelligent understanding of the danger of fires, and the methods of
preventing and suppressing them, and by stimulating the develop-
ment of codperative fire protection organizations.

During the second stage of this work, from the transfer of the
reserves in 1905 until about 1915, the codperative work was much
. less important, the Forest Service being engrossed in the preparation
and publication of information needed for scientific forestry, in the
training of more expert foresters, and especially in working out the
problems connected with the national forests. In the third stage,
beginning about 1915, the Forest Service gave renewed attention to
the problems of private forestry, particularly the problems of the
small woodlot. Considerable attention has been given in these later
years to the question of marketing. Also, with the development of a
clearer appreciation of the public aspects of the lumber industry as
a whole, more attention has been devoted to the problems of the large
owners, from the point of view of the public interests. The Greeley
report on “Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber In-
dustry,” published in 1917, is an illustration of this point of view.
Efficient and intelligent work. along this line was made possible by
the investigative work carried on during the preceding years.

~

——

— see

ee

leg eid 2 |

¢
F
a
M
“

WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE

nto closer touch with the private saither owners if it is to accom-
ish the most possible; and the Service is making a vigorous effort
) secure closer codperation. Perhaps the Forest Service- may some-

ith the duty of assisting in fire protection, reforestation, and man-
gement; at any rate, the study of forest management in European
untries indicates that some extension of the powers and duties of
Forest Service may be necessary if the forest interests of the
try are to be adequately guarded. The different states will grad-
ly extend the scope of their work in forestry, but the burden of
his work must fall mainly on the Federal government.’
One of the principal means of assisting private owners is by the
eparation and distribution of publications on forestry. These
ude “planting leaflets,” which briefly describe the principal species
apted to the various parts of the United States, and methods of
nting them; commercial tree bulletins, which deal with the char-
eristies of the more important commercial species; and a series
‘“yegional studies,” which discuss questions of forest management,
nting, and utilization, with reference to the needs of private
ners within regions where the conditions of forest growth and
rkets for wood products are comparatively uniform. Other pub-
tions dealing specifically with markets and uses of wood are issued
m time to time.
Indicative of the sympathetic attitude of the Forest Service toward
wate interests, is the recent investigation of the lumber industry.
s investigation by the Forest Service, unlike that made by the
eau of Corporations a few years earlier (1907-1914), was con-
ted with a view to helping the lumber interests remedy the un-
fortunate conditions which had prevailed in the lumber industry for
ne rly a decade. The Bureau of Corporations had carried on its
estigation with the apparent purpose of proving the existence of
nopolistic conditions in the industry, no matter what the actual
ts disclosed ; while the Forest Service, in the first part of its report,

See the annual reports of the Forester: Forest Cire. 21, 22, 27, 37, 79, 100, 138,
: Forest Bul. 32, 39, 56, 68.

302 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

published in 1917, disclosed a point of view which was clearly sym-
pathetic and helpful.

CO6PERATION WITH STATES

. The Forest Service has developed a policy of assisting not only
private owners, but states as well, through codperative agreements.
Under such agreements, the Forest Service has made a great many
studies, dealing with various problems related to forestry. Thus, in
1908, a study of forest taxation was undertaken in New Hampshire
and a comprehensive law was drafted and presented to the Legis-
lature. In 1910, a study was undertaken in codperation with the
Pennsylvania Department of Forestry to ascertain how far soil
erosion and floods in certain districts of Pennsylvania are due to

forest destruction along the watersheds. In all cases, states are re- .

quired to share in the expense of studies of this nature.*

The most important work done in codperation with states has been
that of fire protection. One of the sections of the Weeks Law appro-
priated the sum of $200,000 for codperation with the states in pro-
tecting the forested watersheds of navigable streams from fire. Such
coéperation has been extended only to states which have provided

by law for fire protection, and have appropriated for that purpose
funds at least equal to those provided by the Federal government. —

The states have responded very liberally to this offer of assistance,
and in 1916 a total Federal expenditure of $90,000 was “supple-

mented” by over $400,000 of state funds, from twenty-two different

states.*
PROTECTION OF FISH AND GAME

Another function of the Forest Service which has developed con-
siderably in the last few years, and is destined to develop much
further, is that of protection of fish and game. As early as 1906, the
appropriation bill had included the “protection of fish and game”
among the proper functions of the Forest Service, and since then

2 See annual reports of the Forester.

3 See annual reports of the Forester, particularly that of 1916, p. 179: Forest
Cire. 205: Stat. 37, 855. On general forest fire prevention see Forestry and Irriga-
tion, Jan., 1907, 23; Feb., 1907, 62: Am. Forestry, Nov., 1910, 681; Dec., 1910, 744;
May, 1912, 349; Aug., 1912, 541; Nov., 1913, 739: Conservation, Feb., 1909, 70, 71.

et hades 9 pews asm

‘pee

Fre) See

Ee te, eae ig Fenn

WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE ___ 308

iderable sums of money have been given each year for the con-
servation of various forms of wild life—not only fish and game, but
also birds. Doubtless this movement was to some extent due to the
_ influence of President Roosevelt. Game refuges in the national forests
_ can be created only by special act of Congress, and only three have
_ been created—the Wichita Game Preserve in Oklahoma, the Grand
_ Cafion Game Preserve in Arizona, and the Pisgah Game Preserve in
North Carolina. In 1918, the Wichita preserve contained a herd of
00 buffalo, with some elk, antelope, deer, and smaller game; the
SBvand Cajion preserve supported 6000 to 8000 deer and other game;
lile the Pisgah preserve sheltered deer, wild turkey, and wild fowl.
ee e five big game preserves in which most of the wild game is to be
found are not in charge of the Forest Service, but are under the
Se eatin of the Biological Survey.
Many of the national forests carry considerable game, however.
Of the 40,000 elk in the Yellowstone region, about half live in the
national forests surrounding the park, and a portion of the remainder
- occupy national forest land at times. There are 3000 or more elk
the Olympic Forest, and smaller herds in the forests of central
_and western Montana and central Idaho, and new herds are being
. built up in various national forests of Colorado, New Mexico, and
_ Arizona.
In spite of all efforts, national forests at present carry only an
st significant fraction of the game which could be supported upon
‘he m; in fact, in many sections the game has been almost entirely
ex terminated. The individual states have jurisdiction over the game,
the Forest Service merely codperating with the states in carrying
out the state laws for protection; and this division of responsibility
s; not worked for efficiency. The Federal government has full
authority to protect game in only seven of the sixteen national
3 a *ks—the Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount Ranier, Crater Lake,
Platte, Hot Springs, and the Hawaiian. The states have not ceded
ju risdiction of the other nine parks, and, in the absence of Federal
legislation, the Federal authorities can punish poachers there only
by cir: them from the park limits. Of the thirty-four national
numents,” twenty-one are administered by the National Park
vice, eleven by the Forest Service, and two are under the juris-

304 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

diction of the War Department, while the game on them remains
subject to state jurisdiction.

A good example of the confusion in jurisdiction is found in the —
administration of the great elk herds in the region of Yellowstone
|
.

Park. In the park itself, game is wholly under Federal jurisdiction, —
but in the adjoining national forests game is under state jurisdiction. —
Within a relatively small area it would be possible to find as many ~
as four different sets of game laws, and of course the elk frequently —
wander across state lines and into new jurisdictions. The states do —
little to care for these elk, and in severe winters hundreds of them ~
died of starvation, before the Federal government established a feed- —
ing station at Jackson Hole, where they are now fed in severe weather.

There is need of a more comprehensive plan. Perhaps all game in ©
the national forests should be placed under the jurisdiction of the
Forest Service, with provision for proper state codperation. Perhaps
the entire jurisdiction oyer the national parks should be placed with
the Forest Service, in the Department of Agriculture, instead of
in the Department of the Interior. The Park Service needs men of
much the same character as the Forest Service; many of the prob-
lems are similar ; and some economy, and perhaps also efficiency, would
be secured by turning the national parks and the national forests over
to the same administrative department—the Forest Service.*

The game in Alaska has received considerable attention in recent
years. Alaska was once one of the finest hunting grounds in the world, —
but in recent years the moose, caribou, white mountain sheep, and
other game animals have decreased very greatly in numbers; and ©
with the building of the new railroad into the interior, some species ©
of game seem on the way to extinction. A law was passed in 1908 —
providing extensive regulations for their protection, and authorizing ©
the appointment of a game warden to enforce these regulations. —
Considerable sums have been voted from time to time to carry out —
the provisions of this law; but the enforcement has not been very :
effective. The recent creation of the Mount McKinley National Park :
as a game preserve will provide protection for some of the Alaskan
_ game. 7 j
Probably the development of the game resources of the national —
4 Am. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 133, 139; Jan., 1917, 48, 49. :

a
i

WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE __ 805

and of the country generally will receive greater attention in
ture. The number of bills introduced in Congress to establish
ne sanctuaries” indicates a growing public interest in the

RECREATIONAL USES OF THE FORESTS

development of the recreational uses of the national forests is
so receiving increasing attention. To an increasing extent the for-
; are being used as playgrounds for the people of the country. It
that nearly seven hundred thousand people visited the national
s of Colorado in the summer of 1916, left the sweltering heat
prairie states and the states farther east, for a vacation in
intains. The Forest Service is trying in various ways to in-
the usefulness of the national forests to those seeking
1915, a law was passed authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture
t permits for summer homes, hotels, and for similar uses in
ional forests for periods of not more than thirty years; and
ler this law a great many permits have already been issued.
igh the issue of permits in this way, the Forest Service is able
ent any class of individuals from permanently appropriating
st beautiful lake and mountain sites. Wholesale appropriation

tiful mountain regions, as for instance in the case of the
en estate in what is now Estes Park, is not possible in the
forests.°

ASSISTANCE TO GRAZING INTERESTS

problems of grazing and of range management are still im-
ant. The ranges of the national forests cover about 100,000,000
Ss . land, on which a total of about 15,000,000 animals, including
000 young, are grazed each year. In addition, there are several

eports, Sec. of Agr., 1909, 396; 1910, 404; 1911, 398; 1912, 525; 1916, 172:
rt , Forester, 1914, 23: Report, Sec. of Int., 1916, Vol. I, 237: Report, Chief of
Bureau of Biological Survey, 1917: Proceedings, National Park Conference,
ington, 1917, 187, 200, 206: Am. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 139: Stat. 33, 614; 34,
'; 35, 102, 1104, 1137; 36, 1258; 37, 292, 459, 847; 38, 49, 434, 648, 862, 1105;
3, 467, 476: H. R. 6881, 11712, 14972, 17381; S. 3044, 4418; 64 Cong. 1 sess.
. 38, 1101: Forest Service, Use Book, 1915, 136: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1916,
m. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 133; June, 1917, 358: Outing, May, 1916, 172.

aga

306 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY D

million head of stock which spend from one to forty days in the forests | .
while crossing to private lands, and several hundred thousand more
are grazed by settlers and campers under free permits. A total of
over 33,000 permittees are using the ranges in the national forests.
The Forest Service is working out more effective means of co-
operation with the stockmen, through a recognition of the various
livestock associations, of which there were 359 in 1917. These asso-
ciations may adopt and request the enforcement of special rules
designed to secure better conditions for the stock on the range, and
such special rules, when approved by the district forester, are en-
forced by the Forest Service and are binding upon all permittees
using the range. Thus the Forest Service endeavors to codperate
with the stockmen in securing the fullest utilization of the range; and
the attitude of the stockmen is more helpful and friendly as a
consequence.
Free range privileges are given in an increasing number of cases.
In some portions of the forests, notably in the Sierra Nevada of
California, the demand for range accommodations for animals be-
longing to campers and tourists has become so great that it is neces-
sary to set aside considerable areas for their use. The amount of
grazing land required by settlers is increasing with the increase in
the number of homesteaders in and adjacent to the forests, each set-
tler being permitted to graze ten head of milch, work, or saddle
animals free of charge. Large numbers of livestock belonging to the
Indians residing in or adjacent to national forests are also grazed
free. .
Efforts are being made to increase the value of the range in still
other ways. For several years the Forest Service has tried to work
out effective means of destroying predatory. animals. Men were even
employed to hunt and trap, and forest officers were urged to help
where possible, by hunting and trapping, and by using poison. In
1916, this work was turned over to the Biological Survey, but even
after that, the Biological Survey furnished some forest officers with
traps, ammunition, and poison. The Biological Survey had previously
carried on the work of destroying prairie dogs, ground squirrels, and
other range-destroying rodents.’
7 Forest Bul. 72, 97.

WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 307

e Forest Service, in codperation with other branches of the
rnment, has been trying to reduce stock losses from disease and
nous plants. This work has" been largely experimental in its
e, but it is claimed that stock losses have been’ materially

_ The question of grazing in the new national forest areas of the
Ay pp lachian region has recently come up for consideration, and in
916, these areas were placed under regulations very similar to those
‘ced in the West.
great problem still awaits solution, and that is the problem
reventing the too frequent loss of animals on the public range
starvation and exposure. Under a system which is a disgrace
civilization, stockmen regularly turn animals out on the range
put any provision for feeding them in case of an unusually un-
rable season; and in severe winters many animals always starve
ath on the plains. Thus the winter of 1908-1909 was very severe,
the result was “considerable losses of newly sheared sheep.” The.
g winter “prolonged periods of extremely cold weather caused
ng among all classes of stock; winter losses were above the
é, and the percentage of increase among sheep and cattle was
ally reduced.” The winter of 1911-1912 was severe, and govern-
fficials reported that “there was a pronounced shortage of
feed, and heavy losses of stock occurred in Colorado, Wyo-
and southeastern Montana.” In some sections of Arizona, 20
t of the ewes were reported to have died. The winter of 1915-
6 | prought a similar condition, and travelers in the West in the
rg of 1917 noted the carcasses of cattle scattered along the
ins. Conditions have been better on the ranges within the national
is, and the Forest Service has made special efforts to assist the
en who were unable to provide their herds with feed; but the
ons which recur with every hard winter demand a more effec-
medy.®
INVESTIGATIVE WORK

Chi Forest Service has developed many kinds of investigative
In the first place, it has carried on research work in range con-

See the annual reports of the Forester.

.
‘
3 a

308 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

ditions. In 1910, the government appropriated several thousand
dollars for experiments and investigation of range conditions within

the national forests, and of methdds of improving the range by re-

seeding, regulation of grazing, etc.; and the work has been main-

tained ever since, $25,000 to $30,000 being appropriated annually —
the past few years. These experiments relate to the more careful —
determination of the grazing capacity of the ranges, the proper dis-
tribution of watering places in order to secure maximum efficiency —
of the range, the effect of grazing on various trees and on fire danger, —
the proper protection of land subject to erosion and floods, and the ~
possibility of reseeding ranges where the vegetation has once been —
destroyed. There have also been some studies of poisonous plants, —
and some in the construction of coyote-proof pastures, especially
for lambing.° ‘

The main investigative work of the Forest Service, however, re-_
lates not to range lands, but to forest lands proper, and this work ©
has in recent years expanded to cover a great variety of subjects,
included under three general heads—dendrology, silviculture, and
forest products.

Dendrological studies, or studies concerning the distinguishing _
characters and the geographic distribution of the different species”
of North American trees and shrubs, were specifically provided for
in the appropriations of 1910, and every year since, a considerable —
amount has been given for this purpose. These studies are carried on
by the dendrologist and his assistants at Washington, with such help
from the national forest officers as they may be able to give. 4

SILVICULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS ia 2, B

Silvicultural investigations cover a great variety of important
studies, relating to forestation, forest influences, management of
forests, forest mensuration, and forest protection. Some of these j
studies have been carried on for a great many years, but the work
received a great stimulus in 1908, with the establishment of the
experiment station at Flagstaff, Arizona. Since that time six othe
experiment stations have been established, two in Colorado, and one

9 Reports, Sec. of Agr., 1910, 402; 1911, 397; 1912, 524; 1916, 183: Report
Forester, 1915, 31: Forest Cire. 156, 158, 160, 169: Forest Bul. 97.

WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 309

ch in Idaho, Minnesota, Utah, and California. There is also a seed-
sting laboratory at the Arlington Farm, Washington, D. C.

FORESTATION

The work in forestation is an important line of silviculture. This
cludes experiment in reforestation of cut-over lands, and in the
restation of lands which have never grown trees. The work covers
entire field of establishing a forest by artificial means—from the
ection of the seed to the final sowing of seed or planting of trees.
cludes investigations in regard to the collection and testing of
seed; factors influencing the amount and quality of seed produced,
ich as site and condition of the tree; periodicity of seed years;
ect of the source of seed, such as the locality in which the seed was
oduced and the condition of the mother tree upon the size and
diness of the seedlings. It covers studies in the nursery relating
the time of sowing, depth of covering, necessity of shade, protec-
from birds and rodents, age of transplanting, methods of trans-
ting, use of fertilizers for the various species; also experiments
‘seed sowing and planting of nursery- and forest-grown stock, to
termine the comparative values of each for the various species and
3, as well as the best seasons, the best age of stock, the possibility
extending the range of native species, or of introducing exotics.”°
_ Probably reforestation will get increasing attention in the future.
re are millions of acres of natural forest lands, divested of timber
unfit for agriculture; and, with the rapid exploitation of our
remaining timber lands, this area will increase. In most regions forests
] ch are cut reproduce themselves without any assistance other than
tection from fire, but in some regions and under some circum-
stances artificial restocking is necessary. Whether mere protection or
rtificial replanting is necessary, the work must be done mainly by
Federal government. As lumber prices advance, an added stimulus
‘ill be given to such work, and, when prices have reached something
ke the European level, perhaps reforestation will be as important
s it now is in some European countries.”
0 Review of Forest Service Investigations, Forest Service, 1913: Forest Bul.
Agriculture Bul. 475. See also annual reports of Forester, 1908 to 1916.

io ne Sec. of Agr., 1908, 424; 1909, 388; 1910, 386; 1911, 372; 1912, 505;
3, 166: Report, Forester, 1914, 15.

2

, 2

ae
7

310 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

The experiments in tree planting on lands which have not grown

trees seem somewhat like a revival of the old Timber Culture Act of
1878, and some of the results are apparently about as encouraging
as the results of the earlier act. As early as 1899, the appropriation
bill provided for seeking “suitable trees for the treeless plains,” and
two of the national forests—one in Kansas, and one in Nebraska—
were created especially for working out this problem; but very re-
cently (1916), the Kansas National Forest has been abolished. This
indicates that the results accruing from the work there were not
satisfactory, although some valuable information was acquired re-
garding the adaptability of various species to the arid climate. In
the Nebraska National Forests, the Forest Service is still at work on
the problem of finding some kind of forest cover which will hold down
the sand hills of western Nebraska, and some success has been re-
ported. The appropriation bill of 1911 provided_for the free dis-
tribution of trees from this forest to settlers within the “Kinkaid”
district, and hundreds of thousands of trees have been given away.””

INVESTIGATION OF FOREST INFLUENCES

_ It was pointed out in a previous chapter that in the early period
much attention was given to the question of the influence of forests
on climate, and the Forest Service is conducting experiments with
a view to determining more exactly the relation of forests to climate
and streamflow. .

The study of the effect of forest cover on streamflow is carried on
at the Wagon Wheel Gap Station, in Colorado. The object is to
determine, by means of the most careful and accurate measurements,
the effect of forest cover upon the high and low water stages of moun-
tain streams, the total run-off from mountain watersheds as compared
with the annual precipitation, and the erosion of the surface of such
watersheds. Measurements of the streams in two watersheds, both
moderately well covered with forests, will be conducted for a number

of years, with the measurements of all the factors which may affect —

12 Forest Bul. 66, 121: Forest Circ. 37, 99, 145, 161: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912,
511; 1916, 160, 168: Report, Forester, 1914, 16, 18: Report, Chief of Div. of For-
estry, 1891, 206: Proceedings, Society of Am. Foresters, July, 1914, 365, 388:
Canadian Forestry Journal, Oct., 1905, 155: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc.,
1890, 81.

WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 811

character of the flow of each stream. There has been no general
ment among writers as to the exact influence of forests on cli-
» and streamflow, and it is to be hoped that these investiga-
will peraich the basis for the settlement of some long mooted
tions.”

OTHER SILVICULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS

g other silvicultural studies of the Forest Service are those
to forest mensuration, that is, studies as to the growth,
, and yield of the different species and types of forests; pro-
| studies, aiming to ascertain the exact effect of fire, grazing,
Ss, insects, animals, snow, hail, and wind; regional studies, to
authentic information concerning the forest resources of state
: regions; silvical studies, which try to establish a definite
n between the forest region, forest types, and forest trees in
, and the climatic and physical factors affecting their distribu-
id growth; and also some field studies in utilization of timber.

INVESTIGATIONS IN FOREST PRODUCTS

eld of investigation which is expanding tremendously in recent
is that relating to forest products. The work is mainly directed
headquarters in the Forest Products Laboratory at Madison,
asin. This laboratory, which is maintained in codperation with
‘iversity of Wisconsin, is one of the best of its kind in the world.
tories are also maintained at Wausau, Wisconsin, and at
tle, Washington, and district stations have been established at
al points. Studies in this field fall under four heads—mechanical
coal properties and structure of wood, wood preservation,
. im peodncts, and statistical studies.
e first class of studies includes those relating to strength of
1 stu tural timbers; stiffness, toughness, hardness, specific gravity,
; her qualities of different woods, effect of air seasoning, kiln-
ying , and high temperature and pressure treatments.
RB w of Forest Service Investigations, 1913, 36: Forest Bul. 44, 91: Forest
, 143: House Committee on Agriculture, “Report on the Influence of Forests
and Floods,” by Willis L. Moore, 1910: Yale Review, 10, 241: Review

ws, 47, 605: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc., Sept., 1897, 133: Agr.
¢, 1903, 279: Science, July 18, 1913, 63-75.

312 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY :

In connection with the studies in wood preservation, experiments

are conducted in the protection of wood from destruction by decay, —

fire abrasion, and insects; the cost and efficiency of preservatives,
various processes of preservation, and the suitability of different
species to preservation. This includes experiments in the preservation

of wood blocks for paving, carried on in codperation with various —

PP ee —-

cities ; experiments in the preservation of railroad ties and telephone —
poles, carried on in coéperation with railroad companies, and tele- —
phone and telegraph companies; experiments in the preservation of —

mine timbers, carried on in codperation with mining companies ; tests
in the prevention of wood decay in cotton factories, where conditions
are very favorable to decay, carried on in codperation with factory
owners and insurance companies ; experiments in devising a preserva-
tive for wooden ships against marine borers; tests in the methods of
preserving fence posts and silo timbers from decay; a great number

and variety of tests and experiments vitally related to the commercial

interests of the country.

Experiments in the kiln-drying of lumber have been carried on for
some time, and it is claimed that these experiments have resulted in
much more economical drying of some woods. In the drying of red

gum, for instance, one of the most difficult and refractory woods to —
dry, it is claimed that commercial losses: have been reduced from 15 —

per cent to less than 1 per cent. So in the drying of maple shoe lasts, ©

the period required has been reduced from nearly two years to seyen
weeks. A method was perfected recently whereby hemlock ship lap
was dried in forty to forty-eight hours, two-inch planks in four to
six days. Some interesting experiments in kiln-drying have been
carried on in codperation ‘with furniture companies, woodenware
manufacturers, lumber manufacturers and railroads.

Studies of derived products cover a vastly increasing field, includ-

ing investigations in the manufacture of pulp and paper, to ascertain.

the fitness of various woods for paper making, the process appro-
priate to different woods, the possibility of using waste barks for

the manufacture of pulp and paper products, the latter investigations —
being carried on in coéperation with paper companies. In this class
of investigations are included also those relating to wood distilla-—
tion—the extraction of acetate of lime, wood alcohol, rosin, turpen-

WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 313

e, and various miscellaneous products. Recent experiments in
- production of ethyl alcohol from wood waste have resulted in
t economies. Methods of producing naval stores devised by the
aboratory are reported to have increased the. yield 30 per cent.
Yearly a million dollars’ worth of dye is now manufactured annually
rom Osage-orange wood—an industry built up as a result of investi-
tions carried on in the laboratory at Madison.
Statistical studies have been made from time to time covering the
nts, prices, sources, and uses of various forest products. Such
dies are of course of an economic nature, but are necessary to the
elopment of an intelligent forest policy.

FOREST PRODUCTS RESEARCH AND THE WAR

The entry of the United States into the war in 1917 brought out
irly the importance of the forest products investigations. Much
the technical information that had been secured in this research
rk was immediately important in the solution of war problems,
ich demanded exact knowledge of the properties of wood, and the
anical, physical, and chemical methods of conditioning. In the
nstruction of airplanes, for instance, there was a demand for
owledge of the qualities of different woods, the availability of
titutes. for the spruce commonly used, methods of drying woods
eedily, the strength of laminated structures and veneers and ply-
od—a multitude of problems of great importance in the prosecu-
n of the war. The Forest Products Laboratory had a large amount
data on the properties of airplane woods at the beginning of the
r, but much more was needed immediately, and soon the war air-
ft problems occupied the attention of about two thirds of the
ce at the Madison laboratory.

At the beginning of the war, it was ieniaaes to air-dry all wood
usec in airplane construction, because of the danger of reducing the
strength by methods employed in commercial kiln-drying. It takes
about two years to air-dry spruce for this purpose, and large quan-
tities of material were needed at once, so kiln-drying was absolutely
1 ecessary. Investigations in kiln-drying had been under way at Madi-
n for several years, and methods had been worked out for a number
woods. Similar experiments with spruce showed that it could be

314 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

kiln-dried without loss of strength in less than a month; and numerous
dry-kilns constructed on the plan laid down at Madison were built
by the companies with airplane contracts.

Plywood formed by gluing together several sheets of veneer was
found to be very serviceable for various parts of airplanes. A ply-
wood wing rib has been developed which weighs nearly one third less
than the rib before used, while its strength is 200 per cent greater.

These are only a few illustrations of the work being done in forest
products. Probably this work will expand in the future, as the in-
creasing scarcity of timber compels a more intelligent and economical
use of our remaining resources.** |

14 Review of Forest Service Investigations, 1913. See also the annual reports of —
the Forester and numerous bulletins issued by the Forest Service.

CHAPTER XI

SULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY: CONCENTRATION IN
_ THE OWNERSHIP OF STANDING TIMBER

unfortunate results flowing from our unwise forest policy have
en pointed out in various connections throughout the preceding
upters; but it will be appropriate at this point to consider these
ts in somewhat greater detail. They may be briefly summarized
follows: In the first place, almost all the standing timber of the
intry has gravitated into the hands of a relatively few holders; in
the second place, on the basis of this concentration of ownership of
tin ~ , a certain unity of control has developed in the lumber indus-
y, which, though of no very serious importance in the past, may
hold a threat of future difficulty ; in the third place, private owner-
hi » of standing timber has proved unfortunate, even for the lumber-
n themselves. Carrying charges on standing timber have been so
eavy in some instances as to force cutting regardless of price, and
he consequent demoralization of the market has meant that many
Pp peeucers must sell below actual cost of production. In the fourth
», lumbering in the United States has always been characterized
extravagant wastes; and in the fifth place, few lumbermen have
e any effort to reforest cut-over lands.
ie Du ring the past forty years or more, various government officials
ind others have pointed out repeatedly that the timber lands were
roing rapidly into the hands of a few timbermen and speculators.
thoughtful students of the question have realized that such a
ess was going on; but the full extent to which the concentration
of ownership had proceeded was not clearly understood until recently.
n 1918, the Bureau of Corporations, after several years of investi-
ation of the most important timber regions in the country, published
h he first part of its “Report on the Lumber Industry” ; and this report
brought the situation clearly before the public.’
H. Res. 652, S. Res. 189; Cong. Rec., Dec. 13, 1906, 352; Jan. 18, 1907, 1330-

316 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY
CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP IN TERMS OF BOARD FEET

The privately owned timber of the United States, according to the
best estimates, amounts to some 2,197,000,000,000 feet. Of this total
amount about four fifths was included in the area investigated by the
Bureau of Corporations; and of the amount in the investigation area
nearly half was owned by holders of 1,000,000,000 feet each or over;
39 per cent was owned by holders of 2,000,000,000 feet or over; 32.2
per cent by holders of 3,500,000,000 feet or over ; 26 per cent by hold-
ers of 5,000,000,000 feet or over; and 19 per cent—nearly one fifth—
by holders of 13,000,000,000 feet or over. Over 69 per cent of the un-
reserved timber in the investigation area was owned by holders of
60,000,000 feet or over. To illustrate the magnitude of some of these
figures, it may be stated that a billion feet of lumber would load a
freight train 417 miles long, or would build about 65,000 ordinary
five- or six-room houses.

The three largest holders in the country owned in 1914 over 237,- -

1332. Owing to the fact that most of the material on the subject of concentration of

ownership of standing timber is taken from the Report of the Commissioner of —

Corporations on the Lumber Industry, few citations to references are here given.
The first three parts of the report are provided with excellent and detailed indexes,
and anyone wishing to follow up information contained in this chapter can easily
find the source by referring to them.

Certain considerations unfortunately render the information contained in the
Report on the Lumber Industry somewhat less accurate than the writer could wish.
In the first place, the report was published several years ago (1913 and 1914), and
some of the details of ownership have certainly changed since then. One change
that should be noted at the outset, is that, since the report was published, the
Southern Pacific has lost about 2,000,000 acres of its most valuable timber land,
through the forfeiture act of 1916. Many smaller changes might be mentioned.
Thus the Gould estate is reported to have sold its holding of about 100,000 acres
in Louisiana; and many such changes in ownership are constantly being made.

In the second place, the Report on the Lumber Industry was written with. a
too evident purpose of proving the existence of something approaching a monopoly
condition in the timber and lumber industry; and, as a result, some of the con-
clusions drawn are hardly justified by the evidence at. hand.

In spite of all this, it has seemed wise to include some of the material relating
to the subject of timber ownership. Such changes in the details as are constantly
occurring do not affect seriously the general situation as presented in this chapter,
and the inclusion of some such details give definiteness and concreteness to the
general statements. Also, while some of the conclusions drawn in the Report on the
Lumber Industry are not justified, the data and statistics presented are for the
most part fairly accurate—the best, and indeed almost the only data available on
the subject. Some material which was too clearly forced and biased, the writer has
been careful not to include here.

a RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY © 3817

000, 000, 000 feet—nearly 11 per cent of all the privately owned tim-
ber; and the eight largest holders owned 340,000,000,000 feet, or 15.4
__ per cent—over three times the entire amount of stumpage in the Lake
states. The Bureau of Corporations constructed ownership maps for
certain areas in the Pacific states, in Idaho, and in Louisiana, and it
4 appeared that of the 755,000,000,000 feet contained in these map
areas, 552,000,000,000 feet—nearly three fourths—was owned by
_ 198 holders.

4 ACREAGE FIGURES

Concentration of ownership in terms of board feet is sufficiently
_ marked, but perhaps nearly as significant are the figures in terms of
_ acreage. The three largest timber holdings in the United States—
those of the Southern Pacific, the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company,
and the Northern Pacific—aggregated about 9,000,000 acres of tim-
_ ber land—since the forfeiture of the Southern Pacific lands in Ore-
e gon, only about 7,000,000 acres—some of it among the finest in the
world. The five largest holdings in the country included 12,794,000
eres, an average of 2,560,000 acres each. Among holdings smaller
_ than these were 9 of from 500,000 to 1,500,000 acres, averaging
_ almost 1,000,000 acres each; 27 holdings of from 300,000 to 500,000
i acres each; 48 holdings of from 150,000 to 300,000 acres; 124 of
from 75,000 to 150,000 acres; and 520 holdings of between 18,000
_ and 75,000 acres. Thus 733 holders owned in fee a total of 71,521,000
cres of timber land and land owned in connection with or in the vicin-
y of this tintber land—an average of nearly 100,000 acres each.
here were also 961 smaller holders owning a total of 6,731,000 acres,
n average for each of 7,000 acres—the equivalent of forty home-
steads. This makes a total of over 78,000,000 acres owned in fee by
,694 holders—nearly one twentieth of the land area of the United
i? from the Canadian to the Mexican border.
_ It may be noted that even within the national forests, private
arties owned much of the valuable timber land. In the national forests
California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, they had
nearly 15,000,000 acres. In some of these reserves as much as 80 or
_ 40, or even 62 per cent of the land was privately owned ; and of course
_ the privately owned land was the best.

Lee

318 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY
CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP IN THE NORTHWEST

Of the three great regions investigated—the Pacific Northwest, —
the southern pine region, and the Lake states—the Pacific Northwest, —
including California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, con- —

tains by far the greatest amount of timber; contains, in fact, over
half of the timber in the United States—over twice as much as the

southern pine region and over ten times as much as the Lake states.” .

It is mainly from this region that the future supply of timber for the

United States must come, and it is in this region that the greatest —

timber holdings in the United States were found. The three great
holdings of the Southern Pacific, the Northern Pacific, and the
Weyerhaeuser Timber Company included in 1914 over 237,000,000,-
000 feet of lumber, more than double the total stand of the three Lake
states. Thirty-eight holders, each owning 3,500,000,000 feet or over,
owned over half of the privately owned timber in this region, while

holders of 60,000,000 feet or over owned 98 per cent of the redwood, —

and 79 per cent of the other species. |
In the great timbered area of southwestern Washington, one
holder—the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company—held the title to 42

per cent of the timber. The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company and the ~
Northern Pacific Railroad together owned about half; and the thirty- _

2 According to estimates the total standing timber of some of the important
lumber producing states is as follows (in billions of board feet):

PRIVATELY OWNED TOTAL

Pacific Northwest:

Oregon: 2 ee DB Fe vai Te

Washington ©. 0.06.0 ew 6 BONG.

California . =. 6 we gw ie, PAB

Idaho’. BOM nh

Montana 9». ee ee el BEB TO a
Southern Pine Region:

LoUisiasie 2 ie og Na git tae te

Mississingh 20s ri ae ee

APRABERE 33 ee kee eee

Florida. 0 eine ee eens a ee (Almost all of the timber in the
Texas : ... . . « «+ » 66.0 southern pine ‘region ana an aoe

Alabama .. .. . . . . 656.3 Lake states is privately owned, so
Lake States: ; no totals are given.)

Michigan 3p! vaio ie wal ee

Wikcona a ae sha ot ae ee

Minnesota. fo re reer oe. nae

Kieth

cod sii Wate Nie is i a et

a «RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY _ 319

five largest holders owned 73 per cent. The holdings of the Weyer-
euser Timber Company, the Northern Pacific, and three others
3 contained 43.4 per cent of all the privately owned timber in the state
_ of Washington—the second greatest timber state in the Union.

_ The situation in western Oregon has so greatly changed with the
forfeiture of the Southern Pacific lands in this section in 1916, that
the figures of the Bureau of Corporations are no longer accurate.
Besides the Southern Pacific, however, there have been several impor-
tant holders here. The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company itself owned,
1914, 380,599 acres in Oregon, largely acquired from the Northern
acific Railroad Company by the purchase of lieu selections. C. A.
Smith owned about 250,000 acres here; the Booth-Kelly Lumber
_ Company, closely affiliated with the Weyerhaeusers, about 324,000
__ acres; and several other lumber companies owned large tracts.

_ In the sugar pine and western pine forests of northeastern Cali-
fornia, the Southern Pacific was the dominating holder. In this region
was also, however, the immensely valuable holding of Thomas B.
Walker, the largest individual (non-corporate) timber owner in the
country, amounting to over 750,000 acres. The Southern Pacific
Railroad and' Thomas B. Walker together controlled half of the
private timber in this area, and these two, with four other holders,
owned 70 per cent.

In the redwood lands of the north California coast, the stand of
mber is exceedingly heavy, running often from 100,000 to 150,000
et per acre and sometimes even as high as 1,000,000 feet, so that,
in the territory covered by four counties, there is nearly as much
timber as in the entire three Lake states; and here was found an
anil high concentration in timber ownership. Forty-one per cent
_ of the total redwood in this district was owned by six holders. The
twenty-three largest holders owned 79 per cent of the timber, and
among these holders there was interrelation, through common stock
ee and common directorships. In no other species of timber
id the holders of 60,000,000 feet or over own as large a percentage
f the total amount of the species. Even in cypress, where ownership
a highly concentrated, such owners had only 72 per cent of all, and
ir white and Norway pine, 80 per cent; while in redwood they had

‘an per cent.

320 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

The unusually high degree of concentration of ownership shown
here was the result of the grossest frauds under the public land laws,
since in this region there was no great Federal land grant such as
tended to increase concentration of ownership in northeastern Cali-
fornia, western Oregon, and southwestern Washington.

In the white pine and western pine region of north central Idaho,
almost all of the timber was found to be in the hands of a very few
large holders. Seventy per cent of the unreserved timber was owned
by seven holders—in fact, the Idaho white pine belt was so largely in
the hands of these seven holders, that an outsider would have found it
difficult to assemble a holding of as much as a quarter of a billion
feet against their opposition. This is especially significant in view
of the fact that three of these seven holders were interrelated by
minority interests. Over half of the unreserved timber was in the hands
of three holders—the Potlatch Lumber Company, the Clearwater
Timber Company, and the Milwaukee Land Company. The first two
mentioned were at least in some measure controlled by the Weyer-
haeuser interests, and the Milwaukee Land Company was owned by
the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company. The inter-
ests controlling the situation in north central Idaho were also closely
connected with important interests in the southern part of the state.

Two holders, the Northern Pacific and the Amalgamated Copper
Company, together with four relatively small holders, owned 79.3
per cent of the non-reserved timber in Montana. The total area inves-
tigated in this state was about 3,000,000 acres, and the Northern
Pacific and the Amalgamated Copper each had over a million acres
of this, the Amalgamated Copper having secured its holding by pur-
chase from the Northern Pacific, which originally owned almost all. —
Smaller holders played a very unimportant part in this region.

THE THREE BIG HOLDINGS OF THE NORTHWEST F
The three greatest holdings in the Pacific Northwest, or indeed in :

the United States—those of the Southern Pacific, the Weyerhaeuser —

Timber Company, and the Northern Pacific—merit a little further —
consideration. The total acreage of timber land owned by these three —
corporations in 1914 was over 9,000,000 acres; of which the South- —
ern Pacific had over 4,500,000 acres, the Weyerhaeuser Timber Com- —

z RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 321
ay about 2,000,000 acres, and the Northern Pacific over 3,000,000

Stumpage figures for these three great holdings are more significant
acreage figures, because the average stand of timber is far heavier
the Pacific Northwest than in the Lake states or in the South.’ The
ul stumpage owned by these three holders amounted to over 237,-
000,000 feet—11 per cent of all the non-reserved timber in the
d States, and nearly 25 per cent of the privately owned timber
entire Pacific Northwest, where over half of the country’s tim-
su Supply stands. This was more than double the entire timber supply
he Lake states, over three times the total stand of Florida or Texas

r, standing on 4,500,000 acres of land, was athe largest timber
mer in the United States, before the forfeiture of its Oregon hold-
s. This one corporation owned more timber than is found in the
. ike states, or in any state in the South, except Louisiana ; but
5 g 16, Congress forfeited over half of this, so that its present
ding is less than that of the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, or
haps even the Northern Pacific.

Che Weyerhaeuser Timber Company owned about 2,000,000 acres,
‘main bulk of which was in Washington, though the company had
: 80,000 acres in Oregon, and smaller tracts in Idaho and in the

ce states. This did not include further interests of the Weyerhaeuser
‘ily and their associates. Perhaps it should be stated also that the
rhaeuser Timber Company had apparently some friendly rela-
n at least with the Northern Pacific, and some connection with
urious timber companies in the. Pacific Northwest and elsewhere.
While the Northern Pacific owned a much larger acreage than the
lerhaeuser Timber Company, the quality of its lands was rela-
7; SO much poorer that its total stumpage was less than half as
-about 36,000,000,000 feet. The Northern Pacific originally

8 The Pivcrace stand per acre is about 32,000 feet in the Pacific Northwest, 6100
‘southern pine region, and only 5600 in the Lake states. Even Montana has
e stand of 7300 feet per acre, which is above that of the Lake states and
ve that of any state in the South except Louisiana and Mississippi. Oregon has
heaviest stand, with an average of 39,500 feet per acre, and Washington and
ifornia rank only slightly lower.

a
-.5,

322 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY ™

received the largest grant ever made by the government to any rail-
road, and in this grant was included a vast area of the finest: timber
land in the country; but the railroad sold much of the best of it—
nearly a million acres to the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, and
smaller tracts to other large companies, in many of which the Weyer-
haeuser family and their associates were to some extent interested.
Notwithstanding these sales, the Northern Pacific was in 1914 the
third largest timber holder in the United States, still owning 8.6 per
cent of the unreserved timber in Washington and nearly 30 per cent
of that in Montana.

OWNERSHIP IN THE SOUTHERN PINE REGION

In the southern pine region, there were no such enormous holdings
as the three just described in the Pacific Northwest, yet even in the
southern pine region a large proportion of the timber was in the hands
of a comparatively few large holders. In Louisiana, the greatest tim-
ber state in the South, fourteen holders owned 82,000,000,000 feet of
timber—more than the total stand of either Wisconsin or Minnesota;
and in the southern pine region as a whole, these fourteen holders had
over 4,500,000 acres of timber land, with 50,000,000,000 feet of
timber. Most of the cypress of Louisiana was found in a comparatively
limited area covering the river and delta parishes in the southern part
of the state, especially in the great swamps; and the great bulk of
the timber was in a very few hands. Fourteen holders in this state
owned three fifths of the supply. Florida is perhaps as nearly owned
by a few large holders as any state in the Union. Of the total land
area of the state, 54 per cent was held by 290 holders, according to’
the Bureau of Corporations. The 182 largest holders owned nearly
17,000,000 acres of land altogether, some of it timbered.

It should be stated that considerable of the timber acreage owned
in the South was owned in the form of timber rights and not.in fee.
This does not seriously affect the significance of the figures given,
however, because the timber is itself the important item rather than
the land, and because the fee to the land is also generally in the hands
of large holders.

OWNERSHIP IN THE LAKE STATES

In the Lake states, the ownership of timber lands was more concen-

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 323

than in the southern pine region. One of the holders in this
had over 1,500,000 acres, another 626,000, and several others
holdings of more than 300,000 acres each. Six holders in Minne-
ad 54 per cent of the white and Norway pine in the state, and
eerie number i in Michigan owned over half.

i] PARISON OF OWNERSHIP IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS

the three great timber regions studied—the Pacific Northwest,
uthern pine region and the Lake states—the Pacific Northwest
ined the largest holdings ; and it was there that the greatest pro-
n of the timber was in the hands of the few very large holders.
than one third of all the timber in the Pacific Northwest was
led in eight holdings, while in the Lake states it took forty-four
igs, and in the southern pine region, 159 holdings to represent
me proportion. In the Pacific Northwest, holders of over 3,500,-
0,000 feet each owned 50 per cent of the timber, in the Lake states,
per cent, and in the southern pine region only 8.7 per cent.

e are several reasons why the very large holders did not have
of the total supply in the southern pine region as in the West.
first place, there was no railroad grant in the South which
pares in size with the Pacific grants. In the second place, the stand
ot nearly so dense in the South. Moreover, the lumbering opera-
is of many years have brought most parts of the South to a con-
01 1 unfavorable to assembling immense holdings. Large buyers,
the: - they plan to establish a mill or to sell their timber standing,
er solid blocks of virgin timber, and the parts of the South where
able areas of such forest still exist have for some years been
atively restricted. Probably a more important factor, however,
stermination of the size of holdings has been the price at which
ber could be bought. It is true that vast tracts of land in the
rere sold at low prices by the government many years ago; but
mn investors began to assemble very large holdings, the timber in
Pacific Northwest could be bought at a lower price, compared
h it probable future price, than that in the South.

While it is true that a few very large holders owned a far greater
ion of the timber in the Pacific Northwest than in either of -
sr two regions, it was in the southern pine region that large

324 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

holders had by far the greatest fee acreage. Thus, 835 holders, own-
ing each 60,000,000 feet or more, had the fee to 48,230,000 acres in
the South, while the 702 similar holders in the Pacific Northwest
owned only slightly over one half as much land. In order of the aver-
age size of land holdings, the Lake states stood first, with an average
of 56,000 acres for all holders of 60,000,000 feet or more; the south-
ern pine region came next with an average of 52,000 acres; while in
the Pacific Northwest, despite the enormous size of some holdings
there, the average was not quite 33,000 acres. In connection with this,
it must of course be remembered that the average stand is much
greater in the latter region.

In acreage of timber controlled by the larger timber owners, Florida.
stood first, with 18,030,000 acres in the hands of owners of 60,000,- —
000 feet or over. Louisiana came next with only slightly over half as
much—7,807,000 acres; and no other state has half as much as Flor-
ida, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, and California followed in order,
with 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 acres each.

TIMBER OWNERSHIP OUTSIDE THE INVESTIGATION AREA

Although the Bureau of Corporations made no investigation out- —
side of the regions described, there is every indication of a very high 3
degree of concentration in the ownership of timber outside the inves- —
tigation area, especially in the Appalachian region from Maine to —
northern Georgia, and in the southern Rockies. Many timber com-
panies owning within. the investigation area also have large tracts in —
various other regions; and some of them have invested heavily in |
Canadian and Mexican timber. Pp

The foregoing pages indicate a sufficiently interesting situation —
with regard to the ownership and control of our timber lands, but it
will be necessary to point out several considerations which make the —
power of these large holders even greater than mere figures as to

acreage and stumpage would indicate.

FACTORS AUGMENTING THE POWER OF LARGE HOLDERS: LARGE®
HOLDINGS PROPORTIONATELY MORE VALUABLE

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 325

tract of similar stand, because it is proportionally much easier to pro-
tect from fire and from trespass, and cheaper to log, since it permits
the erection of better equipment. This is one reason why there is a
constant tendency for large holding to absorb the small; the small
_ plot is worth much more as part of a large tract than it is alone in
_ the hands of a small holder. Thus, even if the large holding were only
of the same quality as the smaller holding, its value would be much
greater.
The holder of a large tract is often in a position of much independ-
_ ence. If he has a timber holding of such size and such situation that
_ the erection of a large mill to cut it is economically justified, he can
_ build a mill himself, or he can deal on equal terms with buyers. The
_ small owner is in an entirely different situation. His holding does not
_ justify the building of a mill. If he gets anything for his timber he
_ must sell it. It is likely that not more than one large mill will be in a
- position to cut and haul his timber economically; and if this is so he
_ can expect little competition among purchasers. Even if there are
_ several large holders surrounding him, they are very likely to have
_ an understanding on the situation, often in the form of buying
“zones.”
_ The small timber owner is often practically limited, therefore, to
_ the choice between keeping his timber or selling it at such a price as
_ some large buyer in the neighborhood may think it wise to pay. This
_ is so well recognized that large owners commonly reckon, not only the
_ timber which they own, but also that which they “control”; that is,
_ timber which is so interspersed with their holdings that no one else
can well handle it. In this way, some of the large owners of railway
_ grants really “control” solid tracts, alternate sections and all; and
in Louisiana, for instance, in the region of the old New Orleans Pacific
_ grant, where the lands were originally granted in odd numbered sec-
_ tions, little of the checkerboard effect of the alternate squares can now
_ be seen on the ownership map, because the purchasers of railroad
lands have filled in with even numbered sections which they “con-
_ trolled.” :
a LARGE HOLDERS HAVE THE MOST VALUABLE LANDS
__ It was found everywhere, moreover, that the large holders had the
“most valuable lands—the heaviest stands, and the most valuable

326 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

species of timber. Thus, the three largest holders in the country had —
almost all of their lands in the Pacific Northwest, where the stand is —
generally highest. It is true that the average stand of the Northern ©
Pacific lands is low—only 11,500 feet per acre, but this is due to the
fact that the Northern Pacific for many years followed the policy of —
selling its best lands to timber owners, notably to the Weyerhaeuser —
Timber Company; and the average stand of the Weyerhaeuser lands —
is very high—nearly 50,000 feet per acre. The average stand for the ©
Pacific Northwest was 82,000 feet, of the southern pine region 6100 —
and of the Lake states 5600. In the redwood lands of California, it was

found that the six largest holders had an average stand of 113,000

- feet per acre, while the next smaller group of holders averaged only —
90,000 feet per acre. In the Lake states, the average stand for holdings —
of 60,000,000 feet and over was one fourth greater than the average
stand of holdings below that size; in the southern pine region, two
fifths greater; and in the Pacific Northwest, three fourths greater. —
In the coast states, the average for such holdings was nearly twice as —
great as the average for smaller holdings. Even among the large —
holdings—those of 60,000,000 each or more—the relatively smaller —
holdings had the least timber per acre.

LARGE HOLDINGS INCLUDE THE MOST VALUABLE SPECIES

The large owners had not only the highest stands, but also the most —
valuable species of timber. In the Pacific Northwest, there is of course :
no great variety of timber. The forests are almost wholly coniferous, —
and there are not such wide differences of value as in the South, —
between yellow pine and the gums, for instance. q

In the southern pine region, holders of 60,000,000 feet each or ~
more owned over 50 per cent of the valuable longleaf pine and only 20 ©
per cent of the low value hardwoods; while the smaller holders had 21 ~

42.8 per cent of the smaller holdings: The thirteen largest holders in —

this state had 29.7 per cent of the longleaf pine, 7.8 per cent of the
shortleaf and loblolly, and only 3.9 per cent of the hardwoods. In
Louisiana, the large holders (those owning 60,000,000 feet or over) A
had 80.7 per cent of the yellow pine and cypress and only 42.6 per ~

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 327

. Spent of the less desirable timber. In Mississippi, the ten largest holders
: had 41.2 per cent of the longleaf, 11.5 per cent of the shortleaf and
_ loblolly, and 5.8 per cent of the hardwoods. In Florida, large holders
_ owned 81.1 per cent of the more valuable timber and only 3.9 per cent
of the less valuable species.

f In all three of the Lake states, there is a very high concentration in
__ the ownership of the valuable white and Norway pine and hemlock.
In Minnesota, there is a relatively very low concentration in the owner-

__ ship of hardwoods and of conifers other than white and Norway pine.
Of the large holdings in that state (those of 60,000,000 feet or over),
_ 81.5 per cent was found to be white and Norway pine, and only 18.5

__ per cent the other conifers and hardwoods; while of the smaller hold-

ings only 24.8 per cent was white and Norway pine and 75.2 per cent
_ the cheaper kinds of wood. The six largest holders in Minnesota had
_ 54 per cent of the white and Norway pine and 2 per cent of the hard-
_ woods. The hardwood stands of Michigan and Wisconsin, unlike those
_ in Minnesota and the southern pine region, are of high average value,
and as a consequence, the ownership is centered in a comparatively
few holders. .
The power of the large timber owners is greatly augmented by a
_ close interweaving of interests, by interlocking directorates, owner-
_ ship of subsidiary companies or of stock in other companies, and by
_ close affiliation with other kinds of business, poriauarly with trans-
_ portation. —

™ ot De

: _ CAUSES OF CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP: RAILROAD LAND
Be GRANTS

¥ It will be profitable to note briefly the causes which have been
j _ responsible for the remarkable concentration in timber ownership de-
ribed above. In a word, it might of course be said that this concen-
_ tration is due to the unwise land policy of the Federal government ;

q but the particular features of that policy must be considered in detail.
No other factor has been so influential in promoting concentration
_ in most regions as the system of land grants to railroads and wagon
i ‘roads, Among the largest timber owners are some of the original rail-
# _road beneficiaries; and a great many of the holdings of large timber
4 companies can be traced to railroad grants. A study of the present

328 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

ownership of 7,370,000 acres of land grants showed that only 15 per d

cent is now distributed in small holdings, while 85 per cent is owned
by the grantees or their successors or by large timber companies.

The Southern Pacific Railroad is no longer the largest timber
owner in the United States, since the forfeiture of 2,000,000 acres of
its grant in Oregon; but in an immense area of northeastern Califor-
nia it has retained most of its lands, while several large tracts that
once were a part of its grant in Oregon and California have been taken
up by large lumber companies—68,000 acres by the Booth-Kelly
Lumber Company, 42,000 acres by the A. B. Hammond Companies,
70,000 acres by the Diamond Match Company, 52,000 acres by the
McCloud River Lumber Company, and smaller amounts by various
other companies.

The Northern Pacific Railroad Company owns only about one third
as much timber as the Southern Pacific formerly did, but by its policy

of sale to large timber companies, it has done much to make possible -

the assembling of other large holdings. In southwestern Washington,
the Northern Pacific grant, including timbered and non-timbered land,
amounted to 2,415,000 acres. Of this, the Weyerhaeuser Timber Com-
pany held 1,230,000 acres at the time the Bureau of Corporations
reported, the Northern Pacific itself retained about 355,000 acres,
and other large timber holders had no less than 340,000 acres, in
amounts ranging from 50,000 acres down. Of the entire grant in this
great timber region, 80 per cent was held by large timber owners,
leaving only 20 per cent in small holdings and non-timbered land.

The Northern Pacific grant covered a large part of the timber ~

lands of northern Idaho, and the railroad is still an important holder,
after selling 150,000 acres to one lumber company, 100,000 acres to
another, and smaller amounts to still other companies. In Montana,
the Amalgamated Copper Company interests have over 1,000,000
acres which were purchased from the Northern Pacific, and the
Northern Pacific is itself a very important holder. These two cor-
porations owned 79 per cent of all the unreserved timber in the state,
according to the report of the Bureau of Corporations.

Several large holdings in the Pacific Northwest owe their origin to
wagon road grants. In western Oregon, almost all of the grant to the
Coos Bay Wagon Road Company, aggregating some 100,000 acres,

Seem t Geers ae

wrt Se eae

LS ON | See TT lies es ae ee po : ’ pai

. Syee DER

Pak
iY
+ iV;
+h
ie Be
re?
ae

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 329

found its way into the hands of a single company. The Oregon Central
Military Road grant included 175,000 acres of timber land, later
found in the hands of a single company—the Booth-Kelly Lumber
Company. The Willamette Valley and Cascade Mountain Wagon
Road grant of over 800,000 acres was in 1914 practically all in a
single ownership, and about 180,000 acres is heavily timbered. The
_ Dalles Military Road grant of 550,000 acres contained only about
_ 86,000 acres of timber land, but it was practically all in the hands of

one company.
- Railroad grants have played a less important part in the Lake
states than in the West, but even in the Lake states they have been
a very important factor in the timber situation. The Chicago & North-
western Railway Company received grants in Wisconsin and Michi-
gan aggregating 1,065,000 acres, and it still retains 870,000 acres,
_ while most of the rest has passed into the hands of large timber
_ owners. The Marquette, Houghton & Ontonagon Railroad, successor
_ to the Marquette & Ontonagon and the Bay de Noquet grants in the
_ upper peninsula of Michigan, received patents for about 462,000
_ acres, and sold 402,000 acres to what is now the Michigan Iron and
_ Land Company (Ltd.), which held in 1914 over 820,000 acres in fee.
_ The Fort Wilkins, Copper Harbor and State Line Wagon Road grant,
in the same state, amounted to 220,000 acres, and one estate got the
_ title to 174,000 acres:of this, and three great copper companies got
_ practically all of the remainder. Three canal construction projects re-
_ ceived Federal grants aggregating 760,000 acres in the upper penin-
_ sula, and of this amount 670,000 acres (88 per cent) found its way
_ into the hands of large timber owners, in tracts ranging from a few
__ thousand to 300,000 acres.
__ Inthe longleaf pine region of Louisiana, a railroad grant—the New
_ Orleans Pacific grant—constituted the basis of several large holdings ;
in fact, over 90 per cent of this grant was later taken up by large
timber owners, in tracts of 133,000, 93,000, 54,000, 45,000, 30,000,
_ 23,000, and 17,000 acres respectively.*

4 The New Orleans Pacific was financed by Jay Gould, and it was a typical Jay
~ Gould road. It was not built until long after the time set by law for its completion;
_the original grantee, after its charter had been repealed, attempted to assign the
grant to the New Orleans Pacific; and in spite of efforts in Congress in the middle
_ eighties to forfeit the grant, it was finally confirmed to the New Orleans Pacific

chia teal "

330 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY.

In Florida, railroad grants have been much less important than
swamp land grants. The total received from the Federal government
by four land grant railroads here was 2,200,000 acres. It should be
stated, however, that Florida gave over 8,500,000 of its swamp land
grant to various railroads, and in this way state railroad grants
greatly facilitated the assembling of large holdings in Florida, for
almost all of this land is now included within some of the many large
holdings in this state.°

SWAMP LAND GRANTS

Swamp land grants are responsible for most of the immense hold-
ings in Florida, and for some in Michigan. Over 730,000 acres of the
land belonging in 1914 to the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company inter-
ests in the upper peninsula of Michigan, were originally part of a
swamp land grant; so also were some 87,000 acres belonging to the
Detroit, Mackinac & Marquette Railroad; 45,000 acres belonging to
the Escanaba Lumber Company; 26,000 acres belonging to the
~ Worcester Lumber Company (Ltd.), 28,000 owned by the I. Stephen-
son interests ; and smaller amounts owned by various holders. Without
doubt, many of the large holdings in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and in
some other states were likewise originally included in swamp land
grants.°

OTHER STATE GRANTS

A few large holdings were traced to other varieties of grants to the
states. T'wo large holders in Oregon had all their lands in sections 16
and 86. Thomas B. Walker owned over 100,000 acres of California
state lands in northeastern California, part of it composed of school
sections; and the Collins interests, the McCloud River Lumber Com-
pany and the Diamond Match Company had smaller amounts. The

Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company owned a large amount of the land —
granted to Michigan for educational purposes. The Potlatch Lumber |
Company had 80,000 acres in Idaho which were acquired from the —

in 1887. (See references cited in “Lumber Industry,” II, 147. This Gould holding
has recently been sold by the Gould estate.)
_ 5 Cross Reference, pp. 53-55.
6 Cross Reference, p. 46.

Wetec tty Se ene .
Sn aC Se ee ee ee

Nees

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 331

state, almost all in the form of timber rights; and several other large
lumber companies had small amounts.’

THE CASH SALE LAW

_ Comparatively little information is available regarding the number

f holdings based upon the old cash sale law, but there is some evidence
9 show that large owners used this law a great deal. In the longleaf
ne district of Louisiana, nearly a million acres were traced back to
e cash sale law, and nearly all of it was in the hands of large holders.
he Long-Bell Lumber Company had 203,000 acres; the Lutcher-
foore interests, 120,000; the Central Coal and Coke Company,
6,000 acres; the Industrial Lumber Company, 58,000 acres; the
hicago Lumber and Coal Company interests, 54,000 acres; Lud-
ington, Wells and Van Schaick, 54,000 acres; the Calcasieu Pine
jompany and Southland Lumber Company, 46,000 acres ; and a dozen
ther large companies had amounts ranging from 50,000 acres down.
e Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company obtained over 200,000 acres of
3 ts land in Michigan through the cash sale act. It is reasonable to

_ assume that a study extending throughout the timbered regions of the
_ public land states would reveal a large number of cases where lands
were alienated in great blocks under this law, and are now owned by
_ large timber owners."

LIEU SELECTIONS AND LARGE HOLDINGS

"The Forest Lieu Act of 1897 has been treated at some length in a
: vious chapter, but it is interesting to note here that several large
gs are at least partly traceable to this act. Thus, 35,000 acres

f the holding of William Wente et al. in Oregon, and 37,000 acres
of the Thomas B. Walker holding in California, were taken up with
A antic and Pacific lieu scrip; 14,000 acres of C. A. Smith’s prop-
erty were taken up in the same way, as were also some 50,000 acres
belonging to smaller holders. In western Oregon, 175,000 acres of
- the Weyerhaeuser lands and 70,000 acres of the lands belonging to
other large holders were originally Northern Pacific lieu selections.
Altogether, 219,000 acres of the Weyerhaeuser holdings go back to

a - 7Cross Reference, p. 47.

* a 8 Cross Reference, p. 49.

332 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

the special lieu selection act creating Mount Ranier National Park;
while 53,000 acres belonging to the Northern Pacific, 67,000 acres
belonging to the Clearwater Timber Company, and 22,000 acres in the
hands of the Edward Rutledge Timber Company can be traced to the ©
same origin.”

In the Pacific Northwest, the Timber and Stone Act was, aside from

the three railroad grants, the principal means of building up large

estates, while in some of the older sections of the country the Pre-
emption and Commutation Homestead laws were used more. The
manner in which these laws operated has been discussed sufficiently in
previous chapters.

LARGE HOLDINGS NORMAL IN TIMBER OWNERSHIP -

Among the causes of the concentration in the ownership of timber
lands must be mentioned the fact that large holdings are normal in
timber land in most regions of virgin stand, just as small holdings of
160 acres seem to be normal in agricultural lands. A large holding
can be more effectively and more cheaply protected from fire and from
trespass than a number of small ones, more cheaply logged, and the
lumber can be more cheaply sawed and marketed. Efficient lumbering
operations, in many sections of the country, demand fairly large
tracts of timber—large enough to afford at least a fifteen or twenty
years’ supply of timber for the sawmills operating. A mill with a
capacity of 20,000,000 feet a year—not a large mill in some regions—
should have available a supply of perhaps 400,000,000 feet of timber,
and in regions of light stumpage this might require nearly 100,000
acres. Even in regions of heavy average stand this would require a
holding of not much less than 10,000 acres. Thus it is that, as stated
previously, large holdings are worth more in proportion to their
acreage or stumpage than small holdings, and tend constantly to
absorb them. There is a very definite economic law, according to which
timber lands gravitate into large holdings.

SPECULATION

Some of the very large holdings in the virgin timber lands of the
West and South should not be ascribed to economy in protection or
9 Cross Reference, pp. 176-190.

y looked about for places to invest the large amounts of
they had accumulated. The forests of the South and -
d attractive fields for investment, and some of these
t up tracts for speculation—tracts larger than any
efficiency or economy would have dictated.

ts of the country are to be privately owned, perhaps it
ell that they should be owned in large tracts; yet this
in ownership contains a threat of future monopolistic

0 t be ignored.

Go

CHAPTER XII

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY (conTINvED) : CONDI-
TIONS IN THE LUMBER INDUSTRY 4

In order to bring out more clearly the unfortunate results of our
forest policy, it will be necessary to note the conditions in the lumber
industry, for it is in the lumber industry, rather than in the owner-
ship of standing timber, that the effect of our forest policy upon the
public is most clearly brought out. A discussion of conditions in the
lumber industry will involve some consideration, first, of price-fixing
activities among lumbermen; second, the depression in the industry
from 1905 to 1915; third, the wasteful methods of lumbering, and
fourth, the failure of lumbermen to reforest their lands.

THE SO-CALLED LUMBER MONOPOLY

The matter of price-fixing activities among lumbermen brings up
the question of the so-called “lumber monopoly”; and it should be
stated at once that in the lumber business there is no suggestion of
a single dominating monopoly, or anything approaching it, no single
organization occupying such a commanding position as the Inter-
national Harvester Company once did in its field, or the United States
Steel Corporation, or as the Standard Oil Company has long held in
the oil business. Such price-fixing activities as have been charged to
the lumbermen have not been attributed in general to the National
Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, but to the various regional
associations.*

1It is not the purpose of the writer to enter into any exhaustive discussion of
the lumber industry in this chapter. For mores elaborate treatment than is here
possible, see Part IV of the Report of the Commissioner of Corporations on the
Lumber Industry: Compton, “Organization of the Lumber Industry”: Some
Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry, William B. Greeley,

Report No. 114, U. S. Dept. of Agr.: Brief on Behalf of the National Lumber
Manufacturers’ Association, May, 1916: also articles by Professor George Stevens

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 335
-LUMBERMEN’S ASSOCIATIONS
a oS Piaciations among lumbermen existed at least as early as 1888,
and since that time, particularly since 1897, there has been a remark-
- able development of association activity. At the present time there is
an association representing the producers of almost every kind of
wood—-yellow pine, white pine, Douglas fir, hemlock, etc.
These lumbermen’s associations and organizations have performed
4 various functions. One function has often been that of trying to give
sability to the lumber market in various ways, particularly by issuing
4 price ‘lists, and by organizing curtailment campaigns. Among the
_ other activities have been the following:
id. Advertising of lumber products, and demonstration of their
e for various purposes.
_ 2. Establishment and,maintenance of lumber grades ; trade-mark-
ing and grade-branding to maintain the quality of the product and fix
"responsibility for each shipment; furnishing responsible inspection
os to buyers and aiding in the settlement of disputes ; elimination
of f sharp practices, grade manipulation, and fraudulent or irresponsi-
ble methods of selling lumber.
_ 8. Maintenance of credit bureaus and sale of fire insurance at
st to members.
4. Investigation and handling of freight rates and other traffic
atters of common interest to the manufacturers in a region.
5. Maintenance of employment bureaus and studying of labor
conditions and efficiency in the various operations of lumbering.
_ 6. Conduct of various lines of research, aimed to improve the mill
products of the region or to extend their use.
_ 7%. Promotion of better and more uniform accounting among
t n é nufacturers and distributors, and dissemination of data on the cost
of production and distribution.
’ 8. Furnishing of authentic, responsible information to the public
arding conditions in the lumber industry.
9. Conducting of studies in forest management.
10. Agitation for better methods in taxation of forest lands.
im _ Besides the ordinary associations, a number of selling agencies have

and by Professor Compton in the American Economic Review, June, 1917, 289;
d Sept., 1917, 582.

336 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

been formed among the manufacturers of Douglas fir, cypress, and
hemlock. The Western Pine Manufacturers’ Association has also
employed codperative methods in selling.

THE NATIONAL LUMBER MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION

Coédperation among lumbermen on something approximating a
national scale began as early as 1897. In that year, a meeting was
held in Cincinnati at which representative lumbermen from various
parts of the country met to devise ways and means to secure the
restoration of the tariff on lumber, the white pine manufacturers
being especially prominent in the movement. The National Lumber
Manufacturers’ Association was organized in St. Louis in December,
1902, the outgrowth of a friendly intercourse that had existed for
several years among a large number of local associations. The white
pine manufacturers and the yellow pine manufacturers were leaders
in this movement, but the organization now includes some of the
strongest associations in the country.

SCOPE AND INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONS

The Yellow Pine Manufacturers’ Association included some 300
members controlling perhaps one third of the yellow pine output of
the United States. It was connected to some extent with several other
associations in the South. By means of a number of common directors,
it was connected with the Southern Lumber Operators’ Association—
a Louisiana association organized in 1906, ostensibly to fight labor
unions—and in various ways was related to the Southwestern Lum-
bermen’s Association, and with the Lumber Secretary’s Bureau of
Information, and with the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Asso-
ciation. After the Missouri ouster suit in 1913,” this association was
reorganized as the Southern Pine Association, with a total of over
150 subscribers and a combined output of about 6,000,000,000 feet—
half of the yellow pine production in the Gulf states. The Georgia-
Florida Saw Mill Association, the other yellow pine association, is
much smaller, but includes seventy-six members, representing 50 per ©

2 The suit brought by the state of Missouri against a number of lumber com-
panies for violation of the state anti-trust laws. The suit resulted in the conviction

of twenty-five lumber companies, and the imposition of heavy fines, while some of
the companies were ousted from the state. (169 Southwestern Reporter, 145.)

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 337

the cut in the territory covered. The California Redwood
ition, with seventeen mills, represents 70 per cent of the total
tion in the region covered, the California White and Sugar
fanufacturers’ Association 70 per cent, the Western Pine
icturers’ Association 80 per cent, the Northern Hemlock and
ood Manufacturers’ Association 50 per cent of the cut of
in and upper Michigan, the Michigan Hardwood Manufac-
Association 70 per cent of the cut of lower Michigan, the
Coast Lumber Manufacturers’ Association 70 per cent of the
it in the region covered. Associations affiliated with the Na-
Lumber Manufacturers’ Association control 40 per cent of
al lumber production of the United States.

cypress producers are about as strongly organized as any
of lumbermen in the country. The Southern Cypress Manu-
rs’ Association represents about 50 per cent of the principal
; mills of the United States. An editorial in the New Orleans
r Trade Journal refers to the nature of the control over cypress
): “No lumber list ever promulgated has been as rigidly kept
_ of the Southern Cypress Association. A deviation of a hair
not be tolerated. Their moderation in good times and their
in s during periods of depression has imparted a stability to the
od highly appreciated by buyers, for they know that an ample
behind will maintain its value intact.” At a meeting of the
n Cypress Manufacturers’ Association in 1906, President
t said: “Probably less than one hundred men could be named
rol more than 95 per cent of the cypress production.”*® A
+ western lumberman, pleading for closer organization
lumbermen, recently stated: “We need an organized effort to
bout the results, such as you have brought about in connection

ag and district. Its successor, the Washington Brokerage Com-
ny, had exclusive control over the output of its members, at first

Industry,” IV, 723, 724.
gs, National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, 1915, 51.

338 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

appears that, in curtailment campaigns, members could operate only
by consent of the company. Thus the minutes of one of the meetings
of the directors contain the following: “The manager reported that
Mr. Izett had made application to him to be allowed to operate his
camp and dispose of the logs at $1 off the Association list. On motion
it was ordered that the request be denied.’”

Secretary Beckman of the Pacific Coast Lumber Manufacturers’
Association reported in January, 1902: “Eleven cases of alleged price
cutting were investigated during the year.” Two years later he re-
ported that “the members paid $154,264.93 in penalties, which-was
divided among members not penalized.” Thus it seems that this asso-
ciation imposed penalties for violation of trade agreements, and was
strong enough to collect them.®

The Maple Flooring Manufacturers’ Association had a similar

penalty clause in its agreement of 1898. Under this clause each mem- —

ber was required to deposit $500 with the treasurer of the association,
to be forfeited in case of any violation of the terms of the agreement,
and each member was further required to forward to the secretary
each month a sworn statement that his firm had complied with the
rules of the association as to prices, grades, and other matters. This

association was said to represent 95 per cent of the maple flooring ©

manufacturers in the United States.’

EFFORTS TO FIX PRICES

Thus an important function of most lumbermen’s associations has —
been that of trying to fix lumber prices. Most of the associations have |

at various times tried to control market prices, either directly or by
means of curtailment of output.
Previous to 1906, organized activity among lumber riandtagtiners

was openly promoted by lumber associations as part of their official

work, and written or oral agreements were commonly made to main-
tain uniform price lists. At that time, most manufacturers’ associa-

tions issued price lists regularly, and these were widely used by the -
trade. In some cases they established price lists at their meetings, and -

5 “Lumber Industry,” IV, 356, 361.
6 “Lumber Industry,” IV, 388, 392.
7 “Lumber Industry,” IV, 879.

kal

Se eee | Any, ticks sie x seas
See ee a oe oa es ey A See Re eee

rin Smeg

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 339

ie cases they established price list committees whose duty it was
lists from time to time.

mut 1906, the Federal government, and some of the state gov-
nts as well, became very active in the enforcement of, the anti-

to conceal their activities. Some of them issued “market re-
” or “statements of market conditions,” or lists of “prevailing

me form and served the same purpose as did the “price lists” of
ier days, and they have been issued by certain associations
hat time down to the present.

ng the first few years of the “market reports,’”’ the prices

tuted what might be termed high “basis” lists in place of the
cet reports.” The prices shown in these “basis” lists were pur-
fixed above the market price, while discount sheets were issued
cate actual selling prices. |
some instances, lumber associations have got lumber journals,
ug houses, or so-called “information bureaus” to print and
1 these price lists. Some of the cypress manufacturers have thus
ued price lists under the name of a printing company—NMiller and
lao, and later the Brandao Printing Company. The Southern
er Journal assisted the North Carolina Pine Association in a
ment campaign in 1913; and the Yellow Pine Manufacturers’
tion has employed the Lumbermen’s Printing Company to
ice lists from time to time. Some of the Pacific associations
sometimes put the name of the Pacific Lumber T'rade Journal
lists they were issuing.
ociated lumbermen have tried various means of securing adher-
o price lists. In many cases, agreements have been circulated
| signatures required. One of the so-called “Centralia agreements”
L905 read as follows:

t AGREEMENT:

“We, the undersigned, hereby agree to maintain the official list
pted at a joint meeting of the Southwestern Washington Lumber
nufacturers’ Association and a committee of the Pacific Coast

340 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, held at Centralia, Washington,
March 8, 1905, same to be maintained in all territory, with the exce
tion of 50 cents per thousand discount to yard lines. The above agree-
ment to become void unless signed by 80 per cent of manufacturers
and wholesale jobbers.

Name of firm:. . s.«:+ & «0040 Sy eae
S© Address. 2!» <0 +a" » 0:0» = An “4

POOLS IN THE LUMBER INDUSTRY 2

Pools have not been common among lumbermen, yet there has been
at least one example of this form of codperation, among the manu-
facturers of Douglas fir. Under the provisions of the “export agree-
ment” of 1902, the lumber interests were divided into four districts—
Puget Sound, Columbia River, Oregon and Washington coast, and
British Columbia. The capacity of each mill capable of doing export
business was determined by a committee, and to each mill was allotted
a percentage of the total export trade. On all export shipments an
assessment of $8 per thousand feet was collected by the trustees who
managed the pool; and any mill shipping over its allotted percentage
was assessed an extra $3 per thousand feet on such excess. A mill
shipping less than its allotment was required to pay $3 per thousand
feet on its entire allotted percentage; but it might sell its right to
another mill. Dividends were declared monthly and semi-annually, 50
per cent of the receipts from shipments being divided among the
shippers monthly, while semi-annually, after deducting expenses, the
remainder was divided among all members. This pool referred only to
the export trade, although some of its promoters enthusiastically
claimed that it had an important influence on domestic prices.

OPEN PRICE ASSOCIATIONS

A few of the lumbermen’s associations are what may be terme d
“open price” associations, and this type of organization is bemg

turer should fix his own selling prices as he sees fit and change them
when he desires; but he should fix his prices intelligently, that is, he
should have the fullest and most accurate knowledge of market con=
ditions. The underlying theory is that instability and disorganization

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 341

asiness are due chiefly to ignorance or misinformation as to actual
ket conditions, and as to costs of manufacturing and marketing.
urate knowledge of these matters is assumed to be a sufficient
y. The Southern Pine Association was recently considering an
nsion of its work so as to place it upon an open price basis. The
Western Pine Manufacturers have a department known as the “‘infor-
mation bureau” which has carried on open price work since 1912.
aps the most notable example of open price associations is the
-dwood Manufacturers’ Association of America. Originally merely
ade association, it has recently adopted the open price plan in its
ety and began operating under it March 1, 1917. It is intended
that eventually all hardwoods shall be included, but in the beginning
its operation is to be confined to oak, the lumber most commonly
roduced by its members.°
t is not to be assumed that all the price list committees, informa-
ion bureaus, etc., are suggestive of “open price” associations. In
any instances such agencies have tried to fix an artificial price level.
the price lists have often represented nothing like the prevailing
arket.®

OTHER EFFORTS TO FIX PRICES

y if has long been a common practice among lumber manufacturers
; try to effect concerted curtailment of production in order to influ-
nc prices. Sometimes an agreement to curtail the output has been
ulated among ‘the members of an association, perhaps also among
facturers who were not members. In other instances, resolutions
ail have been adopted by associations at their meetings.

ce the associations have become more fearful of government
secution, they have largely abandoned these practices, but have
ied other means of accomplishing the same results. Trade papers
ave e been influenced to proclaim the benefits of a reduced output,
g yciation secretaries have issued reports showing the extent of
tailment and urging all members to reduce their output. In some
stances, the curtailment campaign has been directed by some asso-
“Open Price Associations,” by Professor H. R. Tosdal; American Economic
“ , June, 1917, SS1-394: Am. Lumberman, Dec. 22, 1917, 26, 46; Feb. 15,
Pane fuduastry,” IV, 79, 93, 416.

342 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

ciation member, “acting as an individual,” who has been assisted by
association officers, likewise “acting as individuals.” In several cases,
curtailment movements have been directed by the editors of friendly .
lumber journals, an illustration of this being found in the curtailment —
campaign among members of the North Carolina Pine Association
during the summer of 1913.

PRICE ACTIVITIES AMONG RETAILERS '

While it is not the purpose of the writer to enter into a considera-
tion of the retailing of lumber, it may be appropriate to point out
that among retailers as well as among lumber manufacturers, there
have been numerous examples of illegal efforts to fix prices. In some
instances, these efforts have been connected with the lumbermen’s
associations. Thus some of the charges made against the Yellow Pine
Manufacturers’ Association, and against two other southern associa-
tions, in the Missouri ouster suit, were that they had divided territory
among retail dealers, had agreed not to sell to so-called “poachers,”
farmers’ coéperative yards, consumers, or any but “legitimate retail
dealers.” Other less important judicial decisions describe a similar
state of affairs.*°

Lumbermen, manufacturers, and retailers alike have often fought
the irregular retail dealers by unfair and underhand methods. They
have tried to interfere with the business of mail order houses, by
writing in, and by having others write in for catalogues, estimates,
etc., in bad faith. They have tried to influence manufacturers to re-
frain from furnishing lumber to such houses by threats of loss of
patronage; in one case they even employed an agent to secure cont
fidential information regarding the business secrets of such concerns,
and tried to hinder and embarrass them in various other ways. In one
large western city, the retailers jointly fixed prices and deposited a
guarantee to play fair, and even hired a secretary to keep watch. :
Any member found cutting list prices was heavily fined.” B

- 10 Gibbs et al. vs. McNeeley; 107 Fed. Rep., 210: Grenada Lumber Co. vs. Sta
of Mississippi; 217 U. S., 433: Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association {
vs. U. S.; 224 U. S., 600. i

11 ‘Am. Lumbegroas, Dec. 22, 1917, 32: Compton. “Organization of the Combe
Industry,” 51. For a discussion of the “exchange” formed by.the lumber dealers of |
Kansas City, Missouri, see the Kansas City Star, October 27, 1916. r

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 343
EFFECTIVENESS OF EFFORTS TO FIX PRICES

As to the effectiveness of price activities, it is very difficult to gen-

Ss eralize. Conditions have varied so greatly among the different regions,

and at different times, that any general statement is likely to be mis-
leading. The report of the Commissioner of Corporations (Part IV)
was largely dedicated to proving the existence of monopolistic condi-
tions in the lumber industry, and it contains a great deal of evidence
intended to prove that. On the other hand, lumbermen claim, and
there is a great deal of evidence tending to prove, that efforts of

Bo lumbermen to influence prices have generally been ineffective, that,

in spite of them, lumber prices have generally been too low to cover
even the bare cost of production for many lumbermen.

It is the increase in lumber prices since the middle or late nineties
which has directed attention to the question of price activities among
lumbermen; but there can be no doubt that this rise in prices is
mainly due to other causes. In the first place, other causes are ample
to explain most, if not all, of this increase. The depreciation in the
value of money is responsible for much of it. If it is true, as Professor
Fisher estimates, that the dollar was worth two thirds as much in
1914 as in 1896, lumber prices could have risen nearly 50 per cent
__ without indicating any peculiar forces at work.”* In the second place,
__ the shifting in the main sources of supply, from the Lake states to
_ the southern and western states, will account for much of the rise in
lumber prices. In 1896, the Lake states still led in the production of

lumber, and even the northeastern states were furnishing consider-

able amounts. This lumber could be sold in the great consuming cen-
ters very cheaply. When, however, these readily accessible supplies
were nearly exhausted, and lumber had to be shipped in from the
southern states, and even to some extent from the western and Pacific
states, higher prices were inevitable. Transportation charges are a
very large element in the cost of so bulky a product as lumber. In
the third place, the increasing scarcity of lumber might account for

F 3 an increase in lumber prices. The lumber supply of the country con-
_ stitutes a limited natural resource, and, with its rapid exhaustion,

the forces of supply and demand would account for a considerable

12 See Compton, “Organization of the Lumber Industry,” 80.

344 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

rise in prices. Some agricultural products, in the production and
marketing of which competition has had its freest action, have in-
creased more in price than lumber, even though, in the case of agri-
cultural products, there has been no prospect of the exhaustion of
supply.*® .

It appears thus that competitive forces would have been sufficient
to cause a very considerable rise in prices. Certain lines of general
reasoning likewise suggest that efforts of the lumbermen’s associations
to maintain price lists could hardly have had any great influence on
prices. In the first place, there has been some difficulty in securing
accurate enough grading of some kinds of lumber to permit effective
price control. In the second place, plants are not large, compared
with plants in some other industries, are numerous, and widely scat-
tered. Mere physical isolation has been an impediment in the way of
effective combination. In the third place, many lumbermen have
always been so deeply in debt, so tied down by bond issues, that they
had to cut and sell their lumber almost regardless of price, in order
to meet interest charges. It is claimed that a few plants which refuse
to be bound by price agreements are enough to set low prices in times
of depression. Prices are of course set by those lumbermen who sell,
if there are enough of them, rather than by those who refuse to sell.**
In the fourth place, it is clear that, since price-fixing activities have
almost always been carried on by the associations, there would usually
remain the competition between woods, even if the association mem-
bers were ever so loyal, and ever so strong financially. In the great
lumber markets of the country, like Chicago and New York, com-
petition between woods is very persistent.*®

Competition between woods is not always and everywhere strong
enough to insure purely competitive prices. In a certain region and
for certain purposes, white pine, for instance, has an element of
monopoly advantage over other woods, and might sell at a price
above that fixed by free competition, if the white pine producers
themselves were sufficiently well organized. This is also true of a

18 Compton, opus cited, 105.

14 Proceedings, Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the National Lumber Manufac-
turers’ Association, 95.

15 Compton, opus cited, 41 et seq.

i
|
3
;

“RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY B45

E himber of other woods, although the producers of some species are —
. _ organized on something approaching national lines, covering most
_of the entire product, and thus might conceivably prevent any com-
oe between different regions.

Akin to the competition of woods is the chmpetilion of substitute
_ building materials—brick, cement, stone, steel, fiber, and the great
variety of substitute roofings. Any great increase in the price of
imber for building purposes would lead to an increased use of some
_of these substitutes.” 3

_ It may be worth while to point out that competition between lumber
4 Dieefacturers who are owners of their own standing timber may be
¢ on a somewhat different basis from competition between retailers, or
_ even between manufacturers of some other products. There has been
a general tendency in the past for lumber prices and timber prices
to rise, and, if a lumber manufacturer refuses to cut and sell his timber
_ at prevailing prices, it means that he is losing, or, perhaps better, is
failing to make a profit—as a manufacturer; but he may yet make a
profit as owner of the standing timber if the value of standing timber
rises. Thus he is in a somewhat different position from that of an
_ ordinary merchant, for instance, who, when he fails to make a sale,
has definitely failed to make his profit, and may even lose heavily on
the stock remaining on his hands. The profit which may be anticipated
from the rise in timber values would ordinarily set what might be
called a “discounted future price,” below which the market price of
lumber could hardly go, if all of the lumbermen were strong enough
financially to follow what they recognized as the wisest long-run
Pe olicy. Many lumbermen must meet heavy fixed charges, and so must
se all almost regardless of price, but. those who are in a position of
financial independence have a rather stronger position in the market
than competitors in some other lines of industry. This consideration
is is most important in the case of woods which are approaching ex-
I haustion, as, for instance, white pine, or those which for any reason
re increasing rapidly in value. It must be noted, however, that prices
of some grades of lumber did not increase at all between 1905 and
1 1915, but even declined somewhat; and, while prices during the past
- 16 Report No. 117, U. S. Dept. of Agr., Office of Secretary.

346 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

few decades have shown a general tendency to advance, that tendency —
need not be regarded as prevailing always and everywhere. Many —

lumbermen have lost money on standing timber.

It will be pertinent to point out here that, since the economic law :

of supply and demand determines market value, efforts at price —
fixing must be ineffective unless accompanied by some limitation of ©
supply. Even experienced lumbermen have probably sometimes been —

mistaken as to the effectiveness of some of their efforts to maintain
price lists.
Thus general reasoning indicates that price activities have gen-

erally had little influence. Much of the direct testimony on the subject —

points to the same conclusion. In the first place, a study of the trade
news in the lumber journals indicates clearly that lumber prices were
often largely beyond the control of the associated lumbermen. The
following excerpts are a few of many that might be given:

“Many of the small [ yellow pine] mills which derive their logs by
purchase from others’ lands, and must pay for them as they saw,
and are thus bound by contracts, are running and placing their
lumber on the market at the best prices they can obtain. It is the
product of such mills that is being shipped in transit, is\being sold by
brokers in the large markets at a variety of prices, and is causing a
large part of the prevailing demoralization.”"

“The committee on values of the Southern Lumber Masutattarors’ .

Association in January and February sought to arrest the tendency
to a decline in prices by fixing new bases for the list, but in this case

the all-powerful trade law of supply and demand asserted its. su-—
premacy over the law of fiat, and prices remained persistently weak.”**
“The condition of stocks of white pine is such that it is practically

impossible to make a price list which will fit them all; consequently
each man with lumber to sell is putting his own price on it according
to how his stock is assorted.”

“The efforts of wholesalers to maintain list price [of hemlock]
early in the spring have practically failed, and the man who wants —

17 Am. Lumberman, Mar. 21, 1908, 38.
18 dm. Lumberman, Mar. 26, 1904, 15.
19 dm. Lumberman, Minneapolis news, Feb. 22, 1902, 48, 49.

args eS . me
a a ah te

it
pamead ete he ce train

OS) Saws

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 347

~ hemlock lumber to-day and has money to pay for it has the price
_ situation in his own hands.”’*°
“Spruce demand has remained about the same with low prices —
and a general disregard for the list by some of the larger manu-
_ facturers.”*
“The most glaring instance of unwise management is the maple
_ flooring association. 'The price list adopted in July was unwarranted
_ by market condition, and, as orders did not come in, many firms began
to cut freely. This was hushed up at first, but discontent grew, the
_ ‘Boxers’ started out with long knives and now the slashing has become
ll general. 9922
Not infrequently iiawket prices have gone above the list, as the
_ following quotations indicate:
_ “For weeks buyers of white pine had thrown away all bargaining
for prices and freely offered anything which would bring the stock.
Above the list was common at that time, and the present list is con-
_ ceded to be only a fair representation of the real strength of the

market.”””*
__ “Many items of white pine on the list are selling at a premium.
i “Tt was shown that sales were being made in nearly every instance
_. at a figure considerably higher than the list.”

The Missouri ouster suit of 1918, in which the Supreme Court of

9924

a : Missouri found some twenty-five lumber companies guilty of violating

the state anti-trust law, furnishes little proof of the effectiveness of
price activities. There was no doubt that the lumber companies had
_ been guilty of technical conspiracy in violation of the anti-trust law,
had attempted to fix prices; and the court even held that these efforts

had been successful, but did not make much of the question of success.

Possibly the decision should not be regarded too seriously anyhow,
_ for much of the evidence rests on the investigation of a single com-
missioner of facts, and the tenor of his report and of the decision
based on it indicates that perhaps the zeal to find the truth was over-

20 N. Y. Lumber Trade Journal, May 15, 1908, 27.

21 Am. Lumberman, Aug. 8, 1908, 78.

22 Boston news in Am. Lumberman, Feb. 14, 1903, 63.

23 Minneapolis news in Miss. Valley Lumberman, Mar. 30, 1906, 34.

24 Minneapolis news in Miss, Valley Lumberman, May 31, 1907, 35.

25 Am. Lumberman, Oct. 14, 1905, 33; report of meeting of Oct. 3, 1905.

348 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

shadowed by a desire to convict. Some of the statements of fact were
inaccurate, and the tone of the decision was more like that of an
attorney for the prosecution than that of a judge or court dispas-
sionately weighing the merits of the suit. Lumbermen generally deny
that there was any justice in the decision.”

While efforts at price fixing have generally been futile, there is
evidence that such efforts have sometimes had an appreciable in-
fluence. The following excerpts from lumber journals tend to support
this conclusion:

“The market broke very rapidly after the price agreement went
off in March.””*

“There is a stubborn rumor that the yellow pine manufacturers
intend to advance their prices at an early date, and many of the yards
are hurrying to place their orders before this advance shall become
effective.”* :

“The price list which went into effect October 15 is meeting with
high favor, although some of the wholesalers report inability to secure
some of the figures named. It has had the effect, however, of greatly
increasing the actual selling price.””°

“All of the items are in poor supply at initial points and while the

new list may not be maintained at the start, it will mean an advance ©

in actual selling prices about equal to the advances ordered.”*°

“The recent price lists of the Georgia Sawmill Association and the
Southern Lumber Manufacturers’ Association are being strictly ad-
hered to, and yellow pine is to-day one of the strongest features.”**

“The solid front that the mill operators are maintaining in their
insistence on firm prices at the December advance renders the picking
up of lumber at concessions in prices next to an impossibility.”*”

“There is not much revival of demand, but the trade is in good
shape and dealers say that prices are holding firm, though they do

26 Proceedings, Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the National Lumber Manufac-
turers’ Association, 31, 32.

27 Kansas City news in St. Louis Lwmberman, May 15, 1904, 37.

28 St. Louis news in 4m. Lumberman, Aug. 26, 1905, 67.

29 St. Louis news in Am. Lumberman, Nov. 5, 1904, 61.

80 St. Louis news in Am. Lumberman, Jan. 14, 1905.

31 New York news in N. Y. Lumber Trade Journal, Apr. 15, 1902, 22.

32 Adm. Lumberman, Jan. 13, 1906, 69.

te

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 349

Imit that but for the new White Pine Association there would prob-
ably have been a lot of cutting that has not developed now.’’**

me “Half a dozen operators control practically all the hemlock that
comes to this market, and from all the information I can gain the
present price is being maintained, with no prospect of a break, The
present of $17 will not be lower this season, in the opinion of those
_ most interested. In fact, holders of hemlock state with confidence
: “’ t they have the situation fully in hand.”’**

Regarding the cypress market, some of the following quotations
the lumber journals are significant of the situation in 1901:
‘Prices are up to the full list, the cypress representatives here
ting that not a foot is being sold under the agreed prices.”

Prices are unchanged and they will remain so for some time to
come. Full list is ruling absolutely.”

_ “Prices remain steady and the list goes in this territory at least.”
“Every order is placed at full list prices.”

“List is rigidly maintained.”

_ “Prices are at list, as they have been all this season.”

“The advance made two weeks ago is being obtained in all in-
ances.”

_ “Cypress is selling at full list and the firmness of the market is not
uestioned in any quarter.”

“Prices are being maintained everywhere with the most scrupulous
fidelity to the list.”

Such a situation as this has been very common in the cypress
arket, although in times of depression and slack demand, as, for
astance, in the latter part of 1907 and in 1908, there was plenty of
evidence that the cypress list was not strictly maintained.

' Much of this evidence must be discounted heavily. Trade journals
and officials in the lumber associations are often enthusiastic pro- —
oters of codperative activity, and are prone to exaggerate its effec-
tiveness. Many lumbermen were doubtless themselves mistaken as to
the effect of their price activities. Even with due allowance for exag-
geration, however, the evidence presented clearly indicates that price
lists have sometimes had an influence. It is probably in a falling

_-—s- 88: Am. Lumberman, Apr. 9, 1904, 57.
_ «84: N. Y. Lumber Trade Journal, Jan. 1, 1904, 9.

850 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

market that such lists have had the most effect.*? Some lumbermen
have claimed that price lists were not issued with any intent to in-
fluence prices, but merely as a record of the prevailing market. In
some instances this has been true, but many of the lists have not
corresponded to market prices even when first issued; and there is
conclusive evidence that, in some cases, lists were not even intended
to represent the market.

Although price lists have sometimes raised prices somewhat, they

may nevertheless have been justified, even from the point of view of
the public, for they have at times given some measure of stability to
a peculiarly unstable field of industry; a field in which blind and un-
fettered competition has often been very severe, and in which the
average rate of profits has not been excessively high. A reasonable
degree of stability in any industry is to be desired.

EFFECTIVENESS OF CURTAILMENT CAMPAIGNS

Price lists could not have any great or lasting effect upon lumber
prices unless accompanied by some regulation of the supply. Lumber
associations have often attempted, however, to limit the supply
through organized curtailment agreements; and these curtailment
agreements have sometimes had an appreciable influence upon prices.

Curtailment agreements would sometimes be fairly easy to main-
tain if operators were not too deeply in debt, and were strong enough
financially to follow out their own interests. Loyalty to a curtailment
agreement has sometimes involved very little sacrifice. In a depressed
market, when lumbermen have had to sell their product at a price
below actual cost of production, those who were also owners of their
standing timber might easily profit by closing down for a time, and
indeed many of them did so, even though not bound by any agree-
ment. They could count upon an increase in the value of standing
timber to balance in some measure the immediate loss of income.
Timber values may not increase as much in the future as they have in
the past, but they will probably increase somewhat.

There is a great deal of evidence indicating that curtailment cam-
paigns have sometimes influenced prices. There is, in the first place,
the testimony of those familiar with the industry. Speaking of a cur-

35 “Lumber Industry,” IV, 126, 563, 681.

BS Gh. et Ee ger

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 351

Iment campaign carried on in 1904 by the Southern Lumber Manu-
eturers’ Association, one influential lumberman stated: “That
lues are what they are to-day is the result solely of this curtail-
| movement.””*°

Mr. R. A. Long, one of the most influential men in the yellow pine
d, in speaking of curtailment among the producers of yellow pine,
in 1905: “Some of the most successful men in our line of business
k their heads and made the statement that we could not ‘legislate
es’; that supply and demand must govern and that the supply
uld be governed by the ‘survival of the fittest.’ In spite of these
‘ophecies we succeeded in securing the codperation of about 80 per
nt of the manufacturers of yellow pine, and so the plan was entered
into and tested between July 1 and October 1. In less than 10 days
¥ ‘om July 1 the downward tendency of prices had been checked, and
¢ ithin 80 days a substantial advance had been made. Before we had
. ched October 1 it was believed that the commencing of the opera-
n of our mills on full time on that date would practically mean a
ss of all we had gained, and an effort was made, and accomplished,

‘continuing the curtailment until January 1 of this year. On October
: 5, a further notable advance was made. Desiring to be as nearly
orrect as possible as to the extent of the advance between July 1
ind October 1, and as to the further advance made between October ’
and January 1, I addressed a letter to a number of the larger
nufacturers asking their views on this point, also as to whether
or not they attributed the advance to the curtailment movement or
herwise. These replies did not vary to any great extent, and the
mmary of the same developed an average advance between July 1

d October 1 of $1.19 per M. and between October 1 and January 1
of $1.04 per M., all agreeing that the curtail movement was that
y vi ich brought about this favorable condition.”*’

. A letter written in 1912 by C. E. Patten, “Chairman of the Manu-
facturers’ Curtailment Committee” of one of the coast associations,
contains the following: “Our close-down during December, January,
at id February was a very satisfactory one, fully 50 of the mills being
ele sed from 30 to 90 days. In addition to this, a large number of our

36 “Tumber Industry,” IV, 129: Miss. Valley Lumberman, Jan. 27, 1905, 35.
i, bel “Lumber Industry,” IV, 76.

352 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

mills are running only 8 hours per day or 5 days per week. I am
endeavoring to get as much of a curtailment as possible but it is
pretty hard to hold some of them in line, as we have a great many
mills that through pure cussedness will not curtail, in fact, one or two
of them sawed more lumber in 1911 than they did in 1907. Then of
course we have a good many who are in such financial condition that
they are unable to curtail, but even with all this, at the present time
we are having a very large curtailment, which I hope will continue
until the first of July or until conditions improve.’”**

A report of a mass meeting of shingle manufacturers held in
Seattle, December 19, 1905, appearing in the Pacific Lumber Trade
Journal of January, 1906 (p. 46), contained the following: “In
calling the meeting to order President Bass reported that out of
299 straight shingle mills in western Washington, 252 mills were then
coéperating in the close-down policy, and out of forty-seven mills
outside the fold, not to exceed twenty-five were able to operate steadily —
owing to log jams, water conditions, and the car shortage. At the —
meeting, five more mills signed up the closing agreement, making 257
out of the possible 299 mills to be secured. He also stated that the
mills had up $120,000 in cash forfeitures with which to bind their
agreement and the actual curtailment effected was not short of

36,000,000 shingles a day.”

Regarding the extent and effectiveness of this close-down, the
Pacific Lumber Trade Journal (February, 1906) had the following
to say: “The ‘close-down’ was an absolute and unqualified success.
Ninety-three per cent of the shingle manufacturers in Western Wash-
ington were identified with the movement, and not one broke the
agreement. As a result of this curtailment probably 5,000 cars of
shingles were kept off the eastern markets during a season when
shingles cannot go into consumption and when buying is of a purely
speculative nature. The benefit that this ‘close-down’ has been to the
manufacturer is represented in an advance of from thirty-five to
fifty cents a thousand on the several grades. If these prices slump it
will be the fault of the manufacturers, who now have the situation
well in hand, and, by codperating, can eliminate many of the unneces-

38 “T.umber Industry,” IV, 467.

; b
f
:
a
y
%
a
a
B
a
a
&
AS
* i

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 353

| sary evils that have demoralized the industry i in former years, par-

a ticularly the year of 1905.”
Of course this testimony, like the testimony regarding the effective-
ness of price lists, is probably much exaggerated ;-but it indicates that

_ ceurtailment campaigns have sometimes achieved a measure of success.
_ Where forfeitures or penalties were imposed, as in some of the cases

mentioned, it must have been possible to keep members fairly well
lined up, at least for a time.
_ In estimating the significance of organized close-downs, it should

be remembered that in times of depression many mills would curtail

their output somewhat, or perhaps even close down altogether, without
_ any agreement or understanding whatever. It would be a very serious

4 _ error to assume that all, or even most, of the curtailment was due
_ to agreement. Organization, where it is efficient, merely makes the

curtailment more effective.
Even if it be assumed that organized curtailment of output has
- sometimes had an appreciable influence on prices, it does not follow -

3 that it is to be unreservedly condemned. If the lumbermen merely

' limit the cut and then leave prices to the law of supply and demand,

they are conserving our timber supply. This results in higher prices

at present of course, but logically it should increase the future supply

and so result in lower prices ultimately—exactly what conserva-

4 tionists are calling for.*°

POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE TROUBLE

It thus appears that although almost all lumbermen’s associations
have tried to fix prices, either directly through adherence to a price
list, or indirectly through organized curtailment, and although some
_ of these efforts have achieved a measure of success, yet, on the whole,
consumers have in the past had little cause of complaint. The situation
cr is unsatisfactory mainly in that it contains the possibility of trouble
for the future. There are reasons for believing that price fixing may
_ be more successful in the future.

In the first place, the amount of standing timber is decreasing
_ rapidly. The Forest Service has estimated that the present timber
_ supply of the country would last fifty-five years at the present rate

39 For an expression of this view see 4m. Lumberman, Aug. 19, 1916, 26.

354 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

of consumption. It will not be exhausted as soon as that, of course,
for reforestation will get more attention in the future, and, as the
supply disappears and prices rise, the rate of consumption will tend
to decrease; nevertheless, the timber supply will certainly decrease
very greatly within the next few decades, and the holders of remaining
supplies will perhaps occupy a correspondingly stronger position in
the market. Probably there will be fewer operators, at least in the
regions of good remaining virgin timber. In the past there has been
a tendency in some regions for the smaller and financially weaker
timber holders to furnish a disproportionate amount of the annual
cut, and, if this tendency should persist, the smaller holders would
tend to be eliminated from the field, leaving a larger proportion of
the supply in strong hands, capable of taking advantage of a favor-
able situation. It may be, too, that there will be a tendency in the
more heavily forested regions for large mills to displace smaller mills,
because of superior economies. Some indications of such a tendency
have appeared in recent years.

It would be easy to exaggerate these dangers, however. In the first
place, as to timber ownership, the government is cutting much less
than the annual growth in the national forests, and thus will have
a larger proportion of the total standing timber in the future, al-
though it will be many years before the government timber will be a
very important factor in most markets. Regarding the size of mills,
it may be said that there will always be a field for the small mill, in
some regions a wider field than now. As the more valuable and acces-
sible timber is cut, lumbermen will necessarily resort to inferior
stands, either second-growth timber on cut-over lands, or inferior
virgin timber, and, on such lands, small mills will prove most
economical.

INSTABILITY OF THE LUMBER MARKET

Whatever may be our guess as to probable future conditions in the
lumber industry, lumbermen rightly claim that during the past decade
consumers, or at least retailers, have generally had no reason to
complain; that they have often got lumber below actual cost of pro-
duction; that lumbermen, as manufacturers of lumber, have generally
made very low profits, or sometimes no profits at all; that the situation

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 355

een far less satisfactory from the point of view of the lumber-
than from that of consumers.“

he lumber market has always been very unstable. Prices of most
ds have fluctuated widely and often. Occasional years of high
es have been followed by longer periods of depression and low
Taking the years between 1907 and 1915, for instance, the
ze price of southern yellow pine shows a range of from $12.50
6.50, or 32 per cent of the lower rate. The average price of
as fir in the same period ranged from $9.60 to $15.20—a spread
per cent of the lower rate. Such an instability must be regarded
evil from every point of view.**

‘THE LUMBER INDUSTRY AND TIMBER SPECULATION

of the vital weaknesses of the lumber manufacturing business
en its close alliance with timber speculation. Twenty years ago
of the timber in the West was worth very little, and purchasers
ible to buy stumpage at from three to twenty-five cents per
d feet. At that price it was good investment, for, with the
pment of lumbering, the construction of transcontinental rail-
expanding markets, and the influence of eastern conceptions
ber values, enhancement of stumpage prices was very rapid—
rticularly from 1900 to 1908. There was a rush of entrymen to
: public timber lands, not to settle them, but to acquire salable
tims; and millions of acres were patented from the government
year. The agents of lumber companies and eastern investors
se up claims and “blocked up” holdings while local speculators
abled properties of a few thousand acres. Trading was active,
n¢ jreds of men made fortunes by buying and selling stumpage, and
fidence in future timber values seemed unlimited. It was the common
E that prices would go up—as far as in eastern lumbering
ions. Within ten or fifteen years, the initial cost of government
ber was multiplied in subsequent transfers—ten, fifteen, or twenty
, in some parts of the Northwest.”

40 P. roceedings, National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, Thirteenth An-
Meeting, 172 et seq.

1 “Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry,” 21-23; 4m. Lumber-

, Jan. 1, 1916, 52: Forest Bul. 34, 43.
42“Public and Economic Aspects of the een Industry,” 12 et seq.: Am.

356 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

It was during this period that the conservation movement gained |
great momentum; and the establishment of the forest reserves gave
an impetus to this speculative fever. The public reservations and the
discussion of future timber shortage were generally interpreted as
pointing to higher values; and speculators hastened to secure avail-
able timber lands before they could be withdrawn. Many persons
unfamiliar with the industry, and less conservative than experienced -
timbermen, were encouraged to invest in stumpage. Some speculators
and timber companies took advantage of the boom in timber values:
in capitalizing their holdings for borrowing. =

A concrete measure of the speculative activity during this period
is found in the present capitalization of stumpage in the western
states. The assessed value of private timber lands in California was.
about $51,000,000 in 1916; in western Oregon and Washington,
$170,000,000, exclusive of the considerable quantities of stumpage
on areas classed as “unimproved lands” ; and in the “Inland Empire,”
approximately $140,000,000, or, for the whole Northwest, $358,-
000,000. Considering the basis of assessment in the several regions,
and the prevailing price of stumpage of average quality and acces-
sibility, the rated value of the private timber lands in California,
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana today is probably
not far from $1,100,000,000. Such capitalization, built up most y,
within two or three decades, involved extensive use of borrowed
money. Much of this was secured through a conservative mortgaging
of assets, bodies of timber in some instances being bonded to finance
the construction of sawmills and logging railroads. There was much
unsound financing, however. Timber was often heavily mortgaged
to provide funds for further purchases, and the process repeated with

indebtedness or improve their plants. =

The early borrowing was usually in the form of short-term notes,
at the high interest rates characteristic of undeveloped sections ©:
the country; but, about 1905, a special form of security appeared—

Lumberman, Aug. 7, 1915, 1: Review of Reviews, May, 1916, 583. See also a B e
on Behalf of the National Lumber Manufacturers’ ee May, 1916, 23 e
seq.; and Cong. Rec., Apr. 19, 1916, 8459.

are 2 ee
eh Gs SM ence hee

pes ery

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 357

q the timber bond, issued as a first mortgage upon timber holdings and
_ manufacturing plants. Bonds were usually to be refunded serially by
' setting aside a stated sum from the proceeds of lumber sales. The
common interest rate was 6 per cent, but expenses in issuing such
_ securities, and their usual sale below par, often made the actual cost
_ of the capital 7 per cent or more. Bonds, in series running for ten or
"fifteen years, had the disadvantage of prescribing in advance the cut
of lumber necessary to meet futurities, regardless of the condition
_of the market.

_ The capitalization of timber was, broadly speaking, a slower and
‘saner process in the southern pine belt than in the Northwest. Large
holdings were slower to develop. For a long period timber ownership
was well distributed, and many mills bought but small quantities of
-stumpage from time to time; but about 1905, competitive timber
buying began on a large scale, and stumpage values went up rapidly.
“Many bond issues were floated in connection with large timber pur-
chases between 1905 and 1912. In an investigation of twenty-seven
companies in this section, timber bonds aggregating $39,000,000
were found outstanding. In 1914, an analysis of 108 companies, in-
cluding ten that were free from debt, showed a total indebtedness of
over $52,000,000—$1.11 per thousand feet on the timber repre-

COST OF TIMBER OWNERSHIP

_ Interest charges were not the only charges to be met. Taxes have
had to be paid, regardless of whether the property was bringing in
” any income or not. The tax burden has varied greatly in the different
forest regions, but most investigators have been of the opinion that,

~ have doubtless been something of a menace to lumbermen and to the
stability of the industry.** Cost of fire protection has added slightly
te the carrying charge. This cost, however, including such fire losses
as may occur, rarely exceeds one tenth or one fifth of a cent per

43 Sunset Magazine, Apr., 1916, 35: Jour. Pol. Ec., Dec., 1915, 971.

358 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

thousand feet of stumpage yearly, although in northern Idaho fire —
protection has cost one third of a cent per thousand feet. 4
Broadly speaking, if taxes and protection costs be added to the —
investment and if interest be compounded at 6 per cent, the amount —
invested in the property doubles every eight or ten years. It is ap- 9
parent that any timber, no matter how cheaply obtained, will acquire g
a high book value when the period during which it must be carried —
‘is measured by decades. Ten cent stumpage obtained from the public —
lands in 1880, and carried at 6 per cent interest on first cost and on —
current outlays for taxes and protection, becomes $1.50 stumpage —
in-1916 and $6 stumpage in 1940.** Some careful students of the
lumber industry are inclined to doubt whether private individuals —
can afford to own any but readily accessible timber. Representative
Johnson of Washington stated in Congress recently that many large
holders had found their properties so bores that they would
be glad to have the government take them over.*
For many years previous to 1907, timber values generally in-
creased fast enough to cover all these carrying charges, and in many
regions yield great profits to investors. Between 1907 and 1915,
however, there was no material advance in values, except in the yellow
pine region; and many lumbermen found themselves hard pressed to
meet obligations they had incurred in earlier years. Since 1907,
great many lumber operators have been compelled to saw up their
stumpage almost regardless of market values, in order to meet heavy
carrying charges, and in this way the market has been badly denionil
alized much of the time. It was noted in 1918 and 1914 that a marked ~
decline in the price of yellow pine lumber was accompanied by an
equally marked increase in the stock on hand, because some hard-—
pressed operators had to saw more lumber rather than less, as the :
price went down, in order to meet their fixed charges. Thus a decli i
in the speculative value of timber holdings fostered rapid forest de-—
struction. Beginning about 1915, lumber prices rose again hesausll i
of the war demands, and at the present time (1919), the general

PT

na ats = hs ocak es od

44 For an interesting computation by Professor Kirkland of the University
Washington, see the Forestry Quarterly, 12, 432. See also an article by Professor
Compton in the Journal of Forestry, Apr., 1917. 4

45 Cong. Rec., Apr. 19, 1916, 6459.

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 359

> | price level is higher than it has ever been before in the history of the

industry.*°
WASTE OF TIMBER

Waste of natural resources of every kind has always characterized

new countries and especially the frontier; and it was inevitable that
the lumber business should be carried on wastefully. That which has
only slight value is never used economically. This waste takes several
forms. First, timber is cut in advance of any real economic demand,
timber which might better be left until the country needs it; second,
the trees felled are but partially utilized, and large amounts of low-
grade material are destroyed in the woods or mills; and third, inferior

- species in the forests are wholly or partly left uncut.

The first element of waste results from cutting timber solely on
account of the financial difficulties of timber or mill owners, and then
forcing it upon the market at a sacrifice price, often less than the cost
of production. Such lumber often represents, not competition in
manufacture, but competition in unloading burdensome timber hold-
ings, a patent ill effect of the close connection between lumber manu-
facturing and speculation in timber lands. Hence results a surplus
of stock, to be disposed of like the “transit” cars of lumber shipped
into Chicago by the hundreds during 1914 and 1915 and sold on the
way or after arrival for whatever they might bring.**

Sidelights on this situation illustrate the wastes of overproduction.
Some operators on the west coast with rafts of high-grade fir logs,
which in good times are manufactured largely into flooring, stepping,

_ silo stock, and other high-quality products,worth probably $20 per
thousand feet, in 1914 and 1915 cut such timber into railroad ties
and other cheap products at $8 per thousand or less, because this
was the only business to be had at the time, and because of physical
and financial inability to carry large stocks of logs until a better
market was available. A yellow pine company in the South, during

_ 46“Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry,” 24 et seq.: Pro-
- ceedings, Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the National Lumber Manufacturers’
Assoc., 21, 167, 172: Am. Lumberman, Mar. 18, 1916, 44.
47“Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry,” 64 et seq.: Brief
before the Federal Trade Commission on Behalf of the National Lumber Manu-
facturers’ Association, May, 1916, 33; Jan., 1916, 74. :
48 “Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry,” 64 et seq.

360 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

the winter of 1914-1915, burned 2,000,000 feet of No. 4 boards
under its boilers, because there was no longer room to carry this
material in its yards. Another large operator dumped from 2 to 3
per cent of the entire cut into the waste burner because yard room
was exhausted: Many companies experienced losses from deterioration
of lumber in their yards, on account of the extra stock on hand and
the unusually long time it had to be carried. ar

The second element of timber waste—poor utilization of the trees
felled—arises largely from the cheapness of timber in the United
States. Greater or less waste of this character has been inherent in

lumbering everywhere in the United States, but especially in southern

and western logging, because of the lack of diversified wood-using
industries and the heavy freights to large markets, which preclude
the shipment of material of low, value. Even under normal conditions,
as in 1912-1918, southern and western loggers left from 20 to 80
per cent of their timber in the woods, some of which would have been
put to use for box lumber, cooperage, etc., in eastern Pennsylvania or
central New England. It has been estimated by competent authori-
ties that in many instances only 35 per cent of the actual cubic con-
tents of the tree is utilized; the remaining 65 per cent being lost in
the stump, in sawdust, slabs, trimmings, broken timber, and low-
grade logs left in the woods.

The third element of waste arises in the species of trees Yeu in
nearly all forests, trees of lower value than the principal commercial
timbers because of poor standing in the trade, or because they yield
mainly low grades, and hence cannot be cut or can be cut only in part

when the market is poor. In many parts of the East, the leaving of _

such species, like balsam and hemlock, in the early logging, did not
mean a loss, since they were taken off in later cuttings. Often, indeed,
they were of value in restocking cut-over lands, even though with
inferior species. In western operations on private land, however, most
of the timber left is destroyed in the slash fires which usually follow

logging, or deteriorates so much before a second cut is practicable i

that it cannot be credited as a future forest resource.

This waste of timber has in part been an inevitable feature of pri-
vate exploitation of a cheap natural resource; but it is most unfortu-
nate, nevertheless, for important public interests are involved. Aside

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 361

Zz" from the future needs for lumber, there are the future needs for a

_ great many important wood products—paper, cheap industrial fuel,
rosin and distillates of many kinds. The public interest in economical
lumbering methods is so great as even to demand government regu-
lation of lumbering on private lands, although that involves such a
departure from our ordinary “laissez faire’ theory of government
that it will be difficult to secure.

FAILURE TO REFOREST LANDS

The waste incident to our present lumbering methods would not
be so serious a matter if a new crop of timber were growing up to

_ replenish the supply, but unfortunately very few lumbermen are

q ‘making any effort to reforest their cut-over lands. Just how extensive
are these cut-over lands it would be difficult to say. The National
Conservation Commission estimated in 1909 that there were 75,-
000,000 acres of non-agricultural cut-over lands which should be de-
voted to growing timber. Certainly there are large areas of idle stump
land, unfit for agriculture, and producing no timber.

Lumbermen cannot be justly criticized for not replanting their
lands. Only under exceptional circumstances could it be done profit-
_ ably. In the first place, an investment of this character would be a
long-time investment. No return could ordinarily be expected in less
than fifty years, in some cases even longer, and in the meantime the
_ owner must pay taxes and protect his investment from fire and tres-
pass. Although these two items—fire protection and taxes—are not
large, they are too uncertain for a. conservative investment. While
fire protection is a small item usually, there is always a chance that

_ fire may destroy a part of the entire investment. Taxes likewise, al-

though not a very large item, are uncertain and arbitrary, and, under
the unscientific system prevailing in most states, must be paid regard-
_ less of whether the lands are bringing in any return or not. An in-
_ vestor who undertook to predict the amount of taxes on his growing
_ timber for fifty years in advance would be dealing in very uncertain
_ quantities.

Even if there were no element of uncertainty, reforestation would
_ seldom present an attractive field of investment. The initial cost of
_ reforesting, together with the cost of protection and taxes, com-

‘

362 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

pounded annually for fifty years at 6 per cent, would amount to a —
very large sum, in all probability much more than the stumpage would
then be worth. One writer on the subject has termed tree planting
“a risky 6 per cent investment.”

Thus the results of private ownership of timber lands, as illus-
trated in the condition of the lumber industry, have been unsatis-
factory from every point of view. Consumers have suffered little from
high prices, but have viewed with distrust the repeated efforts on the
part of lumbermen to force an artificial level of prices. Lumbermen
themselves have not profited generally, and have often suffered
severely from the instability of conditions within the industry; while —
the public can only view with foreboding the gross waste in lumbering ~
operations, and the failure of those within the industry to provide ©
for its future maintenance.

THE QUESTION OF REMEDIES

The question of remedies to be adopted will hinge largely on the —

question as to which of the difficulties suggested is deemed most im- —

portant. If the principal difficulty is found in the efforts of the lumber-
men to fix prices, the question of an appropriate remedy will involve
mainly a consideration of trust regulation. For two reasons, however, ,
this aspect of the problem will not be considered here. In the first —

place, the question of trust regulation is far too broad to be given —

adequate attention within the scope of this volume; and, in the second %

place, since consumers have suffered little in the past, it seems that a

the question of remedy may safely be left to the future, if it ever 4
becomes an acute problem. a

The unfortunate situation of some of the lumbermen during a large
part of the past decade seemed to demand more attention than it q
ever got; and a few years ago the Forest Service, in codperation with 3
the Bureau of Corporations, and later with the Trade Commission, ~
undertook a study of conditions. Their report,” completed in 1916, —
called attention to the depressed situation of the lumbermen, and ~

49 Kellogg and Ziegler, “The Cost of Growing Timber,” Pub. by 4m. Lumber- a
man, 1911. *

50 “Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry”: Report No. a
114, Dept. of Agr.

=

y=

ar

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 363

suggested the following general remedies: first, adequate capital,
better financial backing, and better methods of accounting ;** second,
more efficient equipment and technical methods; third, better mer-
chandizing of the product ; and fourth, a more efficient and economical
use of raw material. The details of these recommendations lie outside —
the scope of this work, but it is interesting to note that the report
advocated the publication of current prices—actual prices, not list
rates or quotations ; recommended a better adjustment of the lumber
cut to demand, not through curtailment by joint agreement, but
through curtailment by the operators individually, each following
the policy dictated by his own costs, available markets, and other
business circumstances—whatever that may mean—and even ap-
proved of the selling agency in domestic trade, and of some form of co-
operative selling organization for foreign trade.

This report was not off the press before the conditions it deplored
were completely changed, and the lumber industry was again enjoy-
ing one of the greatest “booms” in its history. At this time (1919),
this “boom” is still on, and there is no present necessity for lavishing
sympathy on the lumbermen. The suggestions for promoting stability
in the industry are still pertinent, however, for the lumber industry,
like the steel industry, has always tended to be either “prince or
pauper.” —

Regarding the waste of lumber, it may be said that waste will pre-
vail as long as timber has a low value, unless the government adopts

-a policy of supervising the cut on private lands. Probably the govern-

ment will do this ultimately, and it can hardly do it too soon, but it
will take some time to educate lumbermen and the public generally
to the necessity for such a step.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF LUMBER PRICES

Government regulation of lumber prices has been advocated, on the
one hand by lumbermen, on the ground that it would probably assure
them a better price than they have usually received under a régime of
competition, and on the other hand by certain publicists, notably by
President Charles Van Hise of the University of Wisconsin, on the
ground that such a policy would permit lumbermen to enjoy the
_ 51 Am. Lumberman, Jan. 1, 1916, 26; Jan. 29, 1916, 1; Apr. 8, 1916, 26.

364 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

benefits of codperative action, and at the same time would protect the
public from monopolistic exaction.”

The fact that some lumbermen have been willing to have the govern-
ment step in and regulate prices, indicates clearly their sincerity in
asserting that they have not been making a reasonable profit. Even
the attorneys for the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association,
in their brief before the Federal Trade Commission in 1916, asserted
that the lumber industry would welcome government observation, or
even government regulation, if deemed expedient.” '

It is true that government regulation of prices is not the ‘ie
‘important item in the proposal of the lumbermen, or of Dr. Van Hise.
They are primarily interested in so amending the anti-trust laws as
to permit more effective codperation; but it seems inevitable that if
the present competitive system is to be seriously altered, some form
of government regulation of prices must be adopted.

The idea of price regulation, perhaps by means of a commission,
seems attractive in many ways. It has a directness, a finality, an
apparent simplicity even, which presents a strong appeal to certain
minds, It is perfectly conceivable, too, that if the government is to
engage in the regulation of prices at all, lumber prices might be as
good a point of attack as any. The industry is based on a natural
resource, and is fairly well centralized. It is true that considerable
difficulty has been encountered in fixing satisfactory standards of
some woods, but this difficulty would be met with in any industry.
Finally, the cost of production, as far as that might enter into the

52 dm. Lumberman, Aug. 28, 1915, 32; Sept. 25, 1915, 35; Nov. 6, 1915, 32:
Proceedings, National Lumber Manufacturers’ Assoc., 1916, 27. In the American
Lumberman of December 22, 1917, the lumberman’s attitude toward anti-trust —
activity is well expressed: “Incidentally, it might be well to call the attention of
the state authorities to another very suspicious circumstance, in connection with
the sale of lumber. One would naturally suppose that under free competitive con-
ditions it would be sometimes sold by the thousand feet, sometimes by the cord,
sometimes by the pound, sometimes by the bushel, and in occasional cases, by the
lineal foot and yard. Instead, it appears to be almost universally sold upon a

Single standard of measure, per thousand feet board measure, and the buyer who
wishes to buy according to any other standard of measure is thereby limited in his
ability to purchase. This seems to have been overlooked and should at once be
investigated and corrected.”

53 Brief on Behalf of the Lumber Meavatactancas Association, May, 1916, 1S.

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 365

fixing of price, would be as easily determined for lumber as for almost
any product.

A thorough and exhaustive criticism of government regulation of
prices would lead beyond the scope of this book; but it will be appro-
priate to point out some of the difficulties in the way of such a scheme.
In the first place, there would be the difficulty of securing a commis-
sion of well-trained men, the difficulty of avoiding too great a repre-
sentation of politicians, such as cheapened the quality of the work
done by the Federal Trade Commission. In the second place, and
most important, there would be the difficulties connected with the
determination of prices, and the first question would be as to the basis
upon which prices should be established. A number of items would
have to be considered—cost of labor, logging and milling equip-
ment, original cost, interest charge and depreciation, fire protection
and taxes. Perhaps the most important item, and the most difficult
to work out, would be the value of the standing timber. It is difficult
to find any satisfactory basis for the determination of lumber prices
without taking into consideration the value of the standing timber,
and yet that involves a suggestion of a logical absurdity, a circle of
reasoning—to fix a price schedule on the basis of the present value
of standing timber, when the value of the standing timber is dependent
on the prices fixed. In the case of joint products, special complica-
tions would arise. For instance, the yellow pine forests of the South
produce turpentine and lumber. Hemlock is valuable for its bark as
well as for its wood. How should the price of the lumber be determined
with relation to the other products? Some mills produce different
kinds of products—lumber of many kinds and grades, shingles or
lath, and perhaps excelsior. How much of the fixed charges and how
much of the operating expense should be attributed to each product?

It might sometimes be difficult to. adjust the price of different
kinds of woods so as to do justice to each section of the country. As
long as there is competition between different sections of the country,
this is regulated, but if once this competition were eliminated, it might
be very difficult to find a satisfactory basis for the determination of
relative values in the various markets of the country.

It is possible that price regulation by a commission might result
in an increasingly rapid destruction of our remaining forest resources.

366 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

If the commission established a certain level of prices, and then ad-
hered to those prices in spite of the decreasing supply and increasing
demand for timber, it would be encouraging rapid exhaustion of the
supply. There would be no increase in price to discourage consump-
tion. If, on the other hand, the commission were to increase the price
as rapidly as competition would cause it to rise, there would be no
particular reason for the existence of the commission. If a price-
regulating commission were to try to keep lumber prices down, it |
would remove one of the chief incentives owners now have for pre-
serving their timber. The expectation of a future rise in stumpage
values is one of the reasons why many timber owners are not clearing
their land as rapidly as possible, and this incentive would be removed
by keeping lumber prices stationary. !

These are only a few of the difficulties involved in government
regulation of prices. Detailed consideration of that policy would lead
beyond the proper scope of this book, but it has seemed appropriate
to point out a few of the difficulties in the way of such a scheme, just
to bring out the appropriateness of another policy—increased
government ownership of timber lands.

INCREASED GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF STANDING TIMBER

An increase in government ownership is one remedy which will
prove helpful, whatever our view of the situation. It will obviate the
fear of artificial price control, will insure stability in the lumber
market, reduce waste to a minimum, and provide for proper refor-
estation. The present unsatisfactory conditions in the lumber in-
dustry are an inevitable result of the policy of private ownership and
exploitation which the government followed previous to the adoption
of the forest reserve policy in 1891; and the remedy for these ills is
to be found in a return to the policy of government ownership. The
wisdom—perhaps we might almost say the necessity—of government
ownership, is the great outstanding lesson to be gained from the study
of the United States Forest Policy as outlined in the preceding
chapters. Almost all of the advanced countries of the world have
found it necessary to take over the management of their forests; and
the United States must eventually enlarge her field of activities along
this line.

RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 367

_ Just how far and how fast the government should go in enlarging
its forest domain, is a question which cannot be answered easily. Under
the Weeks Law, the government is already buying up land slowly,
in some instances even virgin timber land, but that act does not look
to any general scheme for the purchase of valuable forest land, and
it is unlikely that the government will enter upon such a policy until
there is a clear and urgent need for it.

There are some regions where the government might even now
extend her national forests to advantage. Some of the less accessible
timber of the Northwest should perhaps be bought up. Much of it is

in the vicinity of the national forests and could be cheaply protected
and administered as additions to them. There are, for example, some
~ 10,000,000,000 feet of privately owned timber on the headwaters
- of the Columbia in Idaho and Montana, which cannot be reached
_ within the present range of logging costs in that region. The more
_ accessible and high-priced timber in the pine belt of California is
sufficient to supply its manufacturing industry, including any in-
_ creased output that can be reasonably anticipated, for at least thirty
__ or forty years; and there is left 48,000,000,000 feet of less accessible

_ privately owned timber in the higher mountains, which by location

_ is a reserve for the future. Many other billions are similarly located

back in the Cascades of Oregon and Washington, and in various

4 regions of the West. The recovery of such timber lands would be wise
_ from the point of view of the public, and perhaps not disadvantageous
_ from the point of view of the present owners, for the carrying of such

_ timber for two or three, or even four decades, until exhaustion of

_ other supplies has called it into the market, will involve a very heavy
_ outlay, and will not likely prove profitable, unless lumber prices rise
_ extremely high.

Our national forests will of course play a more important part

_ in the future than they do now. At the present time they are much

_ less important than their area would indicate, because only part of

_ the land is timbered, and the timber included is generally of poor
_ quality and inaccessible. The Forest Service is handling the timber
_yery conservatively, however, cutting less than the annual growth, so
that the amount of government timber is increasing; while the pri-
_ vately owned timber is being cut at a very rapid rate. Furthermore,

CHAPTER XIII
CONCLUSION

_ Tue history and results of the United States forest policy have now
been discussed in considerable detail. A rather depressing story it is,
too, a story of reckless and wasteful destruction of magnificent. for-
ests, and of flagrant and notorious theft of valuable lands—a story
that Americans will follow with little pride.

_ The gradual growth of an interest in the preservation of our forests
has been traced. Such an interest is not a development of the first
decade or two only, nor even of the past half-century. Anxiety for
the fyture timber supply arose even in colonial times, and expressions

__ of éoncern were voiced at various times throughout the later history
_ of the country. The idea of conservation gained momentum most

p: rapidly, it is true, during the eighties and nineties; and the “con-
servation movement,” in its present scope, took form during the early
years of the present century, under the leadership of Pinchot.

EUROPEAN INFLUENCES IN THE CONSERVATION MOVEMENT

It is notable that from the earliest’ times down to the present,
_ interest in the conservation of our forests has been fostered largely
by men of foreign birth or training. Thus William Penn and the early
- colonial governors who evinced interest in the matter were reared in

_ Europe and had European traditions regarding forests. F. A.
- Michaux, who wrote in 1819, was a Frenchman, and many of the

_ others who later became interested in this question had studied or at
least traveled in Europe. Carl Schurz and B. E. Fernow, two of the
heroic figures in the conservation movement, were Germans. Gifford
Pinchot and Charles Walcott studied forestry in Europe; and Theo-
_ dore Roosevelt was strongly influenced by his close contact with
_ European thought.

370 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY
THE ATTITUDE OF CONGRESS

In the study of the forest policy, nothing stands out more promi-
nently than the unwise position Congress usually took. Of the im-
portant timber land laws passed in the half-century during which our
forests were disappearing or passing into the hands of private indi-
viduals, only two—the Forest Reserve Act of 1891, and the act of
1897—stand out clearly as examples of intelligent legislation; and
the first of these was secured because Congress did not get a chance
to quash it, while the act of 1897 was drawn by a “theoretical” scien-
tist, and pushed through Congress on an appropriation bill. During
the seventies, eighties, and nineties, timber-steal measures of almost
any kind could get a favorable hearing in Congress, while conservation "
measures were promptly eliminated from the calendar. The insistent
call of department officials and others for better legislation seldom
elicited a favorable response, while the complaints of timber tres-
passers who got caught in their illegal operations frequently received
a sympathetic hearing, and sometimes even legislative relief. For the
fact that the United States finally got some national forests, with a
scientific system of administration, credit is due, not to the wisdom
of our national legislature, but entirely to administrative officials— -
Schurz, Cleveland, Sparks, Walcott, Fernow, Bowers, Pinchot,
Roosevelt, and others; and these men had to fight Congress at almost
every step. 4

The attitude of Congress was due, in the first place, to the in-
ability of most of the members to understand the necessity of forest
reserves. Most congressmen are “practical men”—lawyers, farmers,
merchants, successful business men—and not men of broad education
and scholarship. Few of them knew anything of the history of forestry
in European countries, in some of which the policy of private owner-
ship of timber lands had been tried and abandoned. It was the “mad _
theorists” who first urged the establishment of reserves; and, after
the reserves had been established—by the President, not by Con- —
gress—some of the men in Congress began to understand the prin-
ciples underlying the new policy. Probably at the present time a
majority of them understand why timber land should be owned by
the government, but that was not true twenty years ago.

A second reason for the failure of Congress to adopt a more intel-

CONCLUSION 371

4 -ligent policy regarding the timber lands, is the inability of Congress
to pursue an intelligent policy regarding anything. Congress is not
usually interested in intelligent action, but is interested rather in
_ trading votes, and talking to the “home folks” in anticipation of the
next election.

To what extent dishonesty and . corruption have been responsible
_ for the attitude of Congress, it is impossible to say. The writer has
no disposition to attribute unworthy motives to most members of
_ the national legislature, however unwise their course may now seem.
_ Yet there is no doubt that if the whole story of forestry legislation
could be told; if all the inner secrets of timber statesmen could be
_ revealed; if all the collusion and vote trading with the railroads and
with other powerful interests could be brought to light, and all the
__ lobbies and secret conyentions and bribe funds and committee machi-
nations could be exposed, it would make very interesting reading.
_ This is true not of the Federal Congress alone, for in some of the
_ states matters were worse. Politicians in Wisconsin still speak of the
_ “saw log dynasty” which controlled the politics of the state for nearly
a generation. Recently a student at the state university of one of
the other Lake states wrote a thesis on the history of the pine lands,
_ which he did not dare publish because of the light it threw on members
_ of the state legislature. The history of the wild lands of Maine would
_ doubtless make interesting reading if it could be written in full. It
has been stated that large tracts of timber lands in Maine were ac-
_ quired by men who held state offices at the time, and that the influence
_ of this timber ownership extended even to some of the members of the
state supreme court; although the writer is unable to vouch for the
_ latter statement.t New Hampshire and New York have no reason to
_ be proud of their records in dealing with their timber lands ;-and this
is true of most of the states which had any considerable areas of such
3 lands.
THE ETHICS OF TIMBER STEALING
4 Perhaps it may be worth while to point out once more that it would
_ be easy to exaggerate the moral turpitude involved in stealing timber
lands, or in passing a law to facilitate such stealing. Speculation and
- frauds have always characterized the frontier; and of course moral
. 1 New England Magazine, July, 1907, 515.

3872 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

values have corresponded to the environment. The men who could —
seize the largest amount of natural resources and waste them most
rapidly were not infrequently regarded as doing most for the “devel- _
opment of the West.” The writer recalls, in this connection, a con- _
versation he once had with the editor of a Portland (Washington) —
newspaper regarding the conviction of Senator Mitchell for com- —
plicity in land frauds. This editor admitted that Mitchell was guilty, —
but asserted that the prosecution of Mitchell for so common an —
offense was “the most brutal outrage ever perpetrated on a mortal —
man.” It will be remembered that Binger Hermann was elected to —
Congress less than a year after he had been dismissed from the Land ~
Office.

Underlying to some extent the exploitative attitude of the West —
was the idea that resources which could be appropriated, in some way
pried loose from the public domain, belonged to the West; while those
which remained under Federal control belonged to the East. This ~
explains why many men who, from the point of view of straight-laced —
conservationists, should have been socially ostracized or put in prison,
have been regarded as “leading citizens” in some of our western states.
They have “led” merely in the work of appropriating Federal jlands—

“saving” it for the West. 4

The West has always been too much saturated with the idea of |
rapid exploitation. The people saw the apparently unlimited lands —
and other resources awaiting development; and entered upon their —
task with the energy which has generally characterized the frontier.
They were, as indeed they still are, “boosters” of the most enthu- a
siastic brand, partly because optimism was in the yery air, and partly —
because many of them had appropriated some of the resources, and —
were engrossed in an effort to get more, not always with the intention —
of using them to establish homes, but rather in the hope of selling to ~
. someone else at a profit. That was one reason why they opposed any —
policy which seemed to discourage the coming of people from farther —
east. Another reason was of course that they realized, as business ~
men generally do in all sections and in all countries, that a growing ©
population increases the value of real estate and other limited natural —
resources, and so increases the wealth of those who “got there first.” .
Like business men everywhere, those who got there first were inclined

-* CONCLUSION 373

‘to regard their own interests as identical with the interests of the
people as a whole. The people of the West have not been alone in
placing too great an emphasis on increasing population, growing
cities, and rising real estate values; but they have nepreaened the
most extreme development of this common error.

The characteristics of many of the western people, as of the
frontiersmen at all times, were such that they would not possibly have
been friendly to the reservation policy at first. Their boundless opti-
mism made them unreceptive to predictions of future danger, while
a certain shortsightedness made them generally slow to consider any-
thing but the very near future. Their individualism and dislike of
restraint naturally made them hostile to the bureaucratic govern-
ment of the forest reserves ; and the goodness or badness of that gov-

ernment was not in their eyes an important matter. Many western
_ people wanted to govern themselves; and a corrupt and inefficient
government has not infrequently suited them quite as well as any
other. Their lack of respect for experience, their deep-rooted dislike
for experts and “theorists”—taking the form of a contempt for all

_ special training or learning—would have made them hostile to the

administration of the forest reserves, no matter how efficient and
intelligent that administration might have been. The fact that, by
the elimination of land stealing and other frauds, and by the avoid-
ance of the wasteful destruction and blasted barrenness which goes .

_ with unregulated private exploitation, the reservation policy pre-

sented certain ethical and aesthetic gains, would not have seemed
very important to a people who pride themselves on being extremely
“practical”—a people who really are practical and materialistic to
_ the extent of overemphasizing the cash side of most social and eco-
nomic questions.

In further extenuation of the western attitude toward conservation,
it must be granted that conservation has been something of a fad
and a hobby with some of its advocates. Pinchot once stated that
one of the beauties of “conservation” was that no one could say he

"was opposed to it. As President Taft once said: “The subject of

conservation is rather abstruse, but there are a great many people
in favor of conservation,:no matter what it means.’
2 Outlook, May 14, 1910, 57.

374 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

In the question of the conservation of any natural resource, there 4

is usually a problem of balancing benefits against costs; but some
advocates have been insistent on the conservation of all things, and
almost regardless of cost. The Americans have been a wasteful and
extravagant people in their use of all natural resources; but there
are circumstances under which this wastefulness was not only in-
evitable, but even wise. The people of America could not possibly
have treated their forests with the same care that Europeans have
shown, for there were too many forests and too few people.

Just as it would be easy to judge too severely of the moral obli-
quity involved in the attitude of the western timbermen and con-
gressmen, so it would be possible to exaggerate the virtue involved
in the efforts of the eastern men to conserve the public timber. In the
early history of the country, the eastern men wanted to keep the
public lands as a source of revenue, and in later times some of them
desired to preserve the public timber in order that the whole country,
but especially the East, might have a future supply of timber. The
East was of course the section which would first feel the pinch of
scarcity. As Representative Martin of Colorado once said: “I notice
that the less public domain and the less natural resources a member
has in his state, the more enthusiastic he is about conservation.”
Perhaps there was in the attitude-of some of the eastern men an ele-

‘ment of selfishness not altogether unlike that which characterized the
West. This must not be construed as denying or belittling the truly
unselfish and heroic work of many of the leaders in the conservation
movement.

It may be worth while to point out that the wasteful exploitation
of the forests, unfortunate though it seems in many ways, provided
consumers with very cheap lumber for the time being. In the seventies
and eighties, the white pine of the Lake states was being cut with —
almost no regard for the future; but, while this meant scarcity and —
high prices in the future, it meant cheap lumber of the finest grade
for some of the early settlers who were building homes on the prairies
of the Middle West, many of whom sels had sufficient difficulty 3
securing the comforts of life. a

3 Cong. Rec., Apr. 7, 1910, 4376.

CONCLUSION 375
: WASTE AND THEFT OF OTHER RESOURCES
Forests are not the only natural resource that has been stolen and

pillaged and wasted in this country. All other natural resources have

been treated in much the same way—coal, oil, gas, iron, copper, water
power, and the tillable soil itself. Wherever a valuablé resource is
given away, or sold for far less than its real value, it is, as Professor
Ely has said, merely “subsidizing the speculator, endowing monopoly,

q _ and pauperizing the people.” The anthracite monopoly of Pennsyl-

vania controls one valuable resource, the Standard Oil Company con-

trols the marketing of another; a few gas companies control what is

left of our natural gas; and all these monopolies may be traced to
the unwise policy which has been pursued by the Federal government,
and by the states which had valuable resources under their control.
Monopolies are not the only result of our unwise policy of alienation,
however, nor even the worst result. The criminal and unnecessary
waste with which some of our resources have been exploited is even
more unfortunate. It has been estimated that we have wasted, ren-
dered inaccessible, as much coal as we have taken out ofthe ground,
and the waste of natural gas has been relatively even worse.

It is true that some of this apparent waste has been unavoidable,

in acountry where labor is so expensive and resources so cheap; but

if the reservation policy had been applied, not only to forest lands,
but to all mineral deposits, some of this waste could have been elimi-
nated. The Federal government, and those states which had valuable
resources, should have alienated only one thing—the surface of the
soil, of ordinary agricultural lands. The policy of reservation should
have been applied to everything else, not only to forests and mineral
resources, but, in some measure at least, to irrigation lands, swamp
lands, and to arid grazing lands. This would have delayed exploita-
tion or development, but it would in the long run have resulted in a
saner and healthier development of the country.
It may be noted that Congress recently took a very unwise step
' in dealing with the grazing lands, by passing the Stock Raising
Homestead Act of 1916, which provides for the entry of grazing lands

r in tracts of 640 acres. The act has already resulted in the alienation .

of large areas of the public domain, largely to speculators, who take

up land with the intention of selling later to cattle companies. It is

376 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

unlikely that many “homes” will ever be established under this act,
and the government will lose control over one more resource.*

A RATIONAL POLICY FOR THE FUTURE

It is not yet too late to adopt a rational policy with regard to the
remainder of these natural resources. The first step should be a care-
ful classification of all public lands, and only such as are fit for agri-
culture should be alienated. There are large areas of coal, oil, and
phosphate lands in the West, some of them already withdrawn. All
these should be permanently reserved, as far as the mineral deposits
are concerned. Where the soil is fit for farming, it should be turned
over to settlers, with a reservation to the government of everything
below the surface.’

The Federal government should retain control of the swamp lands
and irrigation lands which have not already been alienated. It has
been demonstrated that irrigation is in some cases a work for the
Federal government, and this is true also of drainage. The engineer-
ing problenis involved are often interstate in their scope, and entirely
too large for individual enterprise. Furthermore, even if private
individuals or corporations were financially strong enough to under-

take large irrigation or drainage enterprises, it would not be wise to ;

give them control over thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of
acres of land occupied by tenants. Just how much control the Fed-
eral government should retain over lands which have been irrigated
or drained, is not a question for this treatise; but the work of getting
the land ready for settlement is in many cases a work for the govern-
ment, and probably it should always retain some control over such
lands. )
If the need were for immediate development and exploitation of the
resources of the public domain, there might be a question as to the
wisdom of such sweeping application of the reservation policy; but
the need is not for rapid settlement and rapid exploitation. Exploita-
tion of our resources has proceeded with sufficient rapidity. The need
is for greater sanity and intelligence and foresight than we have
displayed in the past. The United States is gradually developing the

4 Stat. 39, 862.
5 Bul. 537, U. S. Geological Survey.

CONCLUSION 377

‘knowledge and understanding necessary for an intelligent solution

of her public land problems; and even if there were any doubt that
_ the reservation policy will prove to be the ultimate solution, it has

the supreme merit of postponing an irrevocable decision until a future
time, when the nation is older and wiser. Lands which are reserved

can be turned over to private ownership at any time. Lands which

are once alienated are irrevocably beyond control, and beyond the
reach of any wise and beneficent laws or policies that our developing
intelligence may bring forth. Pinchot has put the problem clearly:
“This nation has, on the continent of North America, three and a
half million square miles. What shall we do with it? How can we make
_ ourselves and our children happiest, most vigorous and efficient, and
_- our civilization the highest and most influential, as we use that splen-
_ did heritage? . . . Above all, let us have clearly in mind the great
and fundamental fact that this nation will not end in the year 1950,
or a hundred years after that, or five hundred years after that; that
we are just beginning a national history the end of which we cannot
see, since we are still young... .
“On the way in which we decide to handle this great possession
which has been given us, on the turning which we take now, hangs the
welfare of those who are to come after us. Whatever success we may
have in any other line of national endeavor, whether we regulate trusts
properly, whether we control our great public service corporations as
we should, whether capital and labor adjust their relations in the best
manner or not—whatever we may do with all these and other such
questions, behind and below them all is this fundamental problem,
Are we going to protect our springs of prosperity, our sources of
well-being, our raw material of industry and commerce, and employer
of capital and labor combined; or are we going to dissipate them?
_ According as we accept or ignore our responsibility as trustees of
- the nation’s welfare, our children and our children’s children for
uncounted generations will call us blessed, or will lay their suffering
at our doors.’
6 Farmers’ Bul. 327.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FEDERAL STATUTES, WITH REVISIONS, COMPILATIONS, AND
DIGESTS

United States Statutes at Large. (Stat.)
Revised Statutes of 1878.
Supplement to the Revised Statutes:
Vol. 1, 1874-1891.
Vol. 2, 1892-1901.

LAW REPORTS

Federal Reporter. (Fed. Rep.) 1880—.
State Reports of the Various States. ,
Supreme Court Reporter. (Sup. Ct. Rep.)
United States Reports. (U. S.)

PROCEEDINGS IN CONGRESS

Annals of Congress. 1789-1823.

Congressional Debates. 1823-1837.

Congressional Globe. 1833-1873. (Cong. Globe.)

Congressional Record. 1873—. (Cong. Rec.)

Congressional Directory. Published for each session of Congress, with frequent
revisions.

Document Catalogues, issued by the Superintendent of Documents at Washington.
Also used Lists of Publications for Sale, issued by the Superintendent of
Documents.

Documents of the Eiiaad and Senate. Executive and miscellaneous documents.
(H. Doc., H. Ex. Doc., H. Mise. Doc.; S. Doc., S. Ex. Doc., S. Mise. Doc.)

Journal of the House and of the Senate.

asain: of the House and Senate Committees. (H. Rept. and S. Rept.)

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS

Census of the United States. Since 1870 it contains figures regarding the lumber
industry. Volume IX of The Tenth Census, 1880, deals entirely with the forest
trees of North America, that volume being written by C. S. Sargent.

Department of Agriculture, United States:

Annual Reports. (Report, Dept. of Agr.)
Yearbook.

Department of the Interior, United States:

Annual Reports of the Secretary. 1849—. (Report, Sec. of Int.)

Circulars issued by the Secretary of the Interior from time to time, setating a

to various public land laws. (Circ.) .
Decisions of the Secretary of the interior Relating to Public Lands. 1881—.
(Land Decisions.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY 379

_ Forest Service, United States (In the Department of Agriculture) :
Annual Reports of the Division of Forestry. 1886-1901.
Annual Reports of the Forester, 1903—.
Bulletins and Circulars.
* Use Book, Regulations and Instructions for the Use of the National Forests.
4 Issued Annually.
Land Office, Reports of the Commissioner (Report, Land Office) :
1825-1849, in reports of the Treasury Department. °
1849—, in reports of the Secretary of the Interior.
__ 1860—, also published separately.

' Mes and Documents. A series of volumes issued by the Government at Wash-

_ ington, containing the annual messages of the President and other documents,
i _ 1858-1901.

Opinions of Attorney-General of the United States, 1852—. (Opinions, Atty.-Gen.)
on Thomas, The Public Domain, Its History, with Statistics. (H. Mise.
_ Doe. 45; 47 Cong. 2 Sess.) Washington, 1884. (Donaldson, Public Domain.)
<, William F., A History of the Lumber Industry in New York. U. S. Bureau of
q _ Forestry, Bulletin 34, 1902.

Gener Public Acts of Congress Relating to the Sale and Disposition of the
Public Lands, with Instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury, and Com-
_ missioner of the Land Office, etc. Two volumes. Washington, 1838.

Geological Survey, United States. Twentieth Annual Report, 1898-1899. Part V
on Forest Reserves.

_ Hough, Franklin B., Report on Forestry, made in pursuance of the Act of Con-
ye : gress of August 15, 1876. Three volumes, published in 1877, 1878, and 1882
respectively. (Hough, Report on Forestry.)

_ Laws of the United States, December 1, 1880. (H. Misc. Doc. 45; At Cong. 2 Sess.)
_ Laws, Treaties and Other Documents Having Operation and Respect to the Public
3 Lands. Compiled 1811.

_ Lumber Industry, The. Department of Commerce and Labor, Repdrt of Com-
: missioner of Corporations. Washington, 1913, 1914. (Lumber Industry.)
Pinchot, Gifford, A Primer of Forestry. U. S. Dept. of Agr., Division of Forestry,
Bulletin 24,

Preliminary Report of the Inland siheope buen Commission. (S. Doc. 325; 60 Cong.
1 Sess.)

Proceedings of a Conference of Governors, 1908. .(H. Doce. 1425; 60 Cong. 2 Sess.)
_ Public Timber Laws, Compilation of, with Regulations. Washington, 1903.

_ Reform of the Land Laws. Extracts from recommendations of the President, the
Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the Land Office. (S. Doc.
g 283; 61 Cong. 2 Sess.)

_ Report of the Public Lands Commission. Washington, 1905. (S. Doc. 189; 58 Cong.
‘. 8 Sess.) (Report, Public Lands Commission.)

Report of the National Conservation Commission. (S. Doc. 676; 60 Cong. 2 Sess.)
(Report, National Conservation Commission.)

Reports of the National Forest Reservation Commission, 1911—. Annual Reports.
Smith, George Otis, and Others, The Classification of the Public Lands. Geological
_ Survey, Bulletin 537, 1913.

Spalding, V. M., The White Pine. Revised and Enlarged by B. E. Fernow, as
Bulletin 22 of the Division of Forestry, 1899.

380 UNITED STATES FOREST Sime ks

FORESTRY PUBLICATIONS
American J ournal of Forestry. Cincinnati, Ohio, 1882-1883.
American Forestry. Monthly Magazine of the American Forestry Association.
Washington, 1910—.
Ames Forester. Published annually by the Forestry Club of the Iowa State College.
Ames, Iowa.

Arboriculture. A magazine of the International Society of Arboriculture. Chicago, —

1902-1907.
Conservation. Washington, 1908, 1909.
Forester, The. Published irregularly at Princeton, New Jersey. 1898-1901.
Forestry and Irrigation. Published at Washington monthly, 1902-1908.
Forest Leaves. Published bimonthly, by the Pennsylvania Forestry Association.
Philadelphia, 1897—.
Forestry Quarterly. Published by the New York State College of Forestry, 1902—.
Garden and Forest. Edited by Chas. S. Sargent. 1888-1897.
Harvard Forestry Club. Bulletins published at Cambridge, Mass.
Society of American Foresters. Proceedings, 1905—.

STATE PUBLICATIONS

Alabama:

Department of Game and Fish. Biennial Reports, 1908—.
State Commission on Forestry. Bulletins, 1908—.

California:

State Board of Forestry. Biennial Reports, 1887-1892.
State Forester. Reports, 1905—.

Colorado:

State Forester. Biennial PLENS, 1912, 1914.

Connecticut »

State Board of Agriculture. Annual Reports, 1876—.
State Forester. Reports, 1901—.

Hawaii: :
Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and Forestry. Reports, 1901—.
Laws of the Hawaiian Islands Relating to Agriculture and Forestry. Hono-

lulu, 1893. :

Indiana:

Arbor and Bird Day Annual. 1902—.
State Board of Forestry. Annual Reports, 1901—.

Kansas: ~
Commission of Forestry. Established 1887. Two Reports were issued.
State Forester. Irregular Bulletins and Circulars since 1909.

State Horticultural Society. Annual Reports, 1883—.
Kentucky:
State Forester. Biennial Report, 1913.
Miscellaneous Reports issued by State Forester since 1912, and by State
Bureau of Agriculture previous to 1912.
Louisiana:
Conservation Commission. Report, 1914.

eee ee ee

ibd Viste us paliecs :
PERE ee ae eS ee oe eRe ee

pater
adie a

witiig Sg sos

‘eee ere

af

55

aid

BIBLIOGRAPHY 381

Forest Commissioner. Biennial Reports, 1902—.
Maryland:
State Board of Forestry. Reports, 1907—.

Forestry Association. Annual Reports, 1898—.
\ State Forester. Annual Reports, 1904—.
, cones Forest Commission. Annual Report, 1914.
ae Seascnladiner of the Land Office. Annual Reports, 1842—.
Forestry Commission of 1887 and 1888. Report.
Forestry Commission. Annual Reports, 1905-1909.
Game, Fish and Forestry Department. Annual Reports.
Public Domain Commission. Annual Reports, 1909—.
Report of Special Committee of 1867. (Mich. House Doc. 6, 1867.)
Report of the Commission of Inquiry in 1908.
_ Minnesota:
Fire Warden. Annual Reports, 1895-1904.
Forestry Commissioner. Annual Reports, 1904—.
_ Montana:
Register of State Lands. Biennial Reports, 1892-1909.
State Forester. Biennial Reports, 1910—.
_ New Hampshire:
Forestry Commission. Biennial Reports, 1895-1896.
Reports of Forestry Commissions of 1881, 1883, 1889, and 1893. (A Report
issued in 1885 is especially valuable.) ;
iNew Jersey:
Forest Park Reservation Commission. Annual Reports, 1905—.
State Geologist. Annual Report, 1899.
New York:
Arbor Day Annual. 1906—.
- Cornell University Agricultural Hicpertavent Station, Bulletin 370.
_ Forest Commission. Annual Reports, 1888-1894.
_-_—--—* Forest, Fish and Game Commission. Annual Reports, 1904—.
aan Forest Preserve Board. Annual Reports, 1898, 1899.
- Forestry Commission. Special Report on Legislation, 1888.
Special Forestry Commission. 1885, Report.
State College of Forestry. Annual Reports of the Director, 1899—.
_ North Carolina:
Geological and Economic Survey. Economic Papers, issued from time to time
since 1909.
_ State Geologist. Biennial Reports.
Ohio:
Agricultural Experiment Station. Annual ase 1906—.
; State Forestry Bureau. Annual Reports, 1885-1890.
_ Oregon:
State Board of Forestry. Annual Reports, 1907—.

382 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Pennsylvania:
Commissioner of Forestry. Preliminary Report, 1896.
Commissioner of Forestry. Report, 1897.
Department of Forestry. Biennial Reports, 1901-1902.
‘ Forestry Commission. Report of 1895.
South Dakota:
Commissioner of School and Public Lands, Thirteenth Biennial Report.
Tennessee:
Department of Forestry, Fish and Game. Reports, 1903-1915.
Vermont: :
State Forester. Annual Reports, 1909—. .
Virginia:
State Forester. Forestry Leaflet No. 1, 1915.
Washington:
State Forester and Fire Warden. Annual Reports, 1905-1912.
State Forester. Report, 1914.
West Virginia:
Forest, Game and Fish Warden. Biennial Reports, 1909-1910—.
Wisconsin:
Arbor Day Annual, 1906—.
Report on the Disastrous Effects of the Destruction of Forest Trees, 1867.
State Forester. Biennial Reports, 1903—. .

MISCELLANEOUS

American Forestry Congress, Proceedings, 1882-1886, 1905.

American Forestry Association, Proceedings, 1890-1897.

American Lumbermen. Biographical Sketches. Chicago, 1906.

American Lumberman, The Curiosity Shop, or Questions and Answers Concerning

; the Lumber Business. Chicago, 1906.

Barret, J. O., The Forest Tree Planter’s Manual. Minneapolis, 1894.

Brief on Behalf of the National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, before the
Federal Trade Commission, January, May, and July, 1916.

Brown, D. J., The Sylva Americana. Boston, 1832.

The Trees of America. New York, 1846.

Brown, John P., Practical Arboriculture. Connersville, Indiana, 1906.

Bruncken, Ernest, North American Forests and Forestry. New York, 1900.

Canada, Convention Forestiére Canadienne, 1906, 1908.

Report of the Commission of Conservation on Forest Protection in Canada,
1912.

Chautauquan. June, 1909 (55:21). A special number devoted to conservation.

Compton, Organization of the Lumber Industry. Chicago, 1916.

Copp, Henry N., The American Settlers’ Guide. Washington, 1880.

Coultas, Harland, What. May be Learned from a Tree. New York, 1860.

Defebaugh, James E., History of the Lumber Industry in America. Chicas, 1906.

Dorrien, S. V., Forests and Forestry. 1879.

Profestita of Forests a Necessity, 1879.

Emerson, George B., A Report on the Trees and Shrubs Naturally nr in

the Forests of Massachnaaten Boston, 1846. !
s Ne

BIBLIOGRAPHY 383

} a B. E., A Brief History of Forestry. Toronto, 1907.
3 a Economics of Forestry. New York, 1902.
a _ Ford, Amelia, Colonial Precedents of our National Land System. Madison, Wis-
--- consin, 1908,
_ Greeley, W. B., Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry ;
a Dept. of Agr., Report No. 114.
_ Gifford, John, Practical Forestry. New York, 1902.
_ Green, Samuel B., Forestry in Minnesota. St. Paul, 1902.
_ — Principles of American Forestry. New York, 1907.
_ Haney, Lewis H., A Congressional History of Railways in the United States to
1850. Madison, Wisconsin, 1906.
A Congressional History of Railways in the United States, 1850-1887. Madi-
= - son, 1910.
Hart, A. B., The Disposition of our Public Lands. Quarterly Journal of Eco-
j nomics, January, 1887, 169.
_ Hill, Robert T., The Public Domain and Democracy. Columbia University Studies.
4 New York, 1910.
_ Hodges, Leonard B., Practical Suggestions on Forest Tree Planting in Minnesota.
5 St. Paul, 1874.
_ Hotchkiss, George W., History of the Lumber and Forest Industry of the North-
A west. Chicago, 1898.
_ Hough, F. B., The Elements of Forestry. Cincinnati, 1882. .
_ Japan, Forestry of. Bureau of Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Com-
3 merce. Tokyo, 1910.
_ Kinney, Forest Law in America. New York, 1917.
_ — Forest Legislation in America Prior to March 4, 1789.
_ —— Bulletin 370, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station.
_ Knight, George W., History and Management of Land Grants for Education in
the Northwest Territory. American Historical Association, Vol. I, No. 3. New
York, 1885.
_ Lake States Forest Fire Conference. St. Paul, 1910.
_ Library of Entertaining Knowledge; Volume on Vegetable Substances. Boston,
€ 1830.
Little, James, The Timber Supply Grirstion of Canada and the United States.
Montreal, 1876.
_ Marsh, George P., Man and Nature. New York, 1868.

_ Michaux, F. Andrew, The North American Sylva. Three volumes. Paris, 1819.

_ National Conservation Congress, Addresses and Proceedings. Published annually,
1909, 1910, 1911.

_ Northup, B. G., Economic Tree Planting. New York, 1878.

_ Nuttal, Thomas, The North American Sylva. Philadelphia, 1857.

_ Orfield, M. N., Federal Land Grants to the States, with Special Reference to
_____ Minnesota. University of Minnesota, Studies in the Social Sciences, No. 2, 1915.
_ Peaslee, John B., Trees and Tree Planting. Published by the Ohio State Forestry
Ki Association. isionati, 1884.

‘2 Palmer, Swamp Land Drainage, with Special Reference to Minnesota. University
= of Minnesota, Studies in the Social Sciences, No. 5, 1915.

_ Phipps, R. W., Report on the Necessity of Preserving and Replanting Forests.
Toronto, 1883.

384 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY

Piper, R. U., The Trees of America. Published in several installments. Boston,
1855- 1858,

Pinchot, Gifford, Biltmore Forest. Chicago, 1893.

Forest Destruction. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institute, 1901.

The Fight for Conservation. New York, 1910.

Price, Overton W., The Land We Live in. Boston, 1911.

Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1873,
1874, and 1878.

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Lumber Manufacturers’
Association, 1903—.

Puter, S. A. D., and Stevens, Horace, Looters of the Public Domain. Portland,
Oregon, 1908.

Roth, Filibert, First Book of Forestry. Boston and London, 1902.

ural History Survey. Bulletin 1, 1898.
Sanborn, John Bell, Congressional Grants of Land in Aid of Railways. Madison,
Wisconsin, 1899,
Sato, Shosuke, History of the Land Question in the United States. Johns Hopkins
University Studies. Baltimore, 1886.
Shimek, Bohumil, The Pioneer and the Forest. Proceedings of the Mississippi
Valley Historical Association for 1909-1910. Volume 3.
Shinn, Charles H., Land Laws of Mining Districts. Johns Hopkins University
Studies. Baltimore, 1884.
Treat, Payson, The National Land System, 1785- 1820. New York, 1910.
Turner, Frederick J., Contribution of the West to American Democracy. Atlantic
Monthly, January, 1903.
Dominant Forces in Western Life. Atlantic Monthly, April, 1897.
. The Middle West. International Monthly, December, 1901.
The Ohio Valley in American History. History Teachers’ Magazine, March,
1911.
- The Old West. Piossaliis of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1908.
The Problem of the West. Atlantic Monthly, September, 1896.
The Significance of the Frontier in American History. In the Report of the
American Historical Association for 1893. ;
Social Forces in American History. American Historical Review, January,
1911.
Van Hise, Charles, The Conservation of Natural Resources in the United States.
Victor, Frances F., Our Public Land System, and its Relation to Education in
the United States, Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society, Vol. I, 1900.
Walker, Francis A., United States Census, 1880. Vol. III.
Warder, John A., Report on Forests and Forestry, 1875.
Warren, The Pioneet Woodsman as he is Related to Lumbering in the Northwest.
Whitford, Harry N., The Forests of the Flathead Valley, Montana. University of
Chicago, 1905.

LUMBERMEN’S JOURNALS

American Lumberman, Chicago, Illinois, January 1, 1899—. Formed by consolida- —

tion of Northwestern Lumberman. and the Timberman.
Canada Lumberman and Woodworker. Toronto, Canada, 1880—.

Forestry Conditions of Northern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Geological and Nat-—

BIBLIOGRAPHY 385

dood Rnaied. Chicago, Illinois. 1895—.
iberman’s Review. New York. 1892—.
1de! Review:
_ Title:—Radford Review. Chicago. 1893-1902.
- Continued as Lumber Review, Chicago and Kansas City, March, 1902-1912;
_ Continued as Lumber World Review. Chicago, March, 1912—.
ber Trade Journal. New Orleans. 1882—.
ssissippi Valley Lumberman. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1876—.
York Lumber Trade Journal. New York. 1886—.
thwestern Lumberman. Chicago:
_ Title:—Michigan Lumberman. February, 1873, to January, 1874;
Northwestern Lumberman, February, 1874, to 1898;
United with the Timberman to form American Lumberman, J anuary, 1899.
ific Lumber Trade Journal. Seattle. 1895-1913.
Merged into West Coast Lumberman, October 1, 1913.
nsylvania Lumberman. Scranton, Pennsylvania. 1903—.
neer Western Lumberman. San Francisco. 1884—.
_ Title:—Wood and Iron, 1885 to 1888;
_ Pacific Coast Wood and Iron, 1889 to 1909 (?) ;
Pioneer Western Lumberman, 1911 (?).
Louis Lumberman. St. Louis. January, 1888—.
huster’s Yellow Pine Lumber Rate Book. Eastern Ed., St. Louis, 1896—.
ithern Industrial and Lumber Review. Houston, Texas. 1893—.
uthern Lumber Journal. Wilmington, North Carolina. 1898—.
uthern Lumberman. Nashville, Tennessee. 1881—.
mberman. Portland, Oregon. 1899—.
est Coast Lumberman, Tacoma and Seattle. 1889—.
_ Succeeded the Pacific Lumber Trade Journal.

-

‘Gi eovertising by the Forest Service, 285,
287, 288

_ Advice to private timber owners, 154,
$99, $00, 301...

.. Agricultural college scrip, 48

_ Agricultural lands, inclusion in forest
‘reserves, 164-168, 255-261; in the
_ Southern Pacific grant, 250, 251

_ Alaska, game in, 304; homestead law
in, 180

_ Alaska forests, attacks upon, 205

_ Alien government, opposition to, 282
Allen, Senator, 131

_ Allison, Senator, 136, 139, 181

_ Amalgamated Copper Company, 320

_ American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science, 34, 35, 42

_ American Forestry Association, 95, 120
_ American Forestry Congress, 95
Ammons, E. M., 282, 289

_ Andrews, C. C., 32

_ Anti-conservation activity, 67, 68, 77,
78, 88, 89, 130, 136, 164-205, 228, 229,
—s«- 933, 234, 241, 242, 256-258, 289-290

_ Anti-trust activity of the government,
' a 339, 847.

_ Appalachian Mountains,
serves in, Ch. VI

_ Appropriations for forest protection,
+41, 100, 107, 141, 154, 155, 158, 159,
_ Arbor day, 29, 30, 95, 146, 147

_ Arid lands, trees for, 310

_ Arizona, forest reserves in, 179; lieu
selections in, ‘182, 183; timber lands
in, 54

_ Arkansas, timber lands in, 54

_ Attacks on the forest reserves, 130-141,
—-:1938, 194, 196-199, 201 et seq., 289, 290,
297

_ Austin, Representative, 211

_ Averill, Representative, 60

forest re-

INDEX

Bailey, Representative and Senator,
201, 208, 244, 298

Ballinger-Pinchot controversy, 150, 201-
205, 295

Bartholdt, Representative, 36

Beck, Senator, 104-106

Bell, Representative, 125, 138, 242

Bennett, G. G., Representative, 89

Bennett, Representative from New
York, 205, 285

Benson, John A., 186, 187

Berry, Senator, 101

Beveridge, Senator, 196, 198, 208

Bliss, C. N., Secretary, 176, 197, 198,
226, 231 n., 240

Boles, Representative, 50

Bonynge, Representative, 174

Booher, Representative, 201, 256

Borah, Senator, 201, 205, 210, 255, 257,
273, 294, 298

Boutwell, Senator, 52, 53, 60, 112

Bowers, E. A., 95, 111

Bowers, Representative, 130

Bradley, Representative, 211

Brandegee, Senator, 209, 210

British forest policy, early, 19, 20

Brown, Senator, 43, 51

Browne, Representative, 78 :

Brownlow, Representative, 209, 211

Bryan, Representative, 204, 294

Burdett, Commissioner, 58

Bureau of Corporations, Report on the
Lumber Industry, 315, 316

Bureau of forestry, 155

Burned timber, sale of, 236, 237

Burton, J. R., Senator, 208, 209

Burton, Theodore, Senator, 219

Butterworth, Representative, 112

California, forests in, 54; early forestry
legislation in, 34; frauds in, 47, 74,
224, 320; interest in forestry, 97; not

388

hostile to reserves, 295; timber owner-
ship in, 319, 331

Cameron, Senator, 112

Caminetti, Representative, 122

Canada, early interest in conservation,
20, 96, 97; forest policy, 59; migration
to, 255

Canadian
152

Cannon, Joseph, Representative, 138,
156, 181, 210, 211, 218

Cannon, Senator, 140

Carnegie, 151

Carter, Senator, 131, 159, 173, 174, 197,
199, 201, 210, 233, 271

Castle, Representative, 137

Chaffee, Delegate and Senator, 57

Clark, Senator, 131, 133, 159, 174, 210,
219, 231

Clark, Representative, 205

Clayton, Senator, 50

Clayton bill, 50-53

Cleveland, President, 64, 87, 106, 120,
121, 129, 132, 137, 184, 228

Climate, forests and, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33,
36, 93, 109 n., 310, 311

Clunie, Representative, 114

Coal claims in Alaska, 150, 202, 206

Coal, conservation of, 149, 375, 376

Coal lands, withdrawal of, 270, 271

Cockrell, Senator, 181

Cocks, Representative, 275

Coffeen, Representative, 123, 125, 242

Cole, Senator, 43

Colonial timber regulations, 20, 21

Colecrado, early forest legislation in, 34;
forests of, 54, 65; frauds in, 81; hos-
tile to reserves, 295; interest in for-
ests, 97; reserves in, 120

Competition among lumbermen, 345

Competition of woods and _ substitute
materials, 344, 345

Concentration in the ownership of tim-
ber, Ch. XI

Conference of Governors, 151

Conger, Representative, 89

Congress, and conservation, 40, 88, 90,
100, 102, 105, 108, 114, 116-118, 182,
203, 227-229, 240, 242, 243, 249-252;

Conservation Commission,

INDEX
and the National Conservation Com- 7

mission, 153; incapacity of, 297, 370, —
Sit 4

Connecticut, forest legislation in, 34; —
state forest reserves in, 145

Conness, Senator, 60

Conservation, as an issue, 39; cost of,
280; meaning of, 373, 374

Conservation movement, 39, 149, 369

Conspiracy to defraud, difficulty of
proving, 245

Converse, Representative, 89, 112

Cost of buying timber lands, 216

Cost of national forest a aia
284

Crumpacker, Representative, 216

Cummins, Representative, 257

Currier, Representative, 209, 210 r

Curtailment campaigns among lumber-
men, 350-353 . 4

Cypress, ownership of, 322 —

Delano, Secretary, 59
Denby, Representative, 248
Dendrological investigations, 308
Depew, Senator, 163, 208 ~
Desert Land Act, 49, 99
Destruction of timber, 26, 65, 81, 82, 84, _
185, 238, 239 i
Deuster, Representative, 112 - 7
Development of the West, ahaenevence! a
with, 131, 135, 136, 166, 254, 255° i
Dies, Representative, 256 a
Discrimination against the West, 135, ,
136, 262, 271, 272 ia
Division of Forestry, 155
Dixon, Representative, 168
Dolliver, Senator, 196, 198, 275
Dolph, Senator, 78
Donaldson, “Public Domain,” 98, 99
Doolittle, Representative, 123, 184
Dovener, Representative, 211
Drummond, Commissioner, 32, 44 i
Dubois, Senator, 194, 195, 199, 231, 294
Dunnell, Representative, 42, 44, 60, 77,
89, 117

Early conservation sentiment, 26-31
Early settlers: and the forests, 19
Eastman, Representative, 41

_ Edmunds, Senator, 51, 68, 69, 104, 105,
«4, 118, 114

_ Education in forestry, 147

_ Education, land grants for, 47, 48, 330

__-—Educative work of the Forest Service,

288, 299-302

Elkins, Senator, 211

Ely, R. T., Professor, 375

Englebright, Senator, 201, 274

_ Erosion and forest conservation, 138,
151, 159, 212, 214

_ Extravagance of Forest Service, alleged,
201, 205, 284-292

Fall, Senator, 298

Fernow, B. E., 94, 95, 109n., 111, 122,
bE . 142, 369, 370

_ Fitzgerald, Representative, 197, 256,
4 285 .

Flint, Senator, 199, 265
_ Floods, forest preservation and, 215
_ Florida, early reserves in, 23, 24; for-
ests of, 24, 46, 54; swamp lands in,
46; timber ownership in, 322, 330
_ Floyd, Representative, 201
Foraker, Senator, 248
Fordney, Representative, 156, 181, 248
Forest conservation and irrigation, 138,
151, 159
Forest fires, 169; early laws against,
21; improvement in laws, 161, .162;
need of legislation, 91; protection
against, 221, 302; state appropria-
tions, 147; state laws, 97
Forest Lieu Act, 139, 140, 176-190, 292,
331
Forest products, investigations in, 311-
314
Forest Reserve Act, 109-118; partial
repeal of, 196-201
_ Forest reserves, creation of, 120, 129,
| 161, 191, 200; early advocates of,
a 110; first bill for creation of, 45
Forest Service, criticism of, Ch. IX
Forest Service, work of, Ch. X
Forestation, work in, 309, 310.
Timber Culture Act
Forestry associations, 34, 95, 148
Forestry journals, 95, 148
Fort, Representative, 45:

See

INDEX

389

Francis, Secretary, 130

Frauds, 47, 81, 320; encouragement to,
101, 102; need of a law punishing,
245; under the Forest Lieu Act, 179,
185-190;°under the Free Timber Act,
65, 66, 238, 239; under the mining
laws, 265, 266; under the Timber and
Stone Act, 74-77, 165 n., 224-226 ©

Free timber, 133, 141, 159

Free Timber acts, 55-58, 62, 65-69, 238-
243

French, Representative, 167

Fulton, Senator, 159, 188, 189, 190, 197,
199, 210, 241, 242

Future, a rational policy for the, 376,
377 ‘

Gallinger, Senator, 209-211, 213, 214,
248, 257

| Game protection, 302-305 ; opposition to,

134, 272, 273

Garfielde, Delegate, 60

Gibbs, Wolcott, 129

Gibson, Senator, 230

Gillett, Representative, 213

Glavis, 202, 203 n.

Gorman, Senator, 133, 136, 139

Government ownership of standing tim-
ber necessary, 366, 367

Government regulation of
prices, 363-366

Graves, Forester, 277, 286, 295

Gray, Senator, 134, 136

Grazing fees, should be increased, 291,
292

Grazing in forest reserves, 121, 130, 157,
159, 160, 167-174, 193, 262-264

Grazing interests, assistance to, 305, 306,
308

Greeley report on the lumber industry,
300

Guernsey, Representative, 211

lumber

Haldeman, Representative, 42
Hale, Senator, 153, 181, 201
Hamilton, Representative, 205, 285
Hansbrough, Senator, 163, 230

_ “Hardships of the settlers,” 69, 89, 132,

136, 165, 197, 233, 234, 260
Harris, Senator, 43.

390

Harrison, President, 69, 92, 114, 120,
Q41

Hartman, Representative, 124, 125, 137

Hatch, Representative, 112, 113

Haugen, Representative, 205, 285

Hawley, Senator, 104, 105, 136

Hawley, Representative, 201, 256, 275,
QT

Hayes, President, 38

Hazelton, Representative, 89

Health, forests and, 30, 93, 94

Heitfeld, Senator, 173, 194

Hemenway, Senator, 159, 160

Heney, F. J., 187

Herbert, Representative, 89

Hermann, Binger, 123, 124, 178, 181,
182, 182 n., 186-189, 229, 372

Herndon, Representative, 42

Hewitt, Representative, 50

Heyburn, Senator, 159, 172, 182, 194,
196, 199, 201, 210, 234, 235, 256, 257,
260, 272, 276-278, 285, 289, 292-296,
298

Hill, J. J., 151, 289, 298

Hitchcock, Secretary, 66n., 157, 171,
178, 183, 191, 197, 198, 226, 229, 232 n.,
233, 234, 242

Hitchcock, Senator, 43

Hitchcock, Representative, 274

Holman, Representative, 51, 52, 67, 73,
78, 113, 116, 122

Homestead Act, Commutation, 48, 56;
frauds under, 80; amendment, 99

Hostility to national forests in recent
years, Ch. VIII, Ch. IX

Hough, F. B., 30, 34; “Report on For-
estry,” 43, 95, 97

Houk, Representative, 241

Howe, Senator, 53

Hubbard, Representative, 211

Hull, Representative, 89

Humphrey, Representative, 201, 203,
204, 205, 277, 279, 289, 292, 293, 294

Hyde, F. A., frauds, 186, 187

Idaho, timber land frauds, 84, 259; tim-
ber ownership in, 320; timber pur-
chase in, 367

Indian lands, forests on, 78 n., 106, 112

Indiana, state forest reserves in, 144

INDEX

Inefficiency of early forest administra-
tion, 190

Ingalls, Senator, 51, 104

Inland Waterways Commission, 151

“Insolvency” of the reserves, 284-292

Instability of the lumber market, 354,
355

Investigations in forestry, 42, 108 —

Investigative work of the Forest Ser-
vice, 307-314

Irrigation, and forest conservation, 138,
151, 159

Jenkins, Representative, 242, 248

Johnson, Representative, of California,
57

Johnson, Representative, of Washing-
ton, 202, 205, 260, 277, 290

Jones, Senator, 50

Jones, Representative, 156, 182, 193

Joseph, Representative, 113

Keifer, Representative, 248, 274
Kelley, Representative, 60
Ketchem, Representative, 89
Kirkwood, Secretary, 66
Knowles, Representative, 137

Lacey bill, the, 166-168

Lacey, Representative, 131, 138, 163,
172, 228, 229, 233

Lafferty, Representative, 298

Lake states, timber ownership in, 318,
319, 322-324, 329, 331; timber pro-
tection in, 41

Lamar, Secretary, 64, 87, 110

Lamar, Representative, 211

Lamb, Representative, 275

Lamoreux, Commissioner, 120, 121, 228

Large timber holders, Ch. XI; factors
augmenting power of, 324-327

Lever, Representative, 210

Lindbergh, Representative, 211

Little, Representative, 244

Lodge, Senator, 159, 160 — ‘

Louisiana, timber lands in, 54; timber
ownership in, 322, 329; timber steal-
ing in, 82

Lumber market, instability of, 354, 355

INDEX

$ Lumber prices, government regulation,
~—- 363-366
Lumbermen’s associations, 335 et seq.

‘McFarland, Commissioner, 87, 93, 110
_ McKenzie, Representative, 89
_ McKinley, President, 132, 161, 184, 208
McLaughlin, Representative, 279
_ MeMillan, Senator, 108
_ McRae, 74, 117, 122, 126, 138, 181, 228,
McRae bill, the 122-128
Maginnis, Representative, 57, 60
_ Mann, Representative, 159, 160, 205, 274
_ Mantle, Senator, 131

_ Markham, Representative, 113

Martin, E. W., Representative, 167, 171,
256, 261
Martin, J. A., Representative, 201, 261,
267, 271,272, 274, 275
Maryland, state forest reserves in, 144
Massachusetts, state forest reserves in,
144
_ Michigan, early conservation sentiment,
29, 33, 46; forests in, 29, 33; state for-
est reserves in, 145; swamp land
grants in, 330; timber stealing in, 81
Military bounties, 49
_ Miller, Senator, 112
_ Mining in the forest reserves, 125, 126,
a 127, 130, 133, 137, 138, 264-266
_ Minnesota, state forest reserves in, 144,
_-'145; frauds in, 80; railroad grants
in, 54
Mississippi, idaiiber lands in, 54; timber
stealing in, 82
Mitchell, Senator, 104, 187-189, 241, 372
_Mondell, Representative, 156, 157, 167,
174, 181, 182, 196, 197, 201, 237, 256,
‘ 261-263, 275, 282, 285, 294, 296, 298
_ Money, Senator, 275
_ Monopoly, alleged lumber, 334
Monopoly, possibility of a future lum-
ber, 353
Montana, timber stealing in, 82, 84

_ Moody, Representative, 181, 209, 241

Moore, Representative, 205
Mormon church and forestry, 296
_ Morse, Representative, 274

__ Morton, Governor, 30

391

Mt. Ranier National Park, 183, 184, 292,
332

Municipal forest reserves, 145

Murdock, Representative, 204

National Conservation Association, 153

National Conservation Commission, 152,
207

National forests, safety of, 296-298

National Lumber Manufacturers’ Asso-
ciation, 336

National parks and forest reserves,
should be under same jurisdiction,
304

Naval reserves, 22-25

Navigability of rivers, and forest con-
servation, 212-214

Nelson, Senator, 153, 196, 236, 242, 257

Nevada, timber stealing in, 82

New Hampshire, state forest reserve in,
145; frauds in, 371

New Jersey, state forest reserve in, 145

New Mexico, timber lands in, 54; timber
stealing in, 82

New York, conservation activity, 29, 33,
96, 97, 144; state forest reserves in;
111, 144; frauds in, 82, 371

Newlands, Senator, 154, 195, 199, 216,
931, 235

Noble, Secretary, 88, 111, 115, 120

North American Conservation Confer-
ence, 152

Northern Pacific Railroad, 178 n., 252,
253; lieu selections by, 184, 185; tim-
ber holdings of, 317-322, 328, 331;
trespass by, 84, 85, 89

Oglesby, Senator, 51

Oil, conservation of, 149

Oil lands, withdrawal of, 271

Open price associations among lumber-
men, 340, 350

Oregon, forests of, 110, 318, 319; for- °
feiture of railroad lands in, 246-252;
hostile to reserves, 295; timber land
frauds, 185-190; timber purchase in,
367

Oregon & California Railroad grant,
246, 247

392

Otis, Representative, 130
Overman, Senator, 209

Pacheco, Representative, 60

Pacific Northwest, timber ownership in,
318-324, 328, 329,

Paddock, Senator, 92, 122

Page, Representative, 57, 60

Patterson, Senator and Representative,
57, 60, 80, 159, 197

Payne, Representative, 274

Payson, Representative, 78, 116

Pearson, Representative, 209

Penn, William, interest in forestry, 21

Pennsylvania, state forest reserves in,
144

Perjury, difficulty of punishing, 245

Perkins, Senator, 199

Perkins, Representative, 285

Permit Act, 239, 241, 242

Pettigrew, Senator, 108, 115, 116, 132,
133, 139, 140, 173, 180, 185

Pickler, Representative, 116, 123

Pinchot, Gifford, 122, 129, 141, 143, 149,
150, 153, 156, 158, 161, 172, 174, -175,
194, 196, 201-205, 227, 232 n., 254, 270,
282, 284, 288, 293, 295, 367, 370, 373,
377, 378

Platt, Senator, 173

Plumb, Senator, 92, 110, 115, 116

Poehler, Representative, 89

Political party platforms, 149

Pollard, Representative, 210

Pools in the lumber industry, 340

Portland, Astoria & MecMinville Rail-
road, 249

Posterity, objection to saving for, 53,
Q71

Power, Representative, 229

Pray, Representative, 237

Predatory animals in forest reserves,
306

‘ Preémption Act, 48, 56, 79, 99

“Press bureau” of the Forest Service,
the, 287, 288

Price regulation, government, 363-366

Prices, efforts by lumbermen to fix, 338-
350

Pritchard, Senator, 208

INDEX

Private ownership of standing timber,
cost of, 357-359

Private timber owners, advice and as-
sistance to, 154, 299-302

Profits of lumbermen, 354, 364

Profits of timber owners, 355, 358

Progressive party, 149, 201-205

Protection of forests, act of 1897, 133,
141; appropriations for, 41, 100, 107,
141, 154, 155, 158, 159, 243; difficulties
in the way of, 84, 85, 90, 91; need of,
119-122; under Secretary grea rsh 40,
86

Public Lands Commission of 1880, 98,
99

Public Lands Commission of 1903, 150,
227, 264

Public Lands Convention at Denver,
174, 175

Public sale, 49, 56, 58, 59, 72, 99, 331

Puter, S. A. D., 187, 225

Quarles, Senator, 229
Quay, Senator, 69

Railroad Indemnity Act, 54, 55, 86

Railroad land grants, 53-55, 102, 104-
106, 246, 253, 327-330

Railroads, tree planting by, 30, 37, 38,
149

Railroads, trespass by, 83

Range lands, conservation of, 149, 308

Ranger stations, objection to, 260, 261

Rawlins, Senator and Representative,
124, 125, 134, 140, 158, 173

Receipts from national forests, 284

Recreational uses of the national for-
ests, 305

Redwood lands, 319, 320

Reeder, Representative, 236

Reforestation, 309, 310, 361

Remedies for present situation in the 4

lumber industry, 362

Republican party, hostile to reserves,
201-205

Resources, withdrawal of other than
timber, 270 .

Retailers of lumber, price <a salemaae
among, 342

INDEX

Richards, Commissioner, 150, 245
Road and school fund, from national
forests, 273-276, 297, 298
Roads in national forests, 276, 278, 279
Robinson, Representative, 90, 237
~ Roosevelt, President, 147, 150-152, 156,
161, 172, 175, 188n., 191, 194, 200,
M1, 205, 227, 234-236, 270, 303, 369,

ator, 43
, A. W., Representative, 201, 256,

» W. W., Representative, 215
, Representative, 89

‘ nace om

Sale of lands, 49-53, 58, 59, 99, 101, 331

San Francisco Mountains Forest Re-
serve, 179, 182, 183, 198 :

Sanders, Senator, 68-70

Sapp, Representative, 89

Sargent, Charles S., 108, 122

Sargent, Representative and Senator,
57, 60, 97, 108, 121, 129

Sayers, Representative, 139

Sayler, Representative, 60

Schools of forestry, 147, 148; efforts to
secure land grants for, 108

Schurz, Secretary, 40, 64, 66, 76, 86, 89,
91, 93, 98, 100, 112, 369, 370

Scott, Representative, 210, 212, 218, 274,
275

Scrip, land, 49, 56

Senate, hostility to conservation, 137,
138, 141, 158, 197, 257, 258

Settlers in the national forests, value of,
280, 281

Shafroth, Representative and Senator,
156, 174

Sheep, grazing of, 168-175, 263

Sherman, Senator, 112, 113, 114

Ship timber, conservation of, 20

Shoup, Senator, 140, 173

Sibley, Representative, 41

‘Silvicultural investigations, 308-311

Simon, Senator, 241

Simpson, Representative, 123, 124

Sinnot, Representative, 251

Size of holdings and relative values,

_ 24-326

393

Slater, Representative, 60

Smith, E. D., Senator, 215

Smith, Hoke, Secretary, 121, 128, 228

Smith, M. A., Senator, 167, 173,241 —

Smith, S. C., Representative, 167, 197

Smith, W. I., Representative, 248

Smoot, Senator, 195, 199, 235, 255, 265,
294, 296

South, abolition of private sale in, 101;
sale of lands in, 49, 50, 51-53

_South Dakota, state forest reserves in,

145

Southern Pacific Railway, forfeiture of
land grant, 246-252; timber holdings,
317-321, 328 .

Southern pine region, timber ownership
in, 318, 323, 324, 331

Sparks, Commissioner, 72, 74, 87, ° 88,
110, 111

Speculation in timber lands, 332, 333,
355-357

Spooner, Senator, 69, 199, 208

Squire, Senator, 241

Stanley, Representative, 274

Starvation of animals on public ranges,
307

State conservation activity, 33, 34, 96,

97, 144-147

State conservation commissions, 152

State forest reserves, 29, 111, 144, 145,
216

State grants for education, 47, 48, 330

State land grants for forestry purposes,
246

State lands in the national forests, 281,
282

State timber culture laws, 37, 146

Stealing of timber, ethics of, 79, 371-
374

Steele, Representative, 89

Steenerson, Representative, 205, 285

Stephens, Representative, 211

Stewart, Senator, 180

Stockmen, attitude of, 263, 264

Stone, Representative and Senator, 139,
205, 285

Streamflow, influence of forests on, 212-
214, 310, 311

Sulzer, Representative, 275

394

Summer homes in the national peresnin,
305

Summer resorts in Appalachian Monti
tains, 213

Swamp land grants, 46, 330

Taft, President, 153, 201-205, 217, 227,
236, 240, 242, 270, 373

Tariff on lumber, 93, 94

Tawney, Representative, 153, 159, 196,
197, 274, 285

Taxation of forest lands, 146, 279

Taxing power, loss of, 273-281

Taylor, E. B., Representative, 113, 114

Taylor, E. T., Representative, 174, 262,
268, 272, 275

Teller, Secretary and Senator, 63, 64,
66, 67, 83, 86, 110, 127, 163, 173, 210,
247, 248, 271

Tillman, Senator, 247, 248

‘Timber, amount of standing, in each
state, 318 n.

Timber and materials for railroad con-
struction, 55

Timber and Stone Act, 58-60, 70-78, 87,
224-936, 259, 332

Timber bonds, 357

Timber culture, 35-37, 154, 310

Timber Culture Act, 43, 99

Timber sale policy of the Forest Ser-
vice, 289

Timber thieves, the “bill to license,” 88-
90

Tongue, Representative, 181

Townsend, Representative, 122

Transfer of forest reserves to Depart-
ment of Agriculture, 155-158

Trespass, timber, 23, 24, 41, 64, 71, 81,
82, 83, 88, 119, 243, 244

Trespassers, authority to arrest, 162,
163

Turner, Senator, 134

Turpentine, boxing of trees for, 245;
distillers, trespass by, 83

Utah, not hostile to forest reserves,
295; timber lands in, 54

Van Hise, Charles, Dr., 153, 363, 364
Vance, Senator, 105

INDEX

Vermont, state forest reserves in, 145°

Vilas, Secretary, 88, 111

Votes on conservation, 53, 57, 60, 90, 91,
126, 139, 141, 211

Wadsworth, Representative, 197 —
Walcott, Charles D., 132, 369, 370

‘Walker, Thomas B., 47 n., 224, se 330,

S37 ir

Wallace, Representative, 163

Walthall, Senator, 101, 116

War, forest products research and the,
313

Warren, Senator, 157, 173, 195, 199, Q75,
294,

Washburn, Representative, 89

Washington, forests in, 47 n., 54; hostile
to forest reserves, 295; timber land
frauds, 81, 83, 84, 259; timber owner-
ship in, 318, 319

Waste and theft of other resources than
timber, 375

Waste of timber, 25, 26, 359-361

Water power, conservation of, 132, 149,
271; influence of forest cover on, 213;
in the national forests, 267-270; pur-
chase under Weeks law, 221

Water reserves, withdrawal of, 271

Weeks law, 210, 211, 212, 220, 221

Wells, Representative, 81, 126

Western attitude, analysis of, 294-296,
371-374; expression of, 83,192

Weyerhaeuser, Frederick, 235, 289

Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, 317-
322, 331

White, Senator, 140 -

White Mountains, demand for reserves ~
in, 209

Williams, Representative, 89

Williamson, Commissioner, 66, 110

Williamson, J. N., Representative, 189,
241

Wilson, Commissioner, 32

Wilson, James, Secretary, 172, 208, 217,
261

Wilson, Senator, 83, 135, 184, 185 it

Wilson, Representative, 193

Windom, Senator, 42, 50, 53

Wisconsin, “saw log dynasty” in, 371;

“Wright, Representative, 89

tt

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

BioMed

Meats

esifian atts aan

"4 ate hy a peel

rue “wi
y ak
if a dries at

se ti

ide ae REN BIE
* eee ade ae

f ae

ria
iy Blot, $0
Maeve

teadeat
ie

‘ ae hak He
i Hale

Ah.
‘ tie ets

ales
nts

i fie oii i! me

zi
yaw er

iA te

af 4 Pobre Hal Por Spat
a nba ge ober S Men
a Annet

HU at

' ass 20!
¢ Bi

ey of
aaah etek

Re ;
ii i Hoyle pie
H bes ae Pie seas
sane rit yeti

Bale eg 8) bhi

gly
Ha, ¥ Py 'ceas

eee See
eM: ct
4 me

fae

eng e $1
he Uy
Ad eel
ete

att hata ee anbgted aaer
oe

saeets ig wi,

iearisy

Nf Ne
gate gh reve bit 2
tigt

Feely Peas

eV A ft
i eacestlohea: Fai! wie
(aire Sear a ie $44,
i

aap

Gti}
ae

’
x) nt
Wr
bf LS yiavh 3 ety
Soe doa ae etn setae
iy ‘*

ahd Ke yey A be

Hy, N77
OES LSP OIM hea a Heda sept pe
SEN mite Bay ae

Lang ey c

sally
eek ts

eb %
hee

x Peanepk (iiot
Any rae

5 in

5
Cee
aygeedseks we

Aare

cla wr Bras
RS vata de
Hick:

eh
Fs

eer tepals

A

ay
* wihay ¥

—
Hc a

ae

8 ae a

os
bite 3

on oe

4
ues
i eee: Sbie

ii eat
sit sAbgrky

2S
eed
adie,

arch
ails ie ie mt ats
tit ant i nit rat

Gaehb

W
Weber!

x bigs ise
Wht 4

Sap enigt

as thy
ae aie
mp

shee peak
RAhadss SAR SBONNt3 Op 304 »
‘ Pak ey

(NE
+ %

§,

byt ite
SO BE a
yer

ae

og see

es ia an
ee “ ty rath as: uy it ;?
ae nite ea i

in

i

wigs oh

a
ae :

at 4