' : 
 
 
 00 
 
 ^ v* 
 
 "' 
 
 
 A x> ^ 
 
 
 
 ^ * 
 
 V X 
 
 , ;; -/= %, 4' 
 
 
 V* -5 
 
 ^ 
 
 V- 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 *+, & 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 r^J> O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 OCT 
 
 - ^ ^ 
 
 s 3 ^ 
 
 V - 
 
 V V 
 
 # X 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 The Library of Congress 
 
 * oV 
 
 <f 
 
 k %£ 
 
 « 
 
 3o. 
 
 V- 
 
 
 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/unitedstatesforeOOisej 
 
 ^ 
 
 3 0' 
 
s 0- 9" 
 
 t 
 
THE UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
PUBLISHED ON THE FOUNDATION 
 
 ESTABLISHED IN MEMORY OF 
 
 WILLIAM McKEAN BROWN 
 
7 w 
 
 1 H 
 
 g g 
 
 w o 
 
 > > o 
 
 H W S 
 
 <a > h 
 
 S ? > 
 
 E <s H 
 
 £ H 2 
 
 «« z z 
 
 11 
 
 ■ 
 
 
THE 
 
 UNITED STATES 
 FOREST POLICY 
 
 BY . 
 JOHN ISE, Ph.D., LL. B. 
 
 ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS 
 UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS 
 
 NEW HAVEN 
 
 YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 LONDON • HUMPHREY MILFORD • OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 MDCCCCXX 
 
v l 
 
 ^ 
 
 .<•* 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1920, BY 
 YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 m \ i is2o 
 
 ©CI.A566996 
 
THE WILLIAM McKEAN BROWN MEMORIAL 
 PUBLICATION FUND 
 
 The present volume is the second work published by the Yale Uni- 
 versity Press on the William McKean Brown Memorial Publication 
 Fund. This Foundation was established by gifts from members of his 
 family to Yale University in memory of William McKean Brown, of 
 Newcastle, Pennsylvania, who was not only a leader m the develop- 
 ment of his community, but who also served the commonwealth as 
 state senator and later as lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania. 
 
To My Mother 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The 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- 
 cal and social institutions. Whatever preeminence 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 preeminence in these 
 respects is dependent upon a wise and economical use of remaining 
 resources. Thus the question of conservation is one o£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 Pettigrew 
 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 Naval Reserves: 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 Preemption, 
 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, Provisions and Interpretation: Evil Effects: Extension 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 Conser- 
 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 207 
 
 Early Agitation for Appalachian Reserves: The Demand 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 
 
 Free Timber Privileges: Conservation Activity in Congress; Increasing Appro- 
 priations for Timber Protection: Other Helpful Legislation: Railway Land 
 Grants Once More: The Act of 1916: The Northern Pacific Lands. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII: HOSTILITY TO THE NATIONAL FOR- 
 ESTS IN RECENT YEARS: OPPOSITION TO THE GEN- 
 ERAL POLICY OF RESERVATION 254 
 
 Opposition to the General Policy of Reservation; Interference with the Develop- 
 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 
 Western Forests for the Eastern Forests: Objection to an "Alien Government." 
 
 CHAPTER IX: HOSTILITY TO THE NATIONAL FORESTS 
 IN RECENT YEARS (continued): CRITICISM OF THE 
 FOREST SERVICE 284 
 
 The "Insolvency" of the National Forests and Alleged Extravagance 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: Cooperation 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 315 
 
 Concentration of Ownership in Terms of Board Feet: Acreage 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 . 334 
 
 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: Government Regulation of Lumber Prices: 
 Increased Government Ownership of Standing Timber. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII: CONCLUSION . . . . . .369 
 
 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 . 378 
 
 INDEX 387 
 
THE UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 OUR FORESTS PREVIOUS TO 1878; THE PERIOD OF 
 
 BEGINNINGS 
 
 THE EARLY SETTLERS AND THE FORESTS 
 
 The 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. 1 
 
 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 
 
 i In 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: Bui. 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. 2 
 
 There appeared in a few instances, even on the part of the early 
 settlers themselves, indications of some regard for the future timber 
 supply. 3 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 1632, 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 1638 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. 
 
 s Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, 1885: Bui. 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 
 
 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 
 lands. 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 m 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. 4 
 
 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. 5 
 
 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. 
 
 4 Fernow, "Economics of Forestry," 369 et seq. : Proceedings, Am. Forestry 
 Congress, 1885, 58. 
 
 s Bui. 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 
 for 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- 
 dent to provide for twelve more war ships. 
 
 The building of the vessels authorized by these early acts served to 
 impress upon government officials the necessity of making provision 
 for a future supply of timber for defense, and, by an act of 1799, 
 Congress appropriated $200,000 for the purchase and reservation of 
 timber or timber lands suitable for the navy. c Florida and Louisiana 
 contained 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. 7 
 
 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 
 1817, authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to explore and select 
 tracts 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. 8 
 
 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 
 territory were being wasted and destroyed by trespassers, an act was 
 secured in 1822, empowering the President to use the land and naval 
 forces of the United States to prevent these depredations. Three 
 years later, however, an agent of the government, appointed to in- 
 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 
 
 e Stat. 1, 622. 
 
 7 Hough, 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 Law in America," Ch. VII. 
 
 s Stat. 3, 347. 
 
24 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 land, and the planting of trees on land already owned by the govern- 
 ment. 9 
 
 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. 10 
 
 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 1 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 applying to the entire domain 
 and to all kinds of timber. 11 
 
 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." 12 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 
 
 s Kinney, "Forest Law in America," 236-239. 
 
 io Hough, "Report on Forestry," III, 330: Stat. 4, 242, 256. 
 
 ii 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 
 
 value on some of the tracts. The result was that in 1843 Congress 
 opened some of the lands to settlement, and in 1853 the cedar lands 
 which had been reserved in Clarke County, Alabama, were opened to 
 sale. 13 
 
 The development of iron ships subsequent to the Civil War rendered 
 wood almost obsolete for shipbuilding, and in 1879 Congress author- 
 ized the restoration of all reserves in Florida which were no longer 
 needed for naval purposes. A similar act affecting all tracts in Ala- 
 bama and Mississippi was passed in 1895. Certain small tracts in 
 Louisiana are still held by the national government in the status of 
 naval reserves. 14 
 
 While these were thus naval reservations, related to the king's forest 
 policy of colonial times rather than to the forest reserve policy of 
 later years, yet they are of sufficient importance to merit brief treat- 
 ment for several reasons. In the first place, they showed a disposition 
 to conserve a natural resource of which future scarcity was appre- 
 hended. If naval construction had not, in the sixties, turned to iron 
 ships, these early reservations might now be recognized as marking 
 out a policy of the greatest importance. In the second place, it was 
 in connection with these reserves that the first laws were passed for 
 the protection of timber on the public domain, the law of 1831 being 
 the ruling statute on the subject of timber depredations down to the 
 present time. Furthermore, the first appropriations for protecting 
 timber lands were closely connected with these naval reserves, for in 
 1872 the first appropriation, of $5000, for the protection of timber 
 lands, was made in the naval appropriation act. 15 
 
 GENERAL INDIFFERENCE IN THE EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD 
 
 These early forest reserves are thus seen to have been of little impor- 
 tance and of little significance as to the attitude of the country toward 
 
 is Stat. 5, 611; 10, 259. Mr. Hough, in his report, states that a total of 244,452 
 acres 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- 
 crepancy, and is unable, from any sources at his disposal, to ascertain whether Mr. 
 Hough was correct in his figures or not. (Hough, "Report on Forestry," I, 11: 
 Kinney, "Forest Law in America," 240.) 
 
 a Stat. 20, 470; 28, 814. See also S. 196; 50 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 is 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 supplies 
 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 
 $161,500,273, produced a total product valued at $252,339,029 — 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. 16 
 
 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 
 
 very 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 
 building, will soon become extinct upon the islands of Georgia." 17 
 
 In 1839, a very interesting paper was issued by Romero, minister 
 of the interior at Mexico, on the subject of forestry. He said that the 
 republic 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- 
 criminate destruction of wood and timber, and restricting cutting to 
 the owners of the land. 18 
 
 A book published in Boston in 1830 contains the following: "The 
 indiscriminate clearings of the agricultural settlers and the conflagra- 
 tions which occasionally take place, are the causes which in a few 
 centuries may render North America no longer an exporting country 
 for timber." 19 In 1832, J. D. Brown, in his "Sylva Americana," wrote : 
 "Though vast tracts of our soil are still veiled from the eye of day by 
 primeval forests, the best materials for building are nearly exhausted. 
 And 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 fift} 7 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." 20 
 
 In 1837, 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. 
 is Hittel, "History of California," II, 364. 
 
 is "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. 21 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, Andre 
 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. 
 
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." 22 
 
 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 
 us, or as we lend our influence to continue and accelerate the waste- 
 ful destruction everywhere at work in our beautiful state." 23 In 1868, 
 George P. Marsh published his famous work on "Man and Nature," in 
 which he discusses at great length the effects of forest destruction 
 upon climate, rainfall, and floods. 24 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 ; 25 and about 
 the same time N. U. Beckwith wrote in the Canadian Monthly of the 
 "habitual, wicked, insane waste of lumber" in Canada. 26 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, 27 
 while in a western state, arbor day was celebrated for the first time at 
 
 22Coultas, Harland, "What May be Learned from a Tree," 179: H. Doc. 181; 
 55 Cong. 3 sess., 168. 
 
 23 Michigan, House Documents, No. 6, 1867. 
 
 24 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. 
 
30 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 the instance of Governor Morton of Nebraska. 28 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 
 
 2s 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 
 
 Madeira Islands) for the sake of the 'madeira,' (building material), 
 these islands have become hotbeds of disease. The valley of the Gua- 
 dalquivir, as late as a century before the discovery of America, sup- 
 ported a population of 7,000,000 of probably the healthiest and hap- 
 piest men of Southern Europe. Since the live oak and chestnut groves 
 of the surrounding heights have disappeared, this population has 
 shrunk to a million and a quarter of sickly wretches, who depend for 
 their sustenance on the scant produce of sandy barrens that become 
 sandier and drier from year to year." 29 A book on "Forests and Mois- 
 ture, or Effects of Forests on Humidity of Climate," by a Scotch 
 writer, John C. Brown, appeared in Edinburgh in 1877 ; and this book 
 contained an elaborate discussion of the effects of forests on climate, 
 citing certain observations made in Central Park, New York. These 
 observations did not show any decrease in rainfall with the decrease in 
 the surrounding forests. This book also referred to the claim made by 
 certain commissioners in Maine, that the water in streams was dimin- 
 ishing, and that the amount of snow and rain was decreasing with the 
 destruction of the forests. 
 
 INTEREST SHOWN BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS 
 
 Several government officials saw the need of forest protection. In 
 1849, the report of the Commissioner of Patents contained the proph- 
 ecy: "The waste of valuable timber in the United States will hardly 
 begin to be appreciated until our population reaches 50,000,000. 
 Then the folly and short-sightedness of this age will meet with a 
 degree of censure and reproach not pleasant to contemplate." 30 The 
 report of the same office for 1860 contained an article by J. G. Cooper, 
 in which the effect of forests on climate and health was discussed at 
 length. 31 This, it may be noted, was a favorite theme with conserva- 
 tionists of the time, the effects of forests on climate, and especially on 
 rainfall, being often exaggerated. 
 
 In 1866, the Commissioner of the Land Office, Joseph M. Wilson, 
 declared that the supply of timber in the Lake states was "so dimin- 
 
 29 Popular Science Monthly, Aug., 1877, 385. 
 
 30 Report, Com'r of Patents, 1849, Pt. II, 41. Cited in Fernow, "Economics of 
 Forestry," 374. 
 
 si 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. 32 
 
 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 Pacific Coast 
 states. 33 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. 34 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 
 
 32 Reports, Land Office, 1866, 33; 1867, 131, 135; 1868, 173-199, 190, 191. 
 
 33 H. Ex. Doc. 207; 41 Cong. 2 sess., 342. 
 
 34 Report, Land Office, 1872, 26, 27. 
 
THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 33 
 
 account of the forestry exhibit at the exposition, and an appeal for 
 better methods in the United States. 
 
 STATE. ACTION 
 
 Several of the states early evinced an interest in forest problems. 
 In 1867, commissioners were appointed in Wisconsin to "ascertain 
 and report in detail to the legislature certain facts and opinions 
 relating to the injurious effects of clearing the land of forests upon 
 the climate; the evil consequences to the present and future inhabi- 
 tants, the duty of the state in regard to the matter ; what experiments 
 should 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 
 persons desirous of preserving and increasing the growth of forest 
 and 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 
 most 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, in which they claimed to have noticed 
 unfavorable changes in climate due to the destruction of the forests. 
 In 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 
 the legislature a bill providing for timber culture. 
 
 In 1869, the Maine Board of Agriculture appointed a committee 
 to present to the legislature suggestions as to a forest policy, and to 
 call the attention of Congress to the subject. 35 The question of forest 
 conservation had been discussed in New York even during the time of 
 
 35 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. 36 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. 37 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. 38 
 
 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. 39 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- 
 
 ^ 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 Ibid. 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. 
 
 39 S. Ex. Doc. 28 ; 43 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 35 
 
 fornia, Professor J. S. Newberry and Lewis Morgan of New York, 
 Professor William H. Brewer of New Haven, Charles Whittlesby of 
 Cleveland, Ohio, and Professor E. W. Hilgard of Ann Arbor. At a 
 preliminary meeting in Boston, a sub-committee composed of George 
 B. Emerson and F. B. Hough was appointed to give personal atten- 
 tion to the matter. After much deliberation and consultation with sev- 
 eral members of Congress, with the Secretary of the Interior, the 
 Commissioner of the Land Office, and even with the President, this sub- 
 committee adopted a memorial to Congress, calling for a commission 
 of inquiry. The response to this memorial will be noted later. (See 
 page 42.) 
 
 EARLY INTEREST IN TIMBER CULTURE 
 
 It may seem strange that interest should have developed regarding 
 the planting of new trees before there was any general interest in the 
 preservation of forests already grown ; but without doubt the matter 
 of tree planting was of greater interest in the early seventies than any 
 other subject relating to forestry. 
 
 In forested states and regions, interest in timber protection was 
 naturally slow to develop. In those sections of the country where most 
 of the timber was gone, as for instance in New England, considerable 
 interest had arisen, but even here forest preservation occupied a less 
 conspicuous place than forest planting, in the minds of many conser- 
 vationists. Thus the prizes offered by the Massachusetts Society for 
 the Promotion of Agriculture very early in the century, were for 
 forest plantations, not for conspicuous service in the preservation of 
 forests. R. U. Piper's appeal referred to above was mainly for the 
 planting of trees rather than for protection. So also was the appeal 
 of Commissioner Wilson, and the most of the agitation during the 
 early period. 
 
 In forested regions where a large supply of timber still existed, as 
 for instance in the West and in some parts of the Lake states, there 
 was, of course, very little general interest in forest preservation ; and 
 even where the supply of timber was observed to be disappearing 
 rapidly and some public interest was aroused, timber companies were 
 strong enough politically to block any important protective legisla- 
 tion. Furthermore, 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 1883, 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: Bui. 24, Bureau of Forestry, Vol. II, 66. 
 
THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 37 
 
 STATE TIMBER CULTURE LAWS 
 
 A Minnesota act of 1867 appropriated three hundred dollars to 
 enable the state agricultural society to offer premiums for the best 
 five acres of cultivated timber or for the best continuous half mile of 
 live hedge fence ; but Kansas passed the first general timber culture 
 act in 1868, offering a bounty of $2 per acre for timber successfully 
 cultivated for three years. Wisconsin followed with a similar law the 
 same year, while Iowa passed a law providing for a tax exemption for 
 ten years for every acre so planted. During the following decade, laws 
 providing either bounty or tax exemption were passed in the follow- 
 ing states : Nebraska and New York (1869) ; Missouri (1870) ; Min- 
 nesota (1871); Maine (1872); Nevada (1873); Illinois (1874); 
 Dakota, Connecticut, Wyoming and Washington (1877) ; Massachu- 
 setts and Rhode Island (1878). During the same period a number of 
 state laws were passed to foster the planting of trees along highways. 
 The net result of all timber culture was very small, however, and many 
 of the laws were soon repealed. 41 
 
 TREE PLANTING BY THE RAILROADS 
 
 Interest in the subject of tree planting is shown, not only by the 
 state legislation, but also by the activity of various railroads in such 
 experiments. In 1870, the Kansas Pacific Railroad began experiments 
 at three stations, but soon gave them up. 42 In the same year, the St. 
 Paul & Pacific Railroad began experiments in the prairie districts 
 along its course. In 1872, the Burlington & Missouri River Railroad 
 Company of Nebraska planted trees along the Platte River. In 1873, 
 the St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad began experiments, and in the 
 same year the Santa Fe established three nurseries in Kansas. In 
 1875, the Northern Pacific, and two years later the Southern Pacific, 
 decided on a similar policy. The Illinois Central, the Kansas City, 
 Fort Scott & Gulf, the Missouri Pacific, and other roads also con- 
 ducted experiments in tree planting. 43 The purpose of the railroads 
 
 4i Hough, "Report on Forestry," I, 205, 206, 213: Proceedings, Am. Forestry- 
 Congress, 1885, 61: Kinney, "Forest Law in America." 
 
 42 Hough, "Report on Forestry," I, 118-122. 
 
 43 Fourth Biennial Report, Cal. State Board of Forestry, 1891-92: Forest 
 Bui, 1. 
 
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 
 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. 44 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, 45 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. Bee, Dec. 2, 1878, 6. 
 
 45 Fernow, "Economics of Forestry," 459, Appendix. See also Corapton, "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 — under 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. iG 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. 47 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 ; 48 
 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. 49 
 
 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 Ibid., 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." 50 
 
 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, Representative, 
 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. 51 
 
 Of course, the $5000 appropriated for timber protection 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. 52 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 
 
 so Warren, "The Pioneer Woodsman as he is Related to Lumbering in the 
 Northwest," 58. 
 
 si 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. 53 
 
 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, 54 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. 55 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 Congress, 
 even at this early date. 56 
 
 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. 57 Representa- 
 tive Dunnell of Minnesota, of the Committee on Public Lands, made a 
 long report favoring the proposition, 58 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. 59 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, 
 etc. 60 This appropriation was a result of the agitation by the Ameri- 
 
 53 Stat. 17, 359. 
 
 54 S. 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. 
 
 MCong. Globe, Apr. 17, 1872, 2504; Apr. 30, 2925-2929. 
 
 57 H. R. 2497; 43 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 ss H. Rept. 259. 
 
 59 H. R. 1310; 44 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 eo Stat. 19, 167. 
 
THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 43 
 
 can Society for the Advancement of Science, and Dr. F. B. Hough of 
 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, 61 and late the same 
 year, the first volume was completed. 62 Congress evinced further in- 
 terest in the matter by ordering 25,000 copies of the report for dis- 
 tribution. 63 
 
 THE TIMBER CULTURE ACT 
 
 The Timber Culture Act of 1873, 64 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. 65 The same year, Senator Harris 
 of New York introduced a bill "to promote the growth of forest trees 
 on public lands" ; 66 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. 67 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 
 a certain number of trees," and this resolution was agreed to. 68 
 
 It was a Nebraska man, Senator Hitchcock, who introduced the 
 
 6i Cong. Rec, Feb. 23, 1877, 1881. 
 
 62 F. B. Hough, "Report on Forestry." Professor Sargent criticised this report 
 severely. Nation, Jan., 1879, 87. 
 " 63 Cong. Rec, Apr. 3, 1878, 2255. 
 64 Stat. 17, 605. 
 €5S. 228; 39 Cong. 1 sess.; Cong. Globe, 1588. 
 
 66 S. 396; 39 Cong. 1 sess.; Cong. Globe, 3427, 3782. 
 
 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. 
 
 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. 69 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. 71 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. 72 Amendment was accomplished the 
 following year, covering the defects above noted. 73 
 
 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. 
 
 "o 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. 
 
 7i Cong. Globe, June 10, 1872, 4463, 4464: H. R. 66; 43 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 T2 Cong. Bee, 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, 74 the chief amendment being a reduction in the 
 amount of timber required from forty to ten acres — a considerable 
 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 
 later connection. Suffice it to say here, that the law never had any 
 appreciable 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 
 domain adjacent to the sources of the navigable rivers and other 
 streams of the United States." 70 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 
 conservation, during the same time other factors of a different variety 
 appeared, factors whose pernicious influence can only now be fully 
 appreciated. 
 
 i*8tat. 19, 54; 20, 113. 
 
 75 H. 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. 76 This act, with 
 subsequent enactments, was the means of divesting the United States 
 of over 63,000,000 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. 77 
 
 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. 78 
 
 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 47 
 
 up by other large companies. Very little reclamation was ever accom- 
 plished, and railroad and canal construction was often only "color- 
 able," the grants being secured, not by bona fide fulfillment of the 
 terms of the grant, but fraudulently, through control of the state 
 legislatures. 79 
 
 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 
 100,000,000 acres, some of it timber land, found its way into the 
 hands of private owners and beyond the reach of conservation meas- 
 ures. In at least one state, there seems to have been a lack of good 
 faith 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. 80 Some of the states sold direct to the 
 lumbermen, without limitation as to amount. Others allowed entries 
 only in limited amounts to persons alleging intent to settle and taking 
 oath 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 
 violation of them, large holdings of timber lands were built up from 
 state lands. Of course, such of the state lands as were real agricul- 
 tural lands were, for the most part, taken up by bona fide settlers, 
 but that has not been the usual history of timber lands. 81 
 
 79 "Lumber Industry," I, 244, citations in footnotes; III, 198-207, 223-236: 
 Palmer, "Swamp Land Drainage," Univ. of Minnesota, "Studies in the Social 
 Sciences," No. 5. 
 
 so Report, Land Office, 1908, 16. See also Orfield, "Federal Land Grants"; Univ. 
 of Minnesota, "Studies in the Social Sciences," No. 2. 
 
 si In California one holder, Thomas B. Walker of Minneapolis, in later years 
 acquired about 100,000 acres of state lands, while three other holders together 
 secured 65,000 acres. In Idaho the Potlatch Lumber Company acquired the timber 
 rights on over 77,000 acres of state lands. In Oregon two large timber holdings 
 were later found to consist almost entirely of state school lands in sections 16 and 
 36. A few of the states, it should be said, displayed some traces of wisdom in deal- 
 ing with their lands. Thus, Minnesota retained nearly one third of her total grant 
 of 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 $27/100,000 ; while the mineral 
 rights on the ore lands will, it is estimated, bring the state a very large sum — just 
 how much no one knows. The state of Washington still retains from its grants a 
 very large body of valuable timber lands, and Montana and Idaho hold smaller 
 amounts. ("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 3,000,000 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. 
 
 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 Preemption 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. 82 
 
 Preemption rights had been recognized in certain cases even as 
 early as 1799, but the general Preemption Act dates from 1841 . 83 
 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 Preemption 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 Preemption Law and the commutation 
 clause of the Homestead Act, in promoting the alienation of timber 
 
 82 Stat. 19, 377. 
 
 ss Stat. 1, 728; 5, 453. 
 
THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 49 
 
 lands and the destruction of public timber, was the Desert Land Act 
 of 1877, yet it must be mentioned here because it was sometimes used 
 by timbermen. The process under this act was to make entry, with no 
 intention of acquiring title, strip the land of its timber, and move on 
 to other fields. 84 
 
 Another factor of considerable influence upon the public timber 
 land was the system of land bounties for military service. Under vari- 
 ous acts, warrants were issued for a total of over 61,000,000 acres of 
 land. By the provisions of the earlier acts the warrants were unassign- 
 able; but in 1852 Congress passed an act making them assignable, 
 and 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 
 up by private holders. 85 
 
 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 
 South. Since there was no limit to the amount of land which could be 
 acquired under the laws for public sale and private entry, those laws 
 were used a great deal by timbermen wherever timber land was obtain- 
 able under their provisions. 86 
 
 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 
 Civil War, in order to preserve homesteads for the negro freedmen, 
 Congress had passed a law providing that in Alabama, Mississippi, 
 Louisiana, Arkansas and Florida, lands should be disposed of only 
 under the provisions of the Homestead Act. 87 This law affected much 
 of the finest timber in the country, since much of the southern land 
 was wholly unfit for cultivation, and therefore could not be taken up 
 under the Homestead Act. Of course, such a provision could not long 
 withstand the demands of the timbermen. 
 
 s* Report, Land Office, 1881, 377. 
 85 "Lumber Industry," I, 258. 
 
 wlbid.,- I, 185, 256-258; II, 147-149; III, 197, 213, 214: Report, Land Office, 
 1868, 93; 1872, 26; 1873, 12. 
 87 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. 88 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- 
 
 ssCong. Globe, Feb. 11, 1871, 1157: S. 2; 44 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 51 
 
 try: "Iron men will not invest their money in furnaces, unless they 
 can first secure large bodies of coal lands, and they cannot be had 
 there unless Congress passes the bill now under consideration." 
 
 Opposition to the bill came largely, of course, from the eastern 
 states, although a few scattered voices were heard from various parts 
 of the country. Senator Edmunds of Vermont, one of the earliest 
 conservationists in Congress, was strongly opposed to the policy of 
 selling valuable timber lands in unlimited quantities for $1.25 per 
 acre. "That sort of thing," he declared, "does not do the community 
 in which the lands are, any sort of good ; it does not do the public any 
 good, because the actual amount of revenue derived from these public 
 sales is, of course, very small." The bill, as first proposed, provided 
 for sale at $1.25 per acre, but Senator Edmunds offered an amend- 
 ment providing that the land must first be offered at public auction. 
 The idea of this amendment was, of course, to secure something like 
 the real value of the land, but several of the southern men opposed it 
 on the ground that the offering of lands at public auction involved a 
 considerable expense and loss of time, while the price realized was 
 never more than $1.25 per acre, anyhow. This amendment was finally 
 accepted, however. Senator Ingalls of Kansas pointed out a rather 
 glaring inconsistency in the attitude of the southern men, who were 
 enlarging upon the great need for this law, and upon the great 
 demand there was for the land to be opened up, while in the next 
 breath they stated that the land would never be worth over $1.25 
 per acre. 
 
 The opposition was based on various grounds. Senator Edmunds 
 thought that the price was too low, and probably he did not favor 
 sale, anyhow. Senator Oglesby of Illinois, and Representatives Hol- 
 man of Indiana and Brown of Kansas clung to the idea of settlement 
 under the Homestead Act, as representatives of prairie states nat- 
 urally might. They did not see that timber lands and agricultural 
 lands present two entirely different problems and that their dispo- 
 sition involves entirely different principles. The Homestead Act was 
 the only law which should ever have been passed for the disposition of 
 ordinary agricultural lands ; but it was wholly unsuited to timber 
 lands. 
 
 The 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. 
 "I 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 quantities 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 320 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 
 
 marked on every page of the history of the effete and extinct nations 
 of the world; in the impoverishment of the land, and in the waste of 
 the resources of nature for the support of animal life, which goes on 
 today in every section of the country. ... I am of those who believe 
 that nothing which has been granted by nature is more essential to 
 the comfort, to the health, to the prosperity, and to the increase of 
 the human race, except the preservation of the soil itself, than the 
 preservation of the forests. This bill is a proposition to invite all the 
 speculators and adventurers of the country 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 
 needs of posterity. "Mr. President," he announced, "I am, as well 
 as my judgment informs me, ready to labor by the side of the Senator 
 from Massachusetts for the welfare of the government today, and of 
 the generation now existing; but, when he calls upon us to embark 
 very heavily in the protection of generations yet unborn, I am very 
 much inclined to reply that they have never done anything for me, 
 and I do not want to sacrifice too much." Senator Windom of Minne- 
 sota thought that only sale of the lands could ever secure their pro- 
 tection, 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 
 Egypt." 
 
 After some debate, Senator Boutwell's amendment was rejected, 
 and the bill itself passed both houses, the South voting almost unani- 
 mously in favor of it. 89 Thus Congress opened up to sale vast tracts 
 of the rich yellow pine forests of the South, and during the latter 
 eighties these lands were rapidly taken up by timbermen and specu- 
 lators. 
 
 RAILROAD LAND GRANTS 
 
 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 
 be given, for the railroad land grants were the most important factor 
 
 8 9 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. 90 
 
 The importance of the railroad grants as a means of timber land 
 alienation was augmented by the passage of the Indemnity Act of 
 
 so "Lumber Industry," I, Ch. VI. 
 
THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 55 
 
 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. 91 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 1835, 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. 92 
 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 
 
 MStat. 18, 194. 
 
 MStat. 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 Preemption 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. 93 The Homestead and Preemption 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 scrip 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. 94 
 
 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 
 
 9 3 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 57 
 
 discourage timber stealing, those wanting timber sought other means 
 of acquiring it. The result was the passage of the. Free Timber Act 
 and the Timber and Stone Act. The former provided free timber for 
 settlers, and the latter provided for sale of the lands. 
 
 As long as the law against timber cutting was not enforced, there 
 had been no need for a free timber law, but when the policy of law 
 enforcement was inaugurated, the response of the West was fairly 
 prompt. As early as 1869, Representative Johnson of California had 
 introduced a bill for the relief of persons taking timber from the pub- 
 lic lands, 95 but the bill made no headway, and Congress gave little 
 evidence of interest in the matter for several years. In 1876 and in 
 1878, Chaffee of Colorado introduced bills into the Senate: "Author- 
 izing citizens of Colorado, Nevada and the Territories to fell and 
 remove timber on the public domain for mining and domestic pur- 
 poses" ; 96 and in the latter year, by the help of Senator Sargent of 
 California, got one of his measures through the Senate without diffi- 
 culty. In the House, Patterson of Colorado, Page of California, and 
 Maginnis of Montana pushed the bill through, although not until 
 Fort of Illinois compelled them to agree to an amendment giving the 
 Secretary of the Interior control over the licenses to cut timber. As 
 thus amended, Chaffee's bill passed with very little opposition, and 
 became a law on June 3, 1878. 97 Some time before Chaffee's bill was. 
 signed, Representative Wren of Nevada introduced a similar bill into 
 the House, but it received no attention. 98 
 
 Before this bill reached the House, however, a provision had been 
 enacted as a rider to a special appropriation bill, which accomplished, 
 in the territories of the United States, practically the same thing, for 
 one year. To the clause appropriating $7000 for investigating land 
 entries, a proviso was attached, that where timber lands were not sur- 
 veyed and offered for public sale, none of the money appropriated 
 should be used to collect a charge for timber cut for the use of actual 
 settlers. 99 Much of the land had not been surveyed, and very little in 
 the West had been offered for sale, so that the appropriation made for 
 
 95 H. R. 563; 41 Cong. 2 sess.; Cong. Globe, p. 98. 
 
 96 S. 1078; 44 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 20; 45 Cong. 1 sess. 
 9T Cong. Bee, May 9, 1878, 3328: Stat. 20, 88. 
 szCong. Bee, 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 3, 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, It. 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." 100 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. 101 
 
 ioo H. Ex. Doc. 207; 41 Cong. 2 sess., 343. 
 ioi 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 
 would provide the best protection. 102 Even the committee of the Asso- 
 ciation for the Advancement of Science appointed in 1873, reported: 
 "We 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 
 government could not undertake the management of forests, because 
 the officers would be politicians instead of foresters; yet he spoke 
 favorably of the Canadian system of retaining the land and selling 
 stumpage. 103 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. 104 
 
 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. 105 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 
 various 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. 
 
 io*Cong. Bee, Feb. 2, 1876, 8i6-818; Feb. 7, 906 5 Feb. i\, 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. 106 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. 107 
 
 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. 108 
 
 ice S. 379; 38 Cong. 2 sess.; Cong. Globe, Feb. 16, 1865, 811: H. R. 2930, H. R. 
 3005; 41 Cong. 3 se^s.: H. R. 274; 42 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Globe, Feb. 11, 1871, 1158: 
 H. R. 3101; 42 Coi\g. 3 sess.: H. R. 410, S. 471; 43 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 4430; 43 
 Cong. 2 sess.: H. RA323, 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. 
 
 lor Cong. Bee, Fe.fr. 16, 1876, 1101.; Feb. 21, 1187-1189. 
 
 los Cong. Rec, Fejj. 22, 1875, 1597, 1598; Apr. 18, 1878, 2640; Apr. 25, 1878, 
 2842; May 11, 1878, 3:187, 3388. 
 
THE PERIOD OF BEGINNINGS 61 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 Thus it appears that at the end of the year 1878, most of the fac- 
 tors which were to determine the fate of our American forests were 
 already at work. Some steps had been taken in the direction of con- 
 servation. A few private individuals, associations and societies had 
 evinced considerable interest in the matter. Some of the states had 
 taken a few wobbly steps in the direction of forest protection and for- 
 est planting; while the Federal government had appropriated funds 
 for protection and investigation, and had made an unsuccessful 
 attempt at timber culture. These factors must not be given too much 
 emphasis, however. Conservation sentiment, although destined to grow 
 in influence within the next few decades, had as yet acquired little 
 momentum; and in 1878, it seemed to be developing less rapidly than 
 the anti-conservation spirit which had arisen to meet it. State action 
 had been generally ineffective, Federal efforts vacillating and often 
 futile, and all tree planting worse than a failure. 
 
 Forces unfavorable to conservation had on the other hand attained 
 formidable 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 Preemption, 
 Commutation Homestead, Desert Land, Public Sale, and Private 
 Entry 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 
 completed 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 
 
 Before 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 3, 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. 1 
 
 THE FREE TIMBER ACT, PROVISIONS AND INTERPRETATION 
 
 The Free Timber Act of 1878 2 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 
 
 i Nevada was the only state to which both acts applied. 
 2 Stat. 20, 88. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 63 
 
 might prescribe for the protection of the timber, "and for other 
 purposes." 
 
 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- 
 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. 3 
 
 The law was not only ambiguous but, strictly interpreted, would 
 have applied to a very small portion of the public timber lands. 4 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, 
 and known to be so." 6 In a later decision of the Supreme Court, Justice 
 Peckham said : "The right to cut is exceptional and narrow. . . . The 
 broad general rule is against the right. The presumption in the 
 absence of evidence is that the cutting is illegal." 7 
 
 These decisions were made later than the period under considera- 
 tion, so, of course, were not yet binding, but they differed little from 
 
 3 "Land Decisions," I, 600: U. S. vs. Smith; 11 Fed. Rep., 487; U. S. vs. Benja- 
 min; 21 Fed. Rep., 285. 
 
 4 Report, Sec. of Int., 1878, XIII. 
 
 s Donaldson, "Public Domain," 543. 
 s Davis vs. Weibold; 139 U. S., 507, 519. 
 
 7 No. Pac. R. R. Co. vs. Lewis; 162 U. S., 366, 376. See also U. S. vs. Reed; 12 
 Sawyer, 99, 104; and U. S. vs. Plowman; 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." 8 
 
 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. 9 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 ; 10 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. 11 
 
 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. 12 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- 
 
 & Report, Land Office, 1878, 119. 
 
 9 Ibid. 
 
 io Cross Reference, p. 63. 
 
 ii 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 
 
 ber was cut, describing the land carefully and stating the evidence 
 upon which it was claimed to be mineral, etc. The manager was for- 
 bidden to sell any timber or lumber without taking from the purchaser 
 a written agreement that it would not be used except for the purposes 
 allowed by the act. Every purchaser was required to file a certificate 
 under oath that he was purchasing the timber or lumber exclusively 
 for his own use, and for the purposes enumerated. To make enforce- 
 ment easier, the books, files, and records of the mill men were required 
 to be open to the inspection of the officers and agents of the depart- 
 ment ; while, to prevent waste and fire destruction, mill owners were 
 required to utilize all of each tree that could profitably be used, and 
 to remove the tops and brush. 
 
 EVIL EFFECTS 
 
 Unfortunately, the enforcement of these regulations was generally 
 very lax. A force of from fifteen to fifty-five special agents 13 could not 
 protect several hundred million acres of timber land, even when the 
 administration favored law enforcement, and in years when the admin- 
 istration did not favor that policy, very little could be expected. 
 Wealthy companies employed large forces of men to cut and remove 
 the timber, little if any attention being paid to the character of the 
 land, or to the size of the trees. Millions of dollars worth of timber was 
 reported to have been used in the Comstock mines between 1870 and 
 1893, some of it taken under the provisions of the Free Timber Act. 
 In 1887, suit was pending against one man in Colorado for 39,000 
 cords of wood alleged to have been cut from non-mineral lands. Timber 
 was taken, not only by lumbermen and by mining companies, but by 
 smelting companies, which found charcoal combined with coke a 
 quicker means of smelting than coke alone, and cleared vast tracts, 
 sometimes, it is stated, burning over large tracts in order to get the 
 dead timber, and then selling charcoal in the public market. Along the 
 Colorado Midland Railway, long stretches of mountainsides were 
 cleared of their forests, and later the charcoal kilns in the vicinity 
 were deserted because of the exhaustion of the supply of wood. 14 
 
 is Reports, Sec. of Int., 1879, 26; 1890, 80. 
 
 14 Report, Land Office, 1888, 54: Forestry Division, Bui. 2, 1889: Proceedings, 
 Am. Forestry Assoc, 1891-92-93, 132: Report, Sec. of Int., 1887, 566, 567: Arbori- 
 culture, 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." 15 Secretary Schurz foresaw the same results. 
 "It 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." 16 
 
 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." 1 ' 
 
 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, 18 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," XXIX, 572: Com- 
 pilation of Public Timber Laws, 1903, 91-93.) 
 
 is Report, Sec. of Int., 1878, XIII. 
 
 is Ibid., XIV. 
 
 " Ibid., 1879, 28. 
 
 is H. Ex. Doc. 46; 46 Cong. 2 sess., XXXII, XXXIII: Report, Sec. of Int., 
 1881, 13. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 67 
 
 lowing its passage, no change in Congress to justify a hope that it 
 would be repealed. It is true that the idea of forest conservation was 
 spreading, but in Congress, especially in the Senate, the opposing 
 forces gained considerable strength in the late eighties and 1890 by 
 the admission of several new western states : North and South Dakota 
 (1889), Montana (1889), Washington (1889), Idaho (1890), and 
 Wyoming (1890). Most of these new states could usually be counted 
 upon to vote against conservation measures. 
 
 During the eighties there was little agitation regarding this par- 
 ticular act, Congress being largely engrossed in a general overhaul- 
 ing of other public land laws, particularly the Preemption, Timber 
 Culture, Desert Land, and Commutation Homestead laws ; yet a few 
 bills relating specifically to free timber appeared, and all of them 
 favored a more liberal policy. In 1880, Representative Downey of 
 Wyoming introduced a bill to extend the Free Timber Act to all pub- 
 lic lands regardless of their mineral character, but the bill was never 
 reported. 19 Several years later, Representative Symes of Colorado 
 attempted to amend the Free Timber Act, and Senator Teller (for- 
 merly Secretary of the Interior) made several similar efforts, one of 
 his measures passing the Senate in 1888. 20 
 
 Of a type entirely different from these bills was the conservation 
 measure introduced by Representative Holman of Indiana in 1887. 21 
 This bill contained a provision that all timber lands should be classi- 
 fied as such, and the timber sold to the highest bidder at not less than 
 appraised value, in tracts of not more than forty acres. This provision 
 was intended to secure for the government something like the real 
 value of the timber, but Smith of Arizona immediately offered an 
 amendment providing free use of any timber not of commercial value, 
 apparently fearing that the bill would curtail free timber privileges ; 
 and this amendment passed without opposition. It was fairly clear 
 that free timber was not likely to be taken from the "poor settler" 
 and miner until Congress experienced a change of heart. 
 
 While it was thus clear that Congress would not abridge the privi- 
 
 19 H. R. 6340; 46 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 20 H. R. 6709, S. 2510, S. 2877; 50 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 1394; 51 Cong. 1 sess. See 
 also Report, Land Office, 1890, 82. 
 
 2i H. R. 7901 ; 50 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
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 Preemption 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." 22 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." 23 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 S. Journal, Sept. 16, 1890, 524: Cong. Bee, 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 
 
 carried on. That manufacturing consists principally in manufactur- 
 ing lumber which is made into cradles to rock the children, shingles 
 and roofs to cover the heads of the citizens, coffins in which to bury 
 the dead, and lumber in the various forms which the necessities of 
 civilized 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- 
 cally are like my own, to get timber land or timber for nothing; but 
 the 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 
 1200 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 
 may be supplied and provided for by law, may be supplied without 
 subjecting the persons to a criminal prosecution or to civil action." 
 Senator Sanders was very bitter in his denunciation of the efforts of 
 the government to suppress timber stealing, and he spoke of the 
 government 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 
 vengeance that we owe to this entire community for having cut this 
 timber.' " 
 
 One reason why the western men felt that they were entitled to free 
 timber, even for manufacturing purposes, was that forest fires were 
 destroying immense amounts of timber each year anyhow, and there 
 was 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 
 by their services in helping to put out fires ; but it is doubtful whether 
 most people in the West had performed any very important function 
 in protecting the forests in this way. 
 
 Sanders' amendment encountered very little opposition in the 
 Senate, except that of Senator Edmunds, and finally passed with 
 only three opposing votes, those of Edmunds, Quay of Pennsylvania, 
 and Spooner of Wisconsin. In the next session, the amendment was 
 agreed to by the House, but President Harrison refused to sign it 
 until 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. 24 Upon its passage, the original amend- 
 ment became law on March 3, 1891. 25 
 
 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 
 of 1878— the Timber and Stone Act. 
 
 THE TIMBER AND STONE ACT: PROVISIONS 
 
 The Timber and Stone Act, 26 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, 27 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. 28 
 
 24 Gong. Bee, Sept. 16, 1890, 10094: S. 5129; Cong. Bee, Mar. 3, 1891, 3894. 
 
 25 Stat. 26, 1095. 
 
 26 Stat. 20, 89. 
 
 27 Stat. 4, 472. 
 
 28 Beport, 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 
 
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, 29 
 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 generous enough, without the 
 additional gift of a patent to the lands. 30 
 
 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. 31 
 
 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 repealthe 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. 
 
 so 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.) 
 
 3i 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." 32 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 unoffered lands shut out practically all of the timber lands 
 of the South, which had been offered under the act of 1876. 33 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, 34 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, 35 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. 30 
 
 It is true that some of the regulations provided in the act seemed 
 
 32 Stat. 20, 229. 
 
 33 Cross Reference, pp. 40-53. 
 
 34 Report, Sec. of Int., 1878, 134. 
 
 35 "Lumber Industry," I, 263. 
 
 36 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 225. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 73 
 
 to indicate a desire to secure honest administration. The applicant 
 was required to file with the register a "sworn statement" that the 
 land was unfit for cultivation and valuable chiefly for its timber; 
 that it contained no deposits of gold, silver, cinnabar, copper, or 
 coal ; that he had made no other applications under the act ; that he 
 did not desire to purchase the land on speculation, and that he had 
 not made any agreement or contract for sale to anyone else. Further- 
 more, the testimony of two disinterested witnesses was required to 
 support the allegations of the applicant. These witnesses were re- 
 quired to swear that they knew the facts to which they testified, from 
 personal inspection of the land. 37 
 
 The limitation of 160 acres of land to each purchaser was a char- 
 acteristic sample of attempts by Congress to block the action of 
 economic law, and its failure was assured from the beginning. One 
 hundred and sixty acres, the "one family farm," is perhaps the most 
 efficient unit in ordinary agriculture, but in the management of timber 
 lands the most economical unit is a tract of thousands of acres, in 
 some regions and under some circumstances, perhaps hundreds of 
 thousands of acres. Such a tract permits the construction of efficient 
 logging equipment, insures a timber supply for the life of an efficient 
 mill, thus making possible the most economical lumbering operations. 
 Also a single large tract of timber can be far more cheaply and effec- 
 tively protected from fire than a number of smaller tracts — a very 
 important consideration in view of the great expense involved in fire 
 protection. Congress was following out a very unwise policy in dis- 
 posing of timber lands under any circumstances, but doubly so in 
 trying thus to dispose of them in 160-acre plots. 38 
 
 3T Report, Sec. of Int., 1881, 39. 
 
 38 It was not the western men alone who failed to see the folly of selling timber 
 land in 160-acre plots. Almost everyone in Congress thought that 160 acres was the 
 ideal unit. Thus in the debates on the bill to open up the southern lands in 1876, 
 almost no one seemed to have any clear conception of the economic principles that 
 were eventually to determine the character of the lumber business and the size of 
 timber holdings. Edmunds and Boutwell recognized that the land should not be 
 sold at all, but no one pointed out clearly that the 160-acre tract could never be 
 the basis of an efficient lumbering business. 
 
 So in the debates on Holman's bill of 1888, almost everyone seemed to cling to 
 the 160-acre plot for the sale of timber. Holman himself always favored small units 
 in the lumber business and seemed to think that legislation could secure this con- 
 dition. 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 economical 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, etc. — 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. 39 
 
 The annual report of Commissioner Sparks in 1886 40 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 cf 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 
 
 from their counters and persuaded to allow their names to be used. 
 The lumber company's agents presented the applications to the reg- 
 ister and receiver in blocks of as many as twenty-five at one time, 
 paid the fees, had the proper notices published, hired men to make 
 the 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- 
 plicated wealthy and influential persons. In 1883, a special agent 
 reported that this company had procured a large number of fraudu- 
 lent entries, amounting to not less than 100,000 acres. The agent 
 disclosed the scheme in all of its details, indicating specific evidence 
 to support his allegations, with the further information that he had 
 been 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 
 Pacific coast. Although the report of this special agent was on file, 
 containing, among other proofs, the affidavit of a former agent of 
 the timber company in whose interest the entries had been made, dis- 
 closing the methods employed, and giving the names of thirty-six of 
 the entrymen hired by the company, with the amounts paid them for 
 their 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 
 
 4i 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 
 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. 42 
 
 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. 
 
 42 144 TJ. S., 154, 162. See also U. S. vs. Williamson; 207 U. S., 425: Olson vs. 
 U. S.; 133 Fed. Rep., 849, 852, 853: "Lumber Industry," I, 266. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 77 
 
 lators, notwithstanding the provisions to prevent such a result." 43 
 In 1883, Commissioner McFarland complained that the restrictions 
 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 
 timber lands, practically in bulk, to a few large operators." 44 Sparks, 
 in 1885, complained in a similar strain, that the act had operated 
 "simply to promote the premature destruction of forests." 45 In each 
 of his annual reports, he called attention to the vicious effects of the 
 law, and asked for its repeal. The response of Congress to these 
 complaints is characteristic of congressional legislation regarding 
 the public lands. 
 
 EXTENSION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT 
 
 For a correct understanding of the action of Congress in regard 
 to the Timber and Stone Act, it will be necessary to recall the fact 
 that, at the time of its passage, sale of timber lands was the policy 
 recommended by almost everyone. Disposal of timber lands by means 
 of the Homestead and Preemption laws had always resulted in frauds, 
 and, as protection of the lands had never been seriously undertaken 
 by the government, and the idea of national forests had been only 
 vaguely suggested, sale seemed the only policy open to consideration. 
 The act itself had of course been dictated mainly by the timber in- 
 terests of the West, yet persons sincerely desirous of protecting the 
 public timber had favored the policy of sale as the best means of 
 protection, and the act had passed with scarcely an opposing voice. 
 It is thus clear that before the act could be repealed, or its provisions 
 seriously altered, there must be a complete reversal in the attitude 
 of 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 
 the eighties to change that law in any way. Representatives Strait and 
 Dunnell of Minnesota tried to amend the act to provide for sale only 
 
 43 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. 46 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. 47 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 Committee on Public Lands, but 
 fortunately made no further progress. 48 
 
 In the General Revision Act of 1891, 49 the Timber and Stone Act 
 was not touched; and in the following year its provisions were ex- 
 tended to all public land states. 50 
 
 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. Bee., Jan. 7, 1884, 244: H. R. 7901; 50 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. 
 Bee., Mar. 17, 1888, 2195: H. R. 379, Cong. Bee., Dec. 21, 1885, 378: H. R. 1300, 
 Cong. Bee., Feb. 29, 1888, 1594. 
 
 48 S. 2482, Cong. Bee., 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. Bee., Sept. 21, 1888, 8828.) 
 
 49 Stat. 26, 1095. 
 
 so 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 here 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 v 
 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. 51 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 Preemption 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. 52 
 
 The Commutation Homestead clause was quite as effective an 
 instrument of fraud as the Preemption 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 : 
 "It 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, 14 x 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 
 
 si Donaldson, "Public Domain," 543. 
 
 52 "Lumber Industry," I, 260, 261 : Donaldson, "Public Domain," 682, 1220. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 81 
 
 the Senate in 1904 that "in Colorado and Wyoming, eight acres of 
 land out of ten to which title has been given in the last twenty years 
 have been obtained fraudulently and not for agricultural purposes 
 at all." 53 
 
 While there were a great many timbermen who used the various 
 public land laws to gain title to lands, there were always other timber 
 operators who, with no pretense at land settlement or purchase, 
 erected mills on the public lands and sawed the timber. These men did 
 not confine their efforts to any particular section of the country, but 
 were generally most active where timber stealing was most profitable. 
 In 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 
 the 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 
 in carrying it away. In 1890, the government sent an expedition to 
 this district, fitted for a winter 'campaign against the trespassers. 54 
 
 Representative Wells of Wisconsin once gave a very interesting, 
 though perhaps exaggerated, account of the early conditions in the 
 Lake states, describing how "men in the early days of Wisconsin and 
 Michigan, so long 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- 
 gan the lumbermen, the pine-land thieves, have grown rich and pur- 
 chased seats in this house — yea, and wandered over into the other, 
 and dangerously near some of them have wandered to the Interior 
 Department, and some of them, it is said, wandered even in there." 55 
 
 Some of the western states presented newer fields. In Washington, 
 in and around Puget Sound, famous for its magnificent forests, 
 timbermen, mostly residents of San Francisco, erected large saw- 
 mills upon the public lands, and for years engaged in the manufacture 
 
 53 Report, National Conservation Commission, III, 391: "Lumber Industry," I, 
 259-263: Donaldson, "Public Domain," 540, 683, 1220: Conservation, Nov., 1908, 
 579-584: Gong. Bee, Mar. 31, 1904, 4032: S. Doc. 189; 58 Cong. 3 sess., 106. 
 
 s* Report, Land Office, 1881, 370-377: Report, Sec. of Int., 1890, XVI. 
 
 ss Cong. Reo., Dec. 7, 1894, 111. 
 
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 Fe 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. 56 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. 57 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. 58 / 
 
 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. 59 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. 60 
 
 se Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 234. 
 5" S. 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. 
 
 eo Ibid., 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 
 
 In addition to the mill owner, timber contractor, and speculator, 
 there was a class of depredators whose operations in the South were 
 perhaps even more destructive — the turpentine distillers. To obtain 
 the crude material to supply their works, these operators boxed the 
 trees on thousands of acres, killing them in a few years. 61 
 
 It was difficult to get any sentiment for law enforcement in the 
 timber regions of the country. Senator Wilson of Washington once 
 described in the Senate the difficulties that always stood in the way 
 of protecting the western timber from trespass. "I recollect very well 
 a few years ago," he said, "a special agent of the General Land Office 
 came to our town who said he was going over to investigate some 
 timber land depredations on Badger Mountain. I said to him, 'When 
 you get over there, you will find a very beautiful valley of 300,000 
 acres of land, and you can see that every farmhouse and all the build- 
 ings there are built of timber taken from Badger Mountain.' I said, 
 'You go to the town of Waterville, with a thousand people, and you 
 will find the courthouse and all the buildings there are built from 
 timber taken from Badger Mountain; and if you think you can get 
 a verdict, you had better try it.' He did try it, but he did not suc- 
 ceed." 62 
 
 TRESPASS BY RAILROADS 
 
 Among the most extensive depredations on the public timber were 
 those by the railroads, in some cases under cover of their right to 
 take materials for construction; in some cases relying on unsurveyed 
 land grants ; sometimes through a fraudulent use of the indemnity 
 laws of 1870 and 1874; and often with no pretense of legality. 
 
 Under a very liberal interpretation of the Right-of-Way Act, some 
 of the railroads took vast amounts of timber for construction pur- 
 poses. Secretary of the Interior Teller ruled that the phrase, "adja- 
 cent to the line of road," applied to timber growing anywhere within 
 fifty miles of the track, and even beyond the terminus of the road. 
 The railroads assumed further that the phrase "construction pur- 
 amounts of timber in the Adirondack Mountains. (Forestry and Irrigation, June, 
 1907, 282: Outlook, Mar. 30, 1912, 729.) 
 
 si Report, Land Office, 1881, 376; Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc, 1894-95- 
 96, 6. 
 
 «2 Cong. Bee, May 6, 1897, 910. 
 
84 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 poses" applied not only to the roadbed proper but to station houses, 
 depots, snowsheds, etc. 63 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. 64 
 
 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 
 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. 65 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 
 
 es "Land Decisions," I, 610; Report, Land Office, 1889, 58, 59. 
 
 «4 Opinions, Attorney-General, 19, 547. 
 
 65 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 234. See also Opinions, Attorney-General, 20, 542. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 85 
 
 in the odd sections, and therefore a suit for accounting would not lie. 
 An injunction was denied on the grounds that the value of the lands 
 consisted in the utilization of them, and that it was not waste for 
 one co-tenant to cut and utilize the timber, "for if the plaintiff could 
 enjoin the defendant the defendant could enjoin the plaintiff, and the 
 common property would be rendered useless." 66 
 
 This decision seemed to deprive the government of all remedy in 
 such cases of trespass upon unsurveyed lands, and it was often cited 
 as controlling on the point. The United States Supreme Court had 
 long before held, however, that while the railroad grants were grants 
 in praesenti, and vested the title in the grantee, yet a survey of the 
 lands and a location of the road were necessary to give precision to 
 the title and attach it to any particular tract, 67 and this doctrine was 
 again enunciated by the same court in 1891. 6S Furthermore, as early 
 as 1876, a law had required that before any lands should be conveyed 
 to a railroad company, the company must first pay into the United 
 States treasury the cost of "surveying, selecting and conveying the 
 same." 69 The Northern Pacific made some surveys of its own and 
 designated certain lots as odd numbered, and even encouraged the 
 cutting of timber on these lots, but of course these private surveys 
 did not entitle the company to any of the land. It is doubtful whether 
 the surveys were honestly made anyhow. 70 
 
 An analysis of the above decisions and law indicates that while the 
 railroad had no right to cut timber from the unsurveyed lands, the 
 government was helpless to prevent such illegal cutting ; and this was 
 the position taken by the Land Office. 71 Mineral lands were of course 
 
 66 U. S. vs. Pac. R. R. Co. ; 6 Mont., 351, 355, 357. Whether, as has sometimes 
 been suggested, there was Northern Pacific influence behind this decision or not, 
 it is a very delicate and difficult question. Certainly the general tone of the decision 
 was altogether lacking in judicial poise, and, as above pointed out, somewhat out 
 of harmony with previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The 
 Northern Pacific, like some of the other land grant railroads, had great influence 
 in some of the western states, and this power was often wielded most unscrupu- 
 lously. 
 
 « Leavenworth R. R. Co. vs. U. S.; 92 U. S., 741. 
 
 68 Deseret Salt Co. vs. Tarpley; 142 U. S., 249. 
 
 69 Stat. 19, 121. 
 to 92 U. S., 741. 
 
 " Report, Land 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. 72 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 1883, allowing that railroad to make selections with- 
 out designating any specific loss. 73 
 
 EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC TIMBER 
 
 During the administration of Secretary Schurz this wholesale 
 timber stealing was in some slight measure checked. 7 * Secretary 
 Teller, however, seems to have been little interested in timber preser- 
 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. 75 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 
 
 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 
 that 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." 76 Two years later 
 Sparks announced that he had "no word to recall that has hitherto 
 been uttered touching the aggravated misappropriations to which 
 the public lands have been subjected." 77 Secretary Teller, as has been 
 previously noted, seemed unduly favorable to the railroads. Not only 
 did he interpret the Right-of-Way Act with an unmistakable bias in 
 favor of the railroads, but it has been officially stated that in the case 
 of certain unearned grants, he worked the clerical force of the Land 
 Office over time during the last days of his administration to com- 
 plete the issue of patents before the new administration should enter. 78 
 
 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, 70 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 
 Interior, L. Q. C. Lamar, was likewise favorable to law enforcement ; 
 but the great moving force in the department was Commissioner of the 
 Land Office William Sparks. 
 
 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- 
 tions, in Dakota, Idaho, Utah, Washington, New Mexico, Montana, 
 Wyoming, Nevada, and parts of Kansas and Nebraska, and suspend- 
 ing all entries under the Timber and Stone Act without exception. 80 
 This was the beginning of his campaign against land and timber 
 thieves, and he followed it up consistently. Perhaps he was rather 
 too vigorous or too undiplomatic, or it may be that he was merely 
 
 76 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 155. 
 
 77 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- 
 volving 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. 
 
 so 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 unqualified 
 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 Cleveland's 
 administration. 81 
 
 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." 82 Although Secretary Noble seemed to judge his own 
 efficiency by the amount of land he was able to dispose of, 83 and al- 
 though his policy doubtless resulted in many fraudulent claims of all 
 kinds passing to patent, 84 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. 85 
 
 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; 86 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 
 
 si Cong. Bee, Sept. 24, 1888, 8876. 
 
 82 Report, Sec. of Int., 1889, XIX. 
 
 83 Ibid., 1890, III. 
 
 si 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.) 
 
 ss 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 
 relieve trespassers from prosecution for timber stealing done previous 
 to that date, on payment of $1.25 per acre for the land. 87 ' 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 
 read a report from the Commissioner of the Land Office showing the 
 vast 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. 88 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 32. 
 
 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, 
 is cruel and harsh." 89 
 
 There was much talk about the "spies and informers of the gov- 
 ernment," "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 
 laborers" who had been working on the public lands. 90 
 
 A certain element of justice there was, it is true, in this bill. Dunnell 
 explained 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- 
 
 87 H. R. 1846; 46 Cong. 1 sess. 
 ss Cong. Rec, June 9, 1879, 1877. 
 89 Ibid., Mar. 15, 1880, 1564. 
 so Ibid., 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. 91 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 
 unanimously against it. 92 
 
 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. 93 As finally passed, 94 
 the act released trespassers from prosecution in any civil suit, for 
 trespass committed prior to March 1, 1879, on payment of the regu- 
 lar price of the lands (usually $1.25 per acre). Thus it had been con- 
 siderably improved since its first presentation, the immunity being 
 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. 95 
 
 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 
 
 si Cong. Bee, 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. 
 
 93 Cong. Bee, June 10, 1880, 4384; June 12, 4483. 
 9* Stat. 21, 237. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 
 
 91 
 
 instance, although forest fires were unquestionably the cause of far 
 more timber destruction than all other depredations combined, 96 yet 
 there was no Federal law against setting fires on the public domain. 
 Fires were started by hunters, prospectors, tourists, grazers, and 
 others, and the only remedy available to the government agents was 
 to prosecute the offenders in the local courts under state laws. This 
 remedy was practically valueless, because of the difficulty of appre- 
 hending offenders, the lack of effective state laws, and, in many 
 regions, the impossibility of securing any sentiment favorable to law 
 enforcement. 97 
 
 As early as 1880, Secretary Carl Schurz called the attention of 
 Congress 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 
 yet cast where conservation had its strongest support. 
 
 VOTES IN THE HOUSE AGAINST THE 
 BILL OF 1880 
 
 Cong. Rec, June 14, 1880, 4538 
 
 96 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 
 the 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, 
 see Hough, "Report on Forestry," II, 30 et seq. 
 
92 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 introduced, 98 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 public lands within the 
 states, but it was never reported in the House." 
 
 In their efforts to enforce the laws against timber depredations, 
 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. 100 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, 101 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. 102 
 
 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. Bee, June 26, 1890, 6533. 
 ioo Report, Land Office, 1886, 101. 
 
 ioi Ibid. 
 
 102 S. 3101; Cong. Bee, Jan. 10, 1887, 478: H. R. 848; 50 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 93 
 
 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." 103 
 
 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. 104 As previously stated, F. L. Oswald wrote in 
 the Popular Science Monthly in 1877 concerning the sanitary influ- 
 ence of trees ; 105 and two years later he wrote on the same subject for 
 the North American Review. 106 In the latter year, The Nation printed 
 an able discussion regarding the need of a system of forestry. 107 Other 
 magazines followed, and the newspapers did something to help rouse 
 public opinion. 
 
 In the eighties, there was considerable newspaper writing regarding 
 forests and the tariff on lumber. In 1856, the treaty of reciprocity 
 
 los Report, Land Office, 1880, 171 ; 1881, 376. 
 
 104 Aug., 1879, 136. 
 
 los 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 
 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.) 
 
 iot 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. 108 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. 109 
 
 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. 110 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 
 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 
 
 los Hough, "Report on Forestry," II, 513. 
 
 109 A collection of clippings relating to this matter was found in a compilation, 
 "The Spirit of the Press," in the Boston Public Library. See also Commercial 
 Gazette, Cincinnati, Jan. 5, 1883. 
 
 no 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. m 
 
 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, 112 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 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 
 meeting of the American Forestry Congress at Cincinnati the next 
 spring. 113 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 
 
 in Am. Ec. Assoc. Publications, 6, 154, 158. 
 
 112 Fernow, "History of Forestry," 432. 
 
 us 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 organisation 
 was perfected at Montreal, although it never attracted a very large 
 membership, and never exerted great influence. 114 The next year, the 
 Ohio Forestry Association was organized 115 — an outgrowth of the 
 Cincinnati Forestry Club. In 1886, the Pennsylvania Forestry Asso- 
 ciation was formed, 116 always thereafter one of the most active of these 
 associations. Somewhat similar to these was the Kansas Horticultural 
 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. 117 
 
 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. 118 
 
 STATE ACTION 
 
 As a result, in some measure at least, of this associated effort, 119 
 many of the states appointed forestry commissions or commissioners. 
 Most of these were instituted to work out appropriate forest policies 
 for the states, but some became permanent parts of the state organi- 
 zation with executive or merely educational functions. 120 In 1880, and 
 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 
 
 ii* Am. Jour, of Forestry, Dec, 1882. 
 
 us First Ann. Report, Ohio State Forestry Bureau, 1885. 
 
 us Pinchot, "Progress of Forestry"; Agr. Yearbook, 1899, 293-306, 304. 
 
 iiT Report, Kansas State Horticultural Society, 1886 : Proceedings, Am. For- 
 estry Congress, 1888, 7. 
 
 us Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, Dec, 1888, 7, 34. 
 
 us 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. 
 
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, 121 and in March, 1885, 
 an 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 
 United 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. 122 
 
 California created a State Board 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. 123 In the year 
 1885, Ohio established a State Forestry Bureau, while Colorado pro- 
 vided for a commissioner of forests. Kansas (1887) and North 
 Dakota (1891) also provided for commissioners, that in North 
 Dakota being known as the superintendent of irrigation and forestry. 
 Even earlier than this, several of the Canadian provinces had fairly 
 well-organized forestry departments. 124 
 
 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 legislation dealing with 
 forest fires, tree planting, and other matters, forest fire laws being 
 often modeled after the New York law of 1885. 125 The boom days of 
 timber culture had, of course, come before the year 1878, and during 
 the period following that, with the realization of the general useless- 
 ness of such laws, 126 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. 
 
 123 That California was not yet fully committed to a conservation policy is 
 shown by her neglect of the Yosemite forests, which had been turned over by the 
 Federal government to the care of the state. (S. Ex. Doc. 22; 52 Cong. 2 sess.) 
 
 124 Hough, "Report on Forestry," III, 15. 
 
 125 Forest Circ. 13. State laws should, of course, not be taken too seriously, for, 
 as already stated, they were ineffective and seldom enforced. 
 
 126 Preliminary Report on the Forestry of the Mississippi Valley, etc., Dept. 
 of Agr., 1882. 
 
98 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 OTHER INDICATIONS OF CONSERVATION INTEREST 
 Still other indications of interest in forest preservation appeared. 
 In 1883, the Carriage Builders' National Association, at its eleventh 
 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 
 management of their lands — perhaps the first attempt at scientific 
 private forest management in this country, on any large scale. 127 
 
 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 in regard 
 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. 128 The commission 
 appointed consisted of Thomas Donaldson, A. T. Britton, and J. W. 
 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, 129 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 
 
 no results ever came of the bill proposed, the report itself, as later 
 extended and revised, 130 was a valuable storehouse of information 
 relating to the public lands, and doubtless it exerted some influence 
 on the trend of legislation during the following decade, and even later. 
 At any rate, most of the legislation which was not clearly dictated by 
 the timber interests and their allies, followed out policies strongly 
 urged by this commission. 
 
 Throughout the period under consideration, conservation activity 
 in Congress generally followed the precedent laid down in the bill 
 drawn by the Public Lands Commission in 1880, in attempting a com- 
 plete 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 
 given little attention in the debates, it will be unnecessary to trace the 
 history of the bills which appeared in every session of Congress, "To 
 secure to actual settlers the public lands of the United States adapted 
 to agriculture, etc." It suffices here to say that finally, in 1891, Con- 
 gress accomplished a fairly complete revision of the land laws, in- 
 cluding the repeal of the Timber Culture and Preemption laws, the 
 amendment of the Desert Land Law to make frauds" less easy, the 
 amendment of the Homestead Law to allow commutation only after 
 fourteen months' residence and cultivation, the abolition of public 
 land sales, and, most important of all, provision for setting aside 
 forest reserves. 131 
 
 FAILURE OF THE TIMBER CULTURE ACT 
 
 The Timber Culture Act, it will be recalled, had been amended soon 
 after its passage and entirely revised in 1878. It was predestined to 
 failure, however, and in the early eighties this became generally recog- 
 nized. The law was intended for the prairie, or so-called semi-arid 
 region, and most of the entries were made there ; yet, in many of these 
 sections, successful tree planting was not to be expected of settlers 
 who came from the humid regions of Iowa or Illinois, or further east, 
 or even from Europe. These settlers had no knowledge whatever of 
 the climate or soil or of the kinds of trees adapted thereto, were gen- 
 
 130 H. Ex. Doc. 4T; 46 Cong. 3 sess.: H. Misc. Doc. 45; 47 Cong. 2 sess. Donald- 
 son wrote the history of the origin, organization, and progress of the public land 
 system, while Britton undertook the compilation of the land laws. 
 
 i3i Stat. 26, 1095. 
 
100 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 erallj 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. 132 There were 
 some also who purposely used the law for the fraudulent acquisition 
 of land. 133 
 
 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- 
 culties, for two years later Congress had to pass a relief act, 134 provid- 
 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. 135 
 
 APPROPRIATIONS TO PREVENT FRAUDULENT ENTRIES 
 
 The repeal of the Preemption 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." 136 This was in addition to the regular annual appropriation 
 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. 137 Furthermore, the Sundry Civil Act of 1885 138 
 contained an additional item of $20,000 for the expenses of hearings 
 to determine fraudulent entries — an item which appeared regularly 
 thereafter, bearing a sum of from $20,000 to $30,000. 
 
 132 The Nation, Sept. 13, 1883, 220. 
 
 133 Donaldson, "Public Domain," 541, 681, 683, 1088, 1164, 1221: Report, Sec. of 
 Int., 1885, 203: Report, Land Office, 1885, 51. 
 
 134 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 
 important than the abolition of public sale in 1891, was the abolition 
 of private sale in several of the southern states in 1889. 139 It will be 
 remembered that in 1876 Congress had provided for the sale of all the 
 public lands in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and 
 Florida — some of the greatest timber states in the United States. 140 
 In 1888, Senator Walthall of Mississippi introduced a resolution pro- 
 viding that public lands in Mississippi should be subject to disposal 
 only under the homestead laws until pending legislation relating to 
 the public lands should be disposed of or Congress should adjourn. It 
 seems strange that a man from a public land state should have wanted 
 conservation in his own state, but the committee reporting the reso- 
 lution added Alabama to the list of states, and also Arkansas, at the 
 request 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 
 resolution extended these provisions also to Florida and Louisiana. 141 
 Meanwhile Senator Walthall had introduced a bill to withdraw the 
 public lands in his state from sale at private entry. The_ Committee on 
 Public Lands reported it, with amendments broadening its applica- 
 tion to all public land states, 142 and as thus amended, Missouri being, 
 however, excepted at the wish of a senator from that state, the bill 
 passed the Senate without a comment, and later became a law. Such 
 a complete reversal in the attitude of the southern senators is difficult 
 to understand, but doubtless one factor in the moral transformation 
 since 1876 was the fact that the most valuable timber lands had 
 already been taken. 143 There had also, no doubt, been some growth in 
 conservation sentiment. 
 
 INDIRECT ENCOURAGEMENT TO TIMBER STEALING 
 
 The General Revision Act of 1891 represented a long step forward 
 in the administration of the public lands, but it contained some pro- 
 visions which encouraged fraud. Not only did it extend the scope of 
 
 139 Stat. 25, 854. 
 
 1*0 Cross Reference, pp. 40-53. 
 
 i4i S. Res. 73; Cong. Bee, Apr. 17, 1888, 3032; Apr. 23, 3221: Stat. 25, 622, 626. 
 
 142 S. 2511; 50 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Bee, 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. 144 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. 145 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. 
 
 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. 146 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. 
 
 1*5 Stat. 13, 35. 
 
 146 Cong. Bee, July 5, 1888, 5933-36. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 103 
 
 adjacent to railroads never completed. The House of Representatives 
 generally took the second position, favoring a forfeiture of all lands 
 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. 147 After years of 
 debate and squabbling, the House finally accepted the Senate view. 148 
 
 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- 
 tive, 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- 
 
 1*7 Cong. Rec, July 5, 1888, 6013: H. R. 2476; 50 Cong. 1 sess. 
 1*8 Stat. 26, 496. 
 
104 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 thermore, there is no doubt that some of the senators were under 
 railroad influence. 149 
 
 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 
 
 1 49 See footnotes, "Lumber Industry," I, 244. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 105 
 
 the indignation expressed by certain senators at this "reflection on 
 Congress" and "on the profession of the law," is open to question. 
 
 Although it would thus be unwise to attribute discreditable motives 
 to all who opposed Beck's measure, evidence seems to indicate that 
 some of the "distinguished senators" at least felt that this bill might 
 endanger them. Senator Mitchell admitted that he had once been 
 attorney for the Northern Pacific. Teller's opposition to this bill may 
 be considered in connection with some of the decisions which he made 
 while Secretary of the Interior. Hawley's speeches do not sound high 
 levels of political philosophy. He spoke of the bill as "harsh and 
 severe," and wondered if the offense aimed at was really a "crime, 
 a malum in se," or whether it was merely "some proceeding in contra- 
 vention of public policy," which could be "reached by a milder form 
 of prohibition." If these men were absolutely free from railroad con- 
 nections, why did they object to the bill, anyhow? It is difficult to see 
 how the measure could have injured anyone whose skirts were clear, 
 yet it was fought day after day with a stubbornness which indicates 
 that more than a mere theoretical principle was at stake. 
 
 It should furthermore be noted that the party opposing this bill 
 tried to avoid fighting in the open. Thus the first blow was Edmunds' 
 attempt to have the bill referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
 where it was understood the measure would be strangled. When the 
 motion to refer was under consideration, Senator Beck said, "It might 
 as well go to the tomb of the Capulets," and Senator Vance asked that 
 the bill be read once more, so that he could "take a farewell of it." 
 The next attempt was to have it referred to the Committee on Finance, 
 also apparently known to be hostile to such legislation. A great vari- 
 ety of amendments were pressed, obviously with no purpose but the 
 defeat of the bill ; and by such means its practical defeat was finally 
 accomplished. 150 
 
 Forestry and forest conservation were never mentioned in the 
 debates on the railroad attorney bill, yet this careful consideration 
 seems appropriate because it throws light on the failure of Congress 
 to forfeit the railroad grants. Railroad grants have been extremely 
 
 iso Cong. Bee, 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- 
 1067, 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 
 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, 151 and in 
 1880, Congress had restored 28,253,347 acres to the public domain 
 by forfeiture of particular grants. 152 
 
 TIMBER ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS 
 
 Congressional action in regard to the Homestead and Preemption 
 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 153 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, 104 a law 
 was secured extending the provisions of the act of 1859 to Indian 
 reservations. 150 
 
 isi 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. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 107 
 
 APPROPRIATIONS FOR TIMBER PROTECTION 
 
 Perhaps in no way, however, was a conservation tendency more 
 plainly shown than in the appropriations made for protecting the 
 public timber lands. In 1878, it will be recalled, Congress increased 
 the 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 
 appropriations, enabled the Land Office to greatly increase its work- 
 ing force. In 1878, there were only eleven special agents working to 
 protect the timber lands, while in 1885, there were twenty-three, and 
 in 1890, fifty-five. 156 
 
 The steadily increasing appropriations for the protection of 
 timber lands do not indicate a conservation power in Congress grow- 
 ing with the same rapidity or the same steadiness. This is proved, not 
 only by the passage of the Act of 1880, above described, and by the 
 extension of the Free Timber and Timber and Stone acts previously 
 discussed, but by other considerations as well. In the first place, the 
 Sundry Civil Bill, in which these appropriations Avere made, always 
 originated in the Committee on Appropriations, and in this committee 
 the more populous eastern states were much better represented than 
 in the Committee on Public Lands, which controlled so much land and 
 timber legislation. Furthermore, the Sundry Civil Bill always included 
 a great number of items, and was usually passed hurriedly, in the last 
 days of the session, so that amendment was more difficult than in 
 ordinary legislation. It was in the Senate that least favor was usually 
 shown conservation measures, and the Senate was not quite free to 
 block an appropriation bill. Thus, in the Committee on Appropria- 
 tions an increase for timber protection had a fair chance of getting 
 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 
 these 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, 107 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- 
 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; 158 and in 1882, Senator McMillan of Minnesota 
 introduced a bill providing aid for a school of forestry, to be estab- 
 lished in St. Paul. 159 In the following year, Pettigrew, delegate from 
 Dakota, asked for a grant of land for a school of forestry in 
 Dakota ; 160 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 
 
 1ST Statistical Abstract, 1891, 3. 
 
 158 S. 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. Bee, May 15, 1882, 3926. 
 leo H. R. 7440 ; 47 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 109 
 
 Congress had given $2000 in 1876 for such investigations, and as 
 much more in 1877 to enable Hough to complete his. work. 161 This 
 appropriation did not take its place immediately as an annual grant, 
 but $5000 was voted in 1880 to continue the investigations, 162 a like 
 sum in 1881, 163 and in 1882 the amount was raised to $10,000. 164 The 
 Division of Forestry was organized in 1881, and was recognized by 
 Congress in 1886, when $2000 of the $10,000 given was specifically 
 set aside for the chief of that division. 165 
 
 In the appropriation of 1890, $7820 was given for salaries, and 
 $10,000 for experiments in forestry and in "the production of rain- 
 fall." 166 In 1891, the sum for investigating forestry and "rain- 
 making" was raised to $15,000. 167 
 
 THE FOREST RESERVE ACT 
 
 While these appropriations were of great importance in providing 
 the 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- 
 growth. This provision, definitely providing for national ownership 
 of 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 county ; and the circumstances of its enactment must 
 be briefly discussed. 
 
 i6i Cross Reference, pp. 42, 43. 
 
 162 Stat. 21, 296. 
 
 163 Stat. 21, 384. 
 
 164 Stat. 22, 92. 
 
 165 Everhart, "Handbook of United States Documents," 58: Stat. 24, 103. 
 
 166 Stat. 26, 283, 286. Dr. Fernow gives the following account of the manner in 
 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 
 rain. 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 1873, 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, 168 and in a later vol- 
 ume of his "Report on Forestry" unreservedly urged that policy for 
 the United States. 109 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." 170 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. 171 In the following 
 year, Schurz urged the reservation of some of the redwood tracts in 
 California, 172 and in 1880, the Public Lands Commission presented a 
 bill reserving from sale all lands "chiefly valuable for timber," ex- 
 cepting those bearing minerals. The failure of this bill has been 
 noted. 173 
 
 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." 174 In 1885, Secretary Lamar and Commissioner Sparks 
 
 168 Hough, "Report on Forestry," I, 194. 
 
 169 Ibid., 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. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 111 
 
 united in urging the reservation of a part of the public timber lands, 175 
 and throughout their administration gave unqualified support to that 
 policy. 
 
 Lamar and Sparks were aided in their efforts by B. E. Fernow and 
 E. A. Bowers, who entered the government service in 1886. Within a 
 year after Fernow's installment at Washington, he formulated an 
 elaborate bill for the withdrawal of all public timber lands. Bowers 
 likewise had been in the government service only a year or two before 
 he had worked out a complete plan for the management and disposal 
 of the public timber lands, 176 and this plan he urged upon Congress in 
 every 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. 
 
 During the eighties, at least one magazine published articles fav- 
 orable to forest reserves, and later this became a very popular subject 
 with various publications. In 1885, the American Forestry Congress, 
 and 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. 177 
 
 Not only was there agitation during this period, but one of the 
 states actually established public forests. In 1884, the legislature of 
 New 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, 
 amounting 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 
 privately owned timber lands. Five years later, however, New York 
 passed a law authorizing the purchase of additional lands. 178 
 
 175 Report, Sec. of Int., 1885, 45, 236. 
 
 176 H. Ex. Doc. 242 ; 50 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 177 The Nation, Sept. 6, 1883, 201: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Congress, 1890, 19. 
 
 178 Report, Forestry Commission of N. Y., 1885: N. Y. State College of Forestry, 
 Bui. 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 with a 
 reservation of the land. In 1883, such a sale of timber was recognized 
 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. 179 
 
 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. 180 
 
 In the forty-eighth Congress, forest reserve measures were intro- 
 duced by Senators Cameron of Wisconsin, Sherman of Ohio, Miller of 
 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. 
 
 iso Cross Reference, p. 45. Cong. Bee, Feb. 15, 1876, 1083; Jan. 27, 1880, 547: 
 H. R. 1272, H. R. 6315, S. 1826; 47 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 113 
 
 Senator Edmunds, "To establish a reservation at the headwaters of 
 the Missouri River," passed the Senate with little opposition. 181 
 
 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 
 by Sherman was not reported. In 1886, Representative Hatch of Mis- 
 souri introduced another reservation bill, but no results accrued. 182 
 Generally, the forty-ninth Congress gave very little attention to the 
 question of forest reserves. 
 
 In 1887, however, forest reserves were a popular subject in Con- 
 gress. Edmunds appeared with his favorite bill for a reserve at the 
 head of the Missouri River, but this time it was lost in committee, as 
 were also measures proposed by Senator Sherman of Ohio and Repre- 
 sentative Markham of California. The following year, Hatch made 
 another effort, but it failed to elicit a report. Bills introduced by 
 Representative Joseph of New Mexico, E. B. Taylor of Ohio, and 
 Holman of Indiana also failed. 183 In this session, however, the House 
 adopted two resolutions calling for plans for the management and 
 disposition of timber lands, one of these resolutions calling specifically 
 for the secretary's plan for reserving forests. Inspector Bowers and 
 Assistant Secretary of the Interior Muldrow submitted elaborate 
 plans, but the House took no further action. 184 
 
 Holman's bill for the general revision of the land laws, in 1888, 
 contained a provision that all timber lands should be classified as such, 
 and the timber sold without the land, at not less than appraised value ; 
 and also a section providing specifically for the creation of forest 
 
 i8i S. 1188, S. 1258, S. 1824, S. 2451, H. R. 5206, H. R. 4811: Cong. Bee, Feb. 
 20, 1885, 1930; June 2, 1884, 4743, 4745. 
 
 182 S. 551, S. 581, H. R. 2946; 49 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Bee, July 8, 1886, 6648, 
 6649. 
 
 iss S. 540, S. 598; 50 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 10430; 49 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 1982, 
 H. 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 
 forests on the public domain, the protection of water supply and for other pur- 
 poses;" but it seems doubtful whether this really meant the creation of forest 
 reserves, for Weaver expressed himself, in another connection, as opposed to 
 separating the timber from the fee in the land. (H. R. 1352; 50 Cong. 1 sess.: 
 Cong. Bee, June 25, 1888, 5563.) 
 
 is* Cong. Bee, Jan. 18, 1888, 553; Mar. 24, 1888, 2371: H. Ex. Doc. 144, 242; 
 50 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
114 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 reserves. This bill passed the House with both these sections intact; 
 in fact, the forest reserve section received almost no attention in the 
 debates. 185 
 
 In 1889, Taylor and Sherman appeared as usual with proposals for 
 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. 186 
 
 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 
 opposition. As already stated, the forest reserve provision of Hol- 
 man's general revision bill received almost no attention in the debates. 
 The entire attitude of Congress indicates a failure to foresee the 
 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 
 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- 
 est chance of passing Congress; and when such a measure was finally 
 secured, it was not through the initiative of Congress, but rather 
 because Congress had no good opportunity to act on the proposition. 
 
 THE PASSAGE OF THE FOREST RESERVE ACT 
 
 In 1891, the question of a general revision of the land laws, particu- 
 larly the repeal of the Timber Culture, Preemption and Desert Land 
 
 iss H. R. 7901; H. R. 778; 50 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 186 H. R. 705, H. R. 7026, H. R. 8459, S. 1523; 51 Cong. 1 sess.: Proceedings, 
 Am. Forestry Assoc, 1891-92-93, 39. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 115 
 
 laws, had been vexing Congress for a decade ; and a determined effort 
 was being made to effect some kind of a revision. Late in the second 
 session of the fifty-first Congress, a conference committee of the two 
 houses was appointed to adjust differences on one of these general 
 revision bills, and Secretary of the Interior Noble, who had been influ- 
 enced by Fernow and Bowers, and perhaps by other members of the 
 American Forestry Association, asked this committee to insert a rider 
 authorizing the President to establish reserves. 187 
 
 Fortunately this conference committee was composed of men most 
 of whom were at least not predisposed to fight such a measure. Of 
 the Senate conferees, Plumb of Kansas was mainly interested in other 
 kinds of public lands, but, coming from a prairie state, he understood 
 
 187 H. R. 7254; 51 Cong. 1 sess. In crediting Secretary Noble with the intro- 
 duction of this forest reserve section, the writer is following the usual account 
 of the matter. Recently, however, Senator Pettigrew has advanced the claim that it 
 was he, and not Noble, who should be credited with this action; that Noble had 
 nothing to do with it. In spite of this claim, and in spite of the fact that the writer 
 is unable to secure absolute proof to back up his belief, he nevertheless adheres to 
 his opinion that Secretary Noble should receive the credit. Several considerations 
 point to such a conclusion. In the first place, Secretary Noble repeatedly asserted 
 that it was he who had inserted that section. He told Mr. Bowers of New Haven 
 that he had done it; and in at least one public speech he spoke of his "official 
 action" in connection with the forest reserve section. Most other writers of the 
 time also seemed to assume that Noble had been responsible. Fernow, writing in 
 1897, spoke of him as the author. 
 
 During all this time, apparently, Pettigrew made no claim to the authorship of 
 the section; and, when President Cleveland established a number of preserves in 
 1896, it was Pettigrew who led the forces that called for their suspension. There is 
 some evidence that Pettigrew was not unfriendly to the reservation policy previous 
 to 1897, but in that year, as will be shown in the following chapter, he did every- 
 thing possible to secure the suspension of the reserves Cleveland had created; and 
 some things he said in Congress indicate that he really favored entire abolition of 
 the reserves, although, by securing the passage of the act in 1897, he did a great 
 service for conservation. 
 
 On this question, the following letter from Dr. Fernow seems pertinent: "To 
 me it seems strange that Pettigrew should persistently have kept in the dark that 
 I never knew of his interest even in the subject. Nor has Mr. Bowers any such 
 recollection. My memory is, that at the time the story was current, Mr. Noble 
 declared at midnight of March 3, in the Conference Committee, that he would not 
 let the President sign the bill (for abolishing the timber claim legislation) unless 
 the Reservation clause was inserted. Since these things happen behind closed doors, 
 only someone present can tell what happened, Secretary Noble or one of the con- 
 ferees. All we, that is, Bowers and myself, can claim is that we had educated Noble 
 up to the point." (Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc, 1893, 36 et seq.: Science, 
 Mar. 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 the 
 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 a 
 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. 188 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. 
 
 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 
 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 
 clause for attack. Also, there were a great number of compromises in 
 
 188 Cong. Bee, 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 been 
 passed in the Hawaiian Islands — destined later to become a part of the United 
 States. 
 
THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 117 
 
 the bill, the forest reserve clause being to some extent balanced by the 
 clause broadening the scope of the Free Timber Act. Furthermore, 
 most of the provisions of the bill, in fact all but the forest reserve pro- 
 vision, had been debated over and over, and members were so familiar 
 with the main points involved that they were probably less careful to 
 scrutinize the conference bill than they would have been to examine 
 an ordinary bill. Doubtless very few, if any, of the members realized 
 what important results were to flow from the passage of this little 
 forest reserve section. The attitude of Congress in regard to subse- 
 quent as well as previous legislation indicates clearly that very few 
 of the members of either house realized how extensively the President 
 would use the power conferred here. Finally, it must be considered 
 that this was a bill reported from a conference committee, a sort of 
 bill not easy to amend. Any amendment would have delayed the bill, 
 perhaps defeated it; and on some of the items, as, for instance, the 
 repeal of the Preemption and Timber Culture acts, the public demand 
 had in the course of ten years gathered considerable power. This last 
 consideration was doubtless of greater weight in the House, where 
 the members are usually more in need of campaign material, and at 
 this time feared to close another session without having accomplished 
 some kind of a revision of the land laws. 
 
 Somewhat strangely, the bill encountered greater opposition in the 
 House than in the Senate. Dunnel of Minnesota distrusted the entire 
 bill because it had not been printed, while McRae of Arkansas opposed 
 section 24 for the very Democratic reason that it put too much power 
 in the hands of the President ; but Payson carried the measure safely 
 through the discussion. This was on February 28. When the bill came 
 up again on March 2, there was no time for discussion and it passed 
 without a comment. 
 
 Thus the passage of the Forest Reserve Act, the first important 
 conservation measure in the history of our national forest policy, 
 cannot be credited to congressional initiative, but to a long chain of 
 peculiar circumstances which made it impossible for Congress to act 
 directly on the question. If the conference committee, like most public 
 land committees, had included a majority of men hostile to conserva- 
 tion; if the forest reserve provision had been attached to anything 
 but a 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 score 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 reservation, as 
 later developments clearly show. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE FOREST RESERVES FROM 1891 TO 1897: NEED OF 
 PROTECTION AND ADMINISTRATION 
 
 THE SITUATION IN 1891 
 
 Before proceeding to a consideration of the period following the year 
 1891, it will be profitable to halt and take an inventory of results 
 accrued at that date — note just what had been accomplished in the 
 period 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 Preemption Law and the 
 amendment of the Commutation Homestead and Desert Land laws 
 had been accomplished, and more liberal appropriations made to pre- 
 vent fraudulent entries ; although these gains were in some degree 
 offset by the act allowing affidavits and proofs to be made before 
 commissioners of the United States courts, etc., and by the provision 
 limiting the time within which suits must be brought for cancellation 
 of patents. 
 
 As to the laws specifically applying to timber lands, the situation 
 in 1891 was not so favorable. Appropriations for forestry investiga- 
 tions had been greatly increased, but the Free Timber and Timber 
 and Stone acts were still in force, while a still worse free timber pro- 
 vision had been added in the Permit Act of 1891. (Only a year later 
 the Timber and Stone Act was extended to all public land states.) 
 As has been shown, neither of these acts provided for the honest 
 acquisition of timber for general commercial purposes, and the exten- 
 sion of their provisions was merely a legalization of plundering which, 
 with the larger sums available for protection, might otherwise have 
 been prevented. Thus the laws for the disposal of timber on the public 
 domain were worse in 1891 than they had been in 1878, just as they 
 had 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, 1 and in September of the same year 
 added still another section to the reserve, giving it an area of over a 
 million acres. 2 In October, he set aside the White River Plateau Re- 
 serve in Colorado, of over a million acres, 3 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. 4 
 
 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 — because 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. 5 In the same year, and repeatedly there- 
 after, the American Forestry Association urged legislation on the 
 subject. 6 In 1893, 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. 7 Almost 
 
 i Stat. 26, 1565. 
 
 2 Stat. 27, 989. 
 
 3 Stat. 27, 993. 
 
 4 Report, Land Office, 1894, 438. 
 
 5 Report, Sec. of Int., 1891, CXXXVIII. 
 
 6 Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc, 1891-92-93, 12 ; 1894-95-96, 75. 
 
 7 Report, Land Office, 1893, 79. 
 
THE FOREST RESERVES 121 
 
 every year the Commissioner of the Land Office and the Secretary of 
 the Interior made this appeal for legislation; and Cleveland, in his 
 second annual message said, "I concur with the secretary that ade- 
 quate protection be provided for our forest reserves, and that a com- 
 prehensive forestry system be inaugurated." 8 In 1893, the Secretary 
 of Agriculture complained of the wasteful lumbering and destructive 
 fires on the forest reserves, 9 and the following year the American 
 Association for the Advancement of Science adopted a resolution 
 calling for better administration and protection. 
 
 Criticism of the inaction of Congress was accompanied by definite 
 suggestions as to the best methods of protection. Perhaps no proposal 
 was more often urged than that of somehow linking up the forest 
 service with the military service of the United States. In 1890, the 
 Secretary of War had complied with the request of the Secretary of 
 the Interior that troops be sent to the protection of some of the na- 
 tional parks in California, and each year for several years thereafter, 
 troops had been detached for this purpose. 10 In 1894, Secretary of the 
 Interior Hoke Smith and Commissioner Lamoreux called upon the 
 Secretary of War for troops to protect the new forest-reserves against 
 fires and other encroachments, particularly against the sheep men, 
 who sometimes did great damage to the forests by setting out fires 
 to improve the grazing for their flocks. The acting Secretary of War 
 declined to make the details, however, basing his refusal upon the 
 opinion of the acting judge advocate general of the army, that the 
 employment of troops in such cases and under the circumstances 
 described by the Secretary of the Interior, not being expressly author- 
 ized by the constitution or by act of Congress, would be unlawful. 
 Perhaps this decision was justified by a strict interpretation of ex- 
 isting laws, although it seems that the law of 1827 authorizing the 
 President to take proper measures to preserve the live oak timber on 
 the public lands, might have been stretched to include the protection 
 of timber generally without subverting the government. Certain it 
 is that this decision prohibited the adoption of a very economical and 
 efficient means of timber protection. 
 
 s Report, Land Office, 1893, 27. 
 
 9 Report, Sec. of Agriculture, 1893, 31. 
 
 io 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. 11 
 
 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, 
 Representative Caminetti of California submitted a resolution calling 
 for a report as to the condition of the forest reservations in Cali- 
 fornia. 12 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. 13 
 
 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 
 
 ii Century Magazine, Feb., 1895, 626. 
 12 H. Report 2096 ; 52 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 is H. 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 
 
 was authorized to detail troops to protect the reserves when neces- 
 sary; and, in the third place, provision was made for restoring to 
 entry any agricultural lands included within forest reserves. An 
 amendment inserted by the committee reporting the bill provided that 
 the section relating to the sale of timber should apply not only to the 
 forest reserves, but to all timber lands on the entire public domain. 14 
 
 Although approved by the Commissioner of the Land Office, by the 
 Secretary of the Interior, and by the American Forestry Association, 
 this wise and conservative measure encountered a tremendous amount 
 of opposition. A variety of objections were urged. In the first place, 
 many thought, or at any rate argued, that it would stimulate forest 
 destruction. Pickler of South Dakota declared : "Our timber lands in 
 the West will be denuded of timber. . . . The very object of the law, 
 which is the setting apart and protection of these timber reservations, 
 will be defeated." Hermann of Oregon declared the bill should be 
 entitled "A bill to denude the public forest reservations." Simpson of 
 Kansas rated it a "dangerous measure," particularly on the ground 
 that it allowed the Secretary of the Interior so much power. "Not 
 only," he said, "does it allow the Secretary of the Interior to sell 
 timber on the lands in these reservations which have been set aside 
 for the special purpose of holding the moisture, but also it allows him 
 absolutely to sell the timber on any public lands in any part of the 
 United States." 
 
 Doolittle of Washington called the bill an "infamous proposition," 
 with "no redeeming features, except the one permitting the employ- 
 ment of the army." "From my experience and observation in these 
 matters," he explained, "I know it to be true that if the lumberman is 
 once permitted to go upon a quarter section of land, having purchased 
 the stumpage, or the timber from that land, he will not confine himself 
 to his proper limits, and it is all nonsense to expect that this timber 
 can be preserved at all if you let down the bars for a single moment. 
 You might as well turn a dozen wolves into a corral filled with sheep 
 and expect the wolves to protect the sheep as to expect your timber 
 to be protected if you permit the lumbermen to go upon the reserva- 
 tion at all." Coffeen of Wyoming expressed a similar view : "The bill, 
 
 14 H. R. 119, H. Report 78; 53 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Bee, Oct. 10, 1893, 2371 
 et seq.; 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 
 
THE FOREST RESERVES 125 
 
 gentlemen have, in the face of the amendments suggested, spent all 
 your time denouncing the bill as unjust and infamous. . . . You have 
 aimed your talk at the immaterial parts to consume time. These argu- 
 ments have come from gentlemen who have special timber privileges 
 already and who desire those privileges continued. . . . Whether 
 intentionally or not, you who oppose this bill are the aides of the 
 monopolists who have had the special privilege of cutting government 
 timber for nothing. You will deceive nobody by denouncing those 
 benefited by your opposition if successful." 
 
 Without a doubt, McRae here exposed one of the main reasons why 
 some of the western men opposed the bill. Settlers and miners had 
 become accustomed to free timber and were of course opposed to any 
 legislation which required them to pay for it. Bell of Colorado and 
 Hartman were frank in stating that this was an important reason for 
 their opposition. Hartman pronounced the bill "infamous in the 
 extreme." "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 
 industries pursued in the West will be compelled either to violate the 
 laws of the United States and become timber thieves or else freeze to 
 death." Rawlins offered an amendment giving settlers and miners free 
 timber for firewood, fencing or building purposes. 
 
 Mining interests feared the bill on other grounds, however, than 
 merely that it would deprive them of free timber. As Hermann pointed 
 out, the reserves had not yet been opened to mining, and any provision 
 for the protection of the reserves would result in shutting out the 
 miners altogether. Without a doubt it was the situation of miners 
 which caused a large share of the hostility to the McRae bill, and to 
 the forest reserves in general. If the bill had included a section direct- 
 ing the Secretary of the Interior to eliminate all mining and agricul- 
 tural lands from the reserves,. it might easily have passed, but as it 
 was, it aroused entirely too much opposition ; and Coffeen finally 
 brought the opposition to a climax by offering an amendment abolish- 
 ing all reserves except those in the three coast states — a proposition 
 which Bell heartily endorsed. Perhaps fortunately, this did not come 
 to 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. 15 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. 16 
 
 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. 17 
 
 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. 
 
 is H. Report 897; 53 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 I 6 House Journal; 53 Cong. 2 sess., 521. 
 
 it Cong. Bee, Dec. 6, 1894, 85; Dec. 7, 111 et seq.; Dec. 17, 364 et seq. 
 
THE FOREST RESERVES 127 
 
 The McRae bill at this stage was one which latter-day conserva- 
 tionists would generally have approved, and certainly it was such a 
 measure as would have improved the situation of the forest reserves, 
 yet much of the opposition came from conservation quarters. Doubt- 
 less 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 
 must be shut up and guarded against every intrusion, that anyone 
 permitted to go upon the reserves would be certain to do injury. 
 Experience with western timber trespassers lent considerable support 
 to this belief, but it was, of course, impossible that the reserves could 
 ever be maintained on any such basis of non-use, because it aroused 
 entirely too much western hostility. The miners felt that they had a 
 right to go upon the land wherever minerals were to be found, felt that 
 their operations were not inconsistent with the purposes for which the 
 reserves were set aside. Some of the conservationists did not under- 
 stand western conditions and could not fully appreciate the western 
 point of view. 
 
 It might seem that the McRae bill as it finally passed the House, 
 conceded about as much to the West as should have been expected, 
 but when it was referred in the Senate, Teller of Colorado, of the 
 Committee on Public Lands, immediately brought up a substitute bill, 
 which differed widely from the House bill. 18 The Senate bill repre- 
 sented fairly well what the western men considered right and proper in 
 dealing with the forest reserves, and for that reason it is interesting 
 to 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 
 might be created to secure favorable conditions of water flow, or to 
 secure a continuous supply of timber for the people in the state or 
 territory where the reserves were located. Thus, the creation of re- 
 serves to secure a continuous supply of timber for the public generally 
 was not permissible under Teller's bill. In the second place, the inclu- 
 sion of agricultural or mineral lands was forbidden, and any land 
 known to be mineral must be restored to entry. The reserves were 
 opened to mining and prospecting. Free timber was provided for set- 
 tlers, miners, residents, and prospectors, and also for the construc- 
 
 i8 Cong. Bee, 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 Congress 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, 19 
 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. 20 
 
 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. Bee, June 10, 1896, 6410, 6411. 
 
THE FOREST RESERVES 129 
 
 Wolcott Gibbs, president of the National Academy of Sciences, calling 
 for an official expression from the Academy upon various questions 
 relating to forestry and the forest reserves. 21 
 
 President Gibbs, in response to this letter of inquiry, appointed a 
 commission composed of Professor C. S. Sargent, Alexander Agassiz, 
 Henry L. Abbot — an eminent engineer and hydrographer — Professor 
 William H. Brewer of Yale University, Arnold Hague of the United 
 States Geological Survey, and Gifford Pinchot. While these men were 
 willing to serve the government without compensation, Gibbs sug- 
 gested that $25,000 should be appropriated to cover the expenses of 
 their investigation, and in the Sundry Civil Bill of 1896, $25,000 was 
 allowed for that purpose. 22 
 
 In July, 1896, the commission began its work, visiting most of the 
 forest reserves, and devoting three months of travel and study to the 
 investigation. 
 
 In February, 1897, Professor Sargent, chairman of the commission, 
 addressed a letter to President Gibbs of the Academy of Sciences, 
 recommending the establishment of thirteen new reserves, to embrace 
 an area of over 21,000,000 acres. 23 The issue of this letter before the 
 report of the commission was entirely completed — it was not completed 
 until May 1, after the close of Cleveland's administration — was 
 opposed by Gifford Pinchot, who believed the recommendation of new 
 reserves should be accompanied by a statement of the objects sought, 
 and by definite plans for the administration of the new lands. Pinchot 
 saw the danger involved in thus "locking up" millions of acres of land, 
 with no provision for its use or protection. Upon receipt of Professor 
 Sargent's letter, however, President Cleveland proclaimed all of the 
 desired reserves on February 22, 1897 — the one hundred and sixty- 
 fifth anniversary of Washington's birthday. Immediately a storm 
 broke loose in the Senate. 
 
 PREVIOUS HOSTILITY TOWARD THE RESERVES 
 The efforts above mentioned, seeking better protection for the 
 forest reserves, were not the only sort of activity in Congress. It is 
 
 2i S. Doc. 21 ; 55 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 22 Stat. 29, 432. 
 
 23 S. Doc. 105 ; 55 Cong. 1 sess. : Science, 5, 489, 893. Fernow thinks that this 
 "junket" 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, 24 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. 25 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. 26 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. 27 
 
 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. 28 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- 
 quested the chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations to 
 insert into the Sundry Civil Bill a provision opening all forest reserves 
 to mining. 29 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 
 understood. The reserves were necessarily proclaimed without a very 
 
 s* 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. Bee, Jan. 30, 1896, 1126: S. Doc. 91; 55 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
THE FOREST RESERVES 131 
 
 careful investigation of local interests, 30 and there was real cause for 
 resentment in some sections, especially since the reservation of the 
 lands did not accomplish anything toward their protection. Remon- 
 strances poured into Congress. On February 28, Senator Allen of 
 Nebraska presented a memorial from the Nebraska state senate, ask- 
 ing Congress to annul one of Cleveland's proclamations. 31 The next 
 day, Carter of Montana presented a resolution from the legislature of 
 Wyoming, praying for the abolition of one of the new reserves in that 
 state, "lest it seriously cripple and retard the state's development." 32 
 The Seattle Chamber of Commerce, 33 and various other commercial 
 associations in the West sent petitions and remonstrances. 
 
 A determined effort was made by Senator Mantle of Montana, 
 Clark of Wyoming, and other western men, during the closing days of 
 Cleveland's administration, to secure the revocation of these procla- 
 mations by means of a rider to the Sundry Civil Bill. Senator Clark 
 offered the amendment. "We have protested by this amendment," he 
 announced, "against a most grievous wrong that I am convinced was 
 perpetrated in ignorance and since that time has been continued by 
 obstinacy, because, the facts and circumstances being once known as 
 to these reservations, nothing but pure obstinacy would persist in a 
 course that threatens so much disaster to a large portion of this 
 Republic." 
 
 Clark's amendment was accepted by the Senate, but when it came 
 up in the House, Lacey of Iowa offered as a substitute an amendment 
 giving the President authority to modify or vacate altogether any 
 executive order creating forest reserves. After some debate, the House 
 agreed to this substitute. When it came to the Senate, considerable 
 hostility was evident, but Clark and his supporters finally abandoned 
 their attempt to revoke the proclamations during that session of 
 Congress. They announced, however, that they would block legislation 
 in the next session until they got relief. "I want to say here and now," 
 declared Mantle, "that if these assurances (of modification of the 
 proclamations) should fail of realization, if the people of those states 
 
 soFernow, "History of Forestry," 418. See also S. Doc. 68; 55 Cong. 1 sess. 
 si Cong. Bee, Feb. 28, 1897, 2480. 
 
 32 Cong. Rec, Mar. 1, 1897, 2548. 
 
 33 S. Doc. 68; 55 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
132 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, I 
 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." 34 
 
 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 Survey, 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 it 
 as an amendment to the Sundry Civil Bill. 
 
 A special session of Congress was called by President McKinley on 
 March 15, 1897, and early in the session, Pettigrew came forward 
 with his amendment 35 — a slightly different measure from the one Wal- 
 cott had given him. 36 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 certain 
 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 
 
 34 H. R. 10356; 54 Cong. 2 sess.: Cong. Bee, Mar. 3, 1897, 2930. 
 
 35 Cong. Bee, Apr. 8, 1897, 655; May 5, 899. 
 
 36 The writer is obliged to Dr. Charles Walcott for much of this information. 
 
THE FOREST RESERVES 133 
 
 for minerals or for agricultural purposes than for forest purposes 
 was specifically forbidden. In the second place, the Secretary of the 
 Interior was authorized to give free timber and stone to settlers, 
 miners, or residents for firewood, fencing, building, mining, prospect- 
 ing, and other domestic purposes ; and in the third place, the reserves 
 were opened to mining and prospecting. In the fourth place, a clause 
 authorized any person who had a claim or a patent to land included 
 in a forest reserve to relinquish his tract to the government and select 
 and receive patent to an equal area outside. 
 
 A number of provisions of the Pettigrew bill showed the influence 
 of wise and far-sighted friends of the reserves. In the first place, and 
 most important, a clause gave the Secretary of the Interior the power 
 to make provisions for the protection of the reserve — to "make such 
 rules and regulations and establish such service as will insure the 
 objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and 
 use, and to preserve the forests thereon from destruction." In the 
 second place, the secretary was authorized to sell timber, "under such 
 rules and regulations" as he might prescribe ; and in the third place, 
 the President was authorized to restore lands found better adapted to 
 mining or agricultural purposes than to forest usage, or to modify 
 the boundaries of forest reserves in any way. 
 
 On the whole, the amendment was about the best measure that 
 friends of the reserves could have hoped for, but as a rider to an 
 appropriation bill it was clearly out of order. Pettigrew announced, 
 however, that if his amendment were ruled out on a point of order, he 
 would fight the appropriation bill with a filibuster. This proved un- 
 necessary, for when Senator Gorman raised the point of order it was 
 referred to the Senate and voted down by a vote of 25 to 23. 3T 
 
 In the amendment, as first introduced by Pettigrew, there was no 
 provision revoking or suspending the new reserves ; but he later re- 
 introduced it with a clause suspending the reserves that Cleveland had 
 established, until March 1, 1898; and it was on this question of sus- 
 pending the reserves that most of the debates turned, less attention 
 being paid to other more important provisions. 
 
 The western men rallied around Pettigrew, almost to a man. Clark 
 of Wyoming complained of the "utter and absolute and intolerant 
 ignorance 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." 38 
 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 
 
 VOTE ON SENATOR GORMAN'S POINT 
 OF ORDER 
 
 ^ CarrseeSATiOM i/or£, 
 
 HOLDine po/rtr OF ORDEP^ 
 WtArtTi- conscBi/A Tion't/trre 
 tsa opposing Poimt Of Ordeb 
 
 I - 1 <3TA TES in IVHiott MC1THCH senAT, 
 
 i/OTeo,oe in H/HicnTtiEr voted on opposite s/des. 
 
 Cong. Rec, May 6, 1897, 924 
 
 38 Cong. Bee, May 5, 1897, 901 ; May 6, 909, 912, 914, 916. 
 
THE FOREST RESERVES 135 
 
 to the effect that he has great concern for the preservation of the 
 forests of the distant state of Washington 5000 miles from the place 
 where he lives. Yet neither he nor the people who may live in the State 
 where he now resides can by any conceivable possibility be affected 
 one 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 
 of that section have sent to represent them in the Halls of Congress, 
 that there should be any quibble raised in respect to the enactment of 
 this legislation." 
 
 Wilson of Washington appealed to history to show that a great 
 injustice was being done to the West. "It would seem," he argued, 
 "that it was impossible for the people west of the Missouri River to 
 develop 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 
 citizen to do so. They do not complain of this. It is right and proper 
 and 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 
 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?" 
 
 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." 
 
 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 
 
THE FOREST RESERVES 137 
 
 of administrative law restrains him and compels him, subordinate his 
 private interests to the larger interests of the whole people." 
 
 The adoption of Pettigrew's amendment in the Senate by a vote of 
 14 to 32 shows how strong was the sentiment in its favor. 39 The fact 
 that many western men should be energetically pushing a measure 
 which was later to be recognized as one of the great landmarks in the 
 conservation movement, paradoxical as it seems at first blush, is not 
 difficult to explain. A great many forest reserves had been established 
 in the West, and these lands were virtually locked up against all use 
 or development; and at the same time they were just as completely 
 unprotected from fire and trespass as unreserved lands. Pettigrew's 
 amendment, opening these lands to mining, and providing for the use 
 and development, as well as the protection, of the timber, naturally 
 appealed to the men from the states involved ; while the lieu selection 
 provision, in its very generous treatment of settlers, presented a 
 strong argument for western support. 
 
 In the House, several western men took up with energy the cause 
 which Pettigrew had espoused in the Senate. Their activity took the 
 form in the main of a bitter denunciation of Cleveland's proclamation 
 of February 22. Hartman of Montana called it "a parting shot of 
 the worst enemy that the American people have ever had." Knowles of 
 South Dakota declared that the issue of this "villainous order" meant 
 that 15,000 people in his state "must vacate their homes and become 
 paupers" ; and he was particularly indignant because President 
 Cleveland had consulted so little the wishes of the western politicians. 
 "We know the 'rotten boroughs of the West,' as the New York World 
 calls us, have little influence with this administration," he said. "Our 
 Representatives warm their heels in the anterooms not only of the 
 President, but those of the heads of Departments, while the Represen- 
 tatives and Senators from the East file past them and have the quick 
 ear of every branch of the Government." Castle of California declared 
 that "there was never exhibited by any government a more shameless, 
 a more brutal object lesson of might making right" than in the treat- 
 ment of certain "peaceable citizens of California" ; and Bailey of 
 Texas declared he would never "vote to make any adjustment which 
 proposes in a foolish and sentimental regard for forests to ignore and 
 
 39 Cong. Bee, May 6, 1897, 924. 
 
138 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY' 
 
 disregard the interests of the men of flesh and blood who have built up 
 that country." 40 
 
 The complaints of the western men did not elicit a large measure of 
 sympathy in the House. Lacey of Iowa saw one aspect of the situa- 
 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. ... I have 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 
 almost mountains of timber are carried and dumped at the foot of 
 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." 41 
 
 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. 
 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. Bee, May 10, 969, 970; May 11, 1007, 1008, 1013. 
 4i Ibid., May 10, 965. 
 
THE FOREST RESERVES 139 
 
 motion for non-concurrence, which was adopted by a vote of 100 
 to 39. 42 
 
 The conference committee to which the Sundry Civil Bill was 
 referred was fortunately composed mainly of men who were not hostile 
 to the reserves. At least two of the Senate conferees — Allison of Iowa 
 and Gorman of Maryland — had actively defended the forest reserves, 
 while, 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, 
 on an appropriation bill. There was not an aggressive enemy of con- 
 servation 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. 43 
 
 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 
 have patented to him, free of charge, a tract of land of like area 
 wheresoever there are public lands open for settlement." This was an 
 exceedingly generous provision, for it would have allowed any settler 
 who 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 
 "public 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. 
 
 43 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. 44 
 
 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 
 
 44 Some 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 
 
 in the matter of lieu selections. The opposition did not have strong 
 enough support, even in the Senate, however, to block an appropria- 
 tion bill ; and the conference report was adopted by a vote of 32 to 25 
 in the Senate, and 89 to 6 in the House. With the approval of this 
 act, on June 4, 1897, the forest reserves emerged from a very pre- 
 carious situation. 45 
 
 THE ACT OF 1897 
 
 The act of 1897 was thus a compromise. The western men secured, 
 in the first place, the suspension of Cleveland's proclamation. At the 
 end of nine months the proclamations were again to take effect, but 
 this allowed sufficient time for speculators and adventurers to go upon 
 the land and establish claims against the government, and enabled 
 mining companies to cut supplies of timber. 46 The clause limiting the 
 purposes for which reserves might be set aside was not a serious 
 restriction, however; the provision authorizing the Secretary of the 
 Interior to give free timber to settlers was one which he might use 
 at his own discretion ; and the clause opening the reserves to mining 
 was not likely to injure the reserves at all, while it was certain to 
 greatly reduce western hostility to the reserves. 
 
 On the whole, the act represents a very important step forward. 
 The permission given the secretary to sell timber growing on the 
 reserves recognized at last, and forty years too late, the principle 
 which must govern any intelligent system of forest administration- 
 sale of the timber with a reservation of the land. It is true that merely 
 authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to "make provisions for 
 the protection of the reserves" did not afford much protection unless 
 the secretary had funds, and appropriations for protection from 
 timber trespass had even decreased since 1891 ; 47 but under the vig- 
 orous administration of Pinchot these appropriations were destined 
 to increase again. 48 Finally, the provision authorizing the President 
 
 45 Cong. Bee, May 27, 1897, 1278 et seq., 1284, 1285: S. Doc. 68; 55 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 46 Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 80, 268. 
 
 47 In 1891, the amount appropriated had been $100,000 for "timber protection," 
 and $120,000 for "protection from fraudulent entry," making $220,000 in all. In 
 1897, these two items were combined and a total of only $90,000 was appropriated. 
 (Stat. 26, 970; 30, 32.) 
 
 48 Even had there been no increase in appropriations, the secretary was now in 
 a better 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. 49 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.) 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE FOREST RESERVES SINCE 1897: THE PERIOD OF 
 CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 
 
 THE "GOLDEN ERA" OF FOREST CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 
 
 The decade following the passage of the act of 1897 may be regarded 
 as the "golden era" of the conservation movement, for more was 
 accomplished during this decade than during any similar period in 
 the history of that movement. 
 
 In 1897, there were less than ten professional foresters in the 
 country, no field equipment, no real understanding of forestry any- 
 where, except with a few men like Fernow and Pinchot. The Division 
 of Forestry was still merely a bureau of information, employing a 
 total of thirteen persons, including five clerks and one messenger. In 
 1898, however, Gifford Pinchot was appointed Chief of the Division 
 of Forestry, and under his administration the development of for- 
 estry work was almost phenomenal. Pinchot was young, ambitious, 
 trained in the best forest schools of Europe, with a large fortune, and 
 a driving zeal for public service, coupled with a winning personality, 
 great power of leadership and organization — a "millionaire with a 
 mission." Fortunately he was working under a man who was able to 
 appreciate those qualities ; and President Roosevelt probably sought 
 the counsel of Pinchot more than that of any other man in Washing- 
 ton. These two men represented a force which was able to accomplish 
 great things for conservation. 1 
 
 PUBLIC OPINION AND CONSERVATION 
 
 Public interest in forest conservation developed very rapidly during 
 this period, largely because of the influence of Pinchot and Roosevelt. 
 
 i Fernow, "History of Forestry," 420: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912, 229-243; Pro- 
 ceedings, Society of Am. Foresters, May, 1905: American Magazine, Jan., 1908: 
 Current Literature, 47, 388: Independent, 64, 415, 1374: No. Am. Rev., 188, 740: 
 Outlook, 87, 291, 292; 92, 718; 93, 770; 94, 282: World's Work, 16, 10235, 10427; 19, 
 12662; 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. 
 
 STATE CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 
 
 The interest shown by many of the states previous to 1891 has 
 already been noted. 2 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. 3 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. 4 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. 
 
 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. 5 
 
 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. 
 
 s Fernow, "History of Forestry," 426. 
 
 4 In 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.) 
 
 s Report, Pa. Commissioner of Forestry, 1901-02, 11. 
 
THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 145 
 
 state lands in the northern timbered portion of the state. Wisconsin 
 now has nearly 400,000 acres of state forest lands. In 1900, Minne- 
 sota entered upon a policy of forest reservation, and established a 
 state forest service a decade later. Michigan passed a law in 1907 
 withdrawing from sale 40,000 acres of agricultural college lands, 
 and the state now owns over 200,000 acres of state forests. In 1908, 
 Vermont made state forests possible by creating a Board of Agri- 
 culture and Forestry, with authority to purchase lands for the state ; 
 and Vermont now has a small area of state forest land. New Hamp- 
 shire recently provided for the purchase of Crawford Notch. New 
 Jersey now has about 14,000 acres of state forest lands, and Con- 
 necticut a smaller amount, while South Dakota has 80,000 acres, 
 carrying 250,000,000 feet of western yellow pine. Several American 
 cities have even established forests, usually for watershed protection. 
 Salt Lake City has about 25,000 acres, Newark, New Jersey, over 
 22,000 acres, and Asheville, North Carolina, Hartford, Connecticut, 
 and Lynchburg, Virginia, have smaller amounts. 6 
 
 Comparatively few of the states own any public forests, but al- 
 most all have established some agency to look after - forest matters. 
 In some of the states, single foresters have been appointed — in Maine 
 (1891), Connecticut (1901), Massachusetts (1904), Vermont 
 (1904), and Rhode Island (1906). 7 Other states, following the lead 
 of New York in 1885, have provided for commissions or boards — New 
 Hampshire (1893), Wisconsin (1897) (a temporary commission, 
 followed by a permanent Forestry Board in 1905), Michigan and 
 Minnesota (1899), 8 Indiana (1901), New Jersey (1905), Washing- 
 ton (1905), Maryland and Kentucky (1906), Alabama and Oregon 
 (1907). Hawaii created a Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry in 
 1902, and in 1903, a Board of Commissioners of Agriculture and 
 Forestry. In 1905, the California Board of Forestry, which had been 
 abolished by politics in 1893, was again revived. 9 Many of the ap- 
 
 6 Proceedings, Society of Am. Foresters; July, 1913, 202: Forestry and Irriga- 
 tion, Feb., 1906, 80; Aug., 1907, 403: American Forestry, May, 1911, 253; Jan., 
 1912, 62; May, 1917, 306: Smithsonian Report, 1910, 433: Am. Lumberman, Oct. 7, 
 1916, 28. 
 
 7 Fernow, "History of Forestry," 428: Kinney, "Forest Law in America." 
 s The office of fire warden had been created in Minnesota in 1895. 
 
 9 Information 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, 10 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 
 movement for rational taxation of forest lands, and on this problem 
 many of the states are still at work. 11 
 
 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- 
 
 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." 
 
 io Report, State Forester, Wisconsin, 1907-08, 92. 
 
 ii House Report 134 of Mass., Jan., 1906: Mass., Report of Commission on 
 Taxation of Wild or Forest Lands, 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, 
 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, 75: 
 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 
 Fred R. Fairchild, Address delivered before Sixth National Conference on State 
 and Local Taxation, Des Moines, Iowa; Sept. 4, 1912: Fernow, "Economics of 
 Forestry," Appendix, 465-467: American Lumberman, Jan. 27, 1912: Proceedings, 
 Society of Am. Foresters, Apr., 1906, 115: Addresses by Fred R. Fairchild, A. C. 
 Shaw, and B. E. Fernow at International Conference on State and Local Taxation, 
 Toronto, Canada, Oct. 6-9, 1908; International Tax Assoc, Columbus, Ohio. 
 
THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 147 
 
 lowed after that time. As early as 1892, the American Educational 
 Association recommended the universal observance of Arbor Day, 
 and at the present time there are only a very few states where the 
 day is not recognized. On April 15, 1907, President Roosevelt called 
 upon the school children of the United States to give one day each 
 year to tree-planting exercises. The movement has even spread to 
 foreign countries. 12 
 
 It should perhaps be noted that in recent years many of the states 
 have given increasing attention to fire protection. After the destruc- 
 tive 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; 
 New York $75,000; Pennsylvania $25,000; and Maryland $5000. 
 Likewise, after the terrible forest fires of 1910, in the Lake states and 
 in the Pacific Northwest, Wisconsin raised her appropriation to 
 $35,000; Minnesota appropriated $75,000; Washington $38,000; 
 and Oregon $25,000. 13 In 1907, the first Lake States Forestry Con- 
 ference, composed of representatives from Michigan, Minnesota, and 
 Wisconsin, was held at Saginaw, Michigan; and in December, 1910, 
 after the disastrous fires of the summer of that year, the Lake States 
 Forest Fire Conference met at St. Paul, Minnesota. 14 In 1911, the 
 Boy Scouts organized in Michigan for protection against forest 
 fires. 
 
 EDUCATION IN FORESTRY 
 
 Some provision for technical education in forestry was made long 
 before opportunity for its application had arisen, and indeed before 
 any professional foresters could be found in this country to do the 
 teaching. The new subject attracted the attention of educational 
 institutions, and the desire to assist in a popular movement led to 
 its introduction, at least by name, into their curricula. In 1897, 
 twenty institutions, land grant colleges, offered some instruction in 
 forestry. 
 
 12 Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc, 1891-92-93, 12: Arbor and Bird Bay 
 Annual, Indiana, 1907, 15: Forestry and Irrigation, May, 1907, 223, 247, 265; Apr., 
 1908, 201. 
 
 is American Forestry, Nov., 1913, 721. 
 
 i* Official Report of the Conference, published by the American Lumberman, 
 Chicago, 1911. 
 
148 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 The era of professional forest schools, however, was inaugurated 
 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. 15 
 
 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 Irrigation, later as Conservation, and still later as American 
 Forestry. 16 
 
 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 
 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, 
 
 is Fernow, "History of Forestry," 433. 
 16 Ibid., 432. 
 
THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 149 
 
 with Charles W. Eliot as president. In 1909, a conservation com- 
 mission was also created in Canada. 17 
 
 OTHER INDICATIONS OF CONSERVATION SENTIMENT 
 The railroad companies began experiments in tree planting in the 
 early seventies, and some of them are still trying to work out a system 
 of timber culture which will at least provide a part of the future tie 
 supply. The Louisville & Nashville, the Michigan Central, the Illinois 
 Central, the Big Four, the St. Louis & San Francisco, and the 
 Norfolk & Western have made various sporadic attempts to develop 
 plantations. The Santa Fe has made systematic efforts to grow 
 eucalyptus on some of its lands in southern California; and the 
 Pennsylvania Railroad has planted several million trees on its unused 
 land. 18 
 
 Nowhere was the interest of the people in timber conservation more 
 clearly indicated than in the party platforms of 1908 and 1912. The 
 Democratic platform adopted at Denver in 1908 announced, "We 
 insist upon the preservation, protection and replacement of needed 
 forests." The Republican platform of the same year stated, "We 
 endorse the movement inaugurated by the administration for the 
 conservation of natural resources, and we approve of all measures 
 to prevent the waste of timber." Four years later the Republican, 
 Democratic, Progressive, and Prohibition platforms all had con- 
 servation planks, the Progressive platform being particularly com- 
 prehensive in that respect. 19 
 
 BROADENING SCOPE OF THE CONSERVATION MOVEMENT 
 It was during the first decade of the twentieth century that the 
 "conservation movement" acquired something of its present signifi- 
 cance and importance. Under the influence of Pinchot largely, the 
 idea of conservation was extended to other natural resources than 
 timber — coal, oil, gas, iron, grazing lands, irrigable lands, water and 
 water power, and at the same time acquired a broader meaning than 
 that involved in the mere "saving" of these resources. With Pinchot 
 
 it Information here is taken from current issues of Forestry and Irrigation, 
 Conservation, American Forestry, and the Canadian Forestry Journal. 
 
 is Forest Leaves, Aug., 1907, 50: American Forestry, Apr., 1910, 26: Proceed- 
 ings, Society of Am. Foresters, Vol. 4, 30 et seq. 
 
 19 World Almanac and Encyclopedia, 1910 and 1913. 
 
150 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 and Roosevelt, the "conservation movement" meant a constructive 
 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 20 in 1910 
 was mainly concerned, not with the conservation of timber, but coal. 
 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 
 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 
 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 1903 "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 
 
 Pinchot, sat in session at Washington for several weeks, hearing 
 testimony regarding the public lands, and then Pinchot and Newell 
 went west to confer with various western interests. In March, 1904, 
 a partial report was finished, and a year later the second part of the 
 report was finished and sent to Congress. This report, like the Donald- 
 son report of the early eighties, contained a vast amount of informa- 
 tion regarding the public lands and the operation of the public land 
 laws, and recommended a number of changes in those laws, in the 
 interests of conservation. It is not certain that this report accom- 
 plished a great deal toward the repeal of bad laws or the enactment 
 of good laws ; in fact, it was somewhat disappointing as far as result- 
 ing legislation was concerned, but at any rate it furnished needed 
 information regarding public land questions. 21 
 
 THE WATERWAYS COMMISSION AND THE CONFERENCE OF 
 
 GOVERNORS 
 
 In March, 1907, President Roosevelt created the Inland Waterways 
 Commission, to make a comprehensive study of the river systems of 
 the United States, and suggest means of improvement of navigation, 
 development of power, irrigation of arid land, protection of lowlands 
 from floods, and of uplands from soil erosion — to work out "a compre- 
 hensive plan designed for the benefit of the entire country." While this 
 commission was engaged in an inspection trip along the lower Missis- 
 sippi, Pinchot, who was a member, conceived the idea of calling a con- 
 ference of the governors of the states to consider the question of the 
 conservation of the resources of the country. President Roosevelt, of 
 course, approved the suggestion, and wrote to the governors of all 
 the states, inviting them to a conference to be held in the White House 
 in May, 1908. Invitations were also extended to the justices of the 
 Supreme Court, to members of the cabinet, to all the senators and 
 representatives in Congress, heads of scientific bureaus at Washing- 
 ton, representatives of the great national societies, both scientific and 
 industrial, representatives of journals, and to notable citizens known 
 to be interested in the natural resources of the country, including 
 J. J. Hill and Carnegie. 
 
 The character of this conference shows the importance which 
 Pinchot and Roosevelt attached to the question of conservation. It 
 
 2i S. 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. 22 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. 23 
 
 THE NATIONAL CONSERVATION COMMISSION 
 
 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. 24 
 
 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- 
 tion of conservation. In consequence of these invitations, the first 
 North American Conservation Conference was held in Washington, 
 February 18, 1909 — a meeting somewhat similar to the Conference 
 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. 25 
 
 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. 
 
 24 S. Doc, 676 ; 60 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 25 S. Report 826; 61 Cong. 2 sess. 45: Conservation, Apr., 1909, 218-221: Cana- 
 dian Forestry Journal, June, 1909, 99. 
 
THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 153 
 
 priation for the National Conservation Commission, and Senator 
 Knute Nelson of Minnesota introduced an amendment to the Sundry 
 Civil Bill, appropriating $25,000 for the expenses of the commission. 26 
 This amendment went to the Senate Committee on Appropriations 
 and was lost there. Senator Eugene Hale of Maine was chairman of 
 that committee, and he has been blamed for the failure of the amend- 
 ment. 27 
 
 The failure of Nelson's amendment was unfortunate enough for the 
 Conservation Commission, but it would not have been fatal had the 
 commission still retained the authority to ask the scientific bureaus 
 to do such work as was appropriate and proper for them to under- 
 take. In the House of Representatives, however, a clause was attached 
 to the Sundry Civil Bill, prohibiting all bureaus from doing work for 
 any commission, board or similar body appointed by the President 
 without legislative sanction. 28 James A. Tawney of Minnesota, who 
 had generally opposed conservation, was responsible for this amend- 
 ment. 29 
 
 Congress having thus strangled the National Conservation Com- 
 mission, the organization of the conservation movement was carried 
 forward by the Joint Committee on Conservation, an official body 
 established at the Second Conference of Governors, and in the fall of 
 1909, the National Conservation Association was organized. This 
 association was supported largely by personal contributions of 
 Pinchot. 
 
 Toward the close of the sixtieth Congress, President-elect Taft 
 suggested to Mr. Nelson, chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, 
 
 26 Cong. Bee, Feb. 17, 1909, 2561. 
 
 27 In earlier years, Senator Hale had evinced an apparent interest in forest 
 conservation. (S. 1476, S. 1779; 50 Cong. 1 sess.) 
 
 28 Stat. 35, 1027. 
 
 29 Cong. Bee, Feb. 25, 1909, 3118. Dr. Van Hise, president of the University of 
 Wisconsin, wrote an article in the World's Work, denouncing Tawney for his anti- 
 conservation activity; but Tawney claimed, in justification of his amendment, 
 that Roosevelt had appointed a great number of commissions of various kinds 
 without any sanction from Congress, and that this was turning the work of some 
 of the bureaus into channels other than those intended by Congress. It is easy to 
 believe that there was some truth in this, for Roosevelt was inclined to do things 
 without specific authorization from Congress. That is about the best way for a 
 President to get things done. (Cong. Bee, July 27, 1909, 4614: World's Work, 
 June, 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. M Senator Newlands introduced a bill 
 providing for the appointment of a national conservation commis- 
 sion, 31 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. 32 
 
 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. 33 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 
 
 so S. Report 826 ; 61 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 3i S. 3719; 61 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 32 Stat. 30, 618, 1095; 31, 613, 614; 32, 452; 33, 482, 483. 
 
 ss Stat. 30, 3, 5. 
 
THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 155 
 
 like a revival of the Timber Culture Law. 34 In 1900, the sum given for 
 general expenses was again doubled, and the next year doubled again, 
 a total of $185,000 being provided in the latter year for the Bureau 
 of Forestry, which succeeded the Division of Forestry. In 1902, the 
 appropriation for the Bureau of Forestry was increased over $100,- 
 000, and the next year was raised to $350,000. In 1904, $425,140 
 was provided, while the additional sum of $200,000 was given for a 
 forestry and irrigation exhibit at the St. Louis World's Fair. 35 
 
 TRANSFER OF THE RESERVES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 
 AGRICULTURE 
 
 In connection with the appropriations for timber protection, atten- 
 tion must be directed to the transfer of the forest reserve administra- 
 tion, in 1905, from the Department of the Interior to the Department 
 of Agriculture. This transfer did not mean simply that the appro- 
 priations went to a different department ; it meant that money given 
 for protection was more efficiently used, and it is even probable that 
 appropriations were more generous after 1905, because of the greater 
 efficiency in their expenditure. 
 
 Previous to 1905, the forest work of the government was badly 
 scattered, the Land Office, in the Department of the Interior, being 
 charged with the administration and protection of the forest reserves, 
 the Geological Survey with the surveying, while the Division of For- 
 estry — later the Bureau of Forestry — in the Department of Agri- 
 culture, directed the technical research and investigation. The dis- 
 advantages arising from this dispersal of functions became more and 
 more apparent as the area of forest reserves increased. Also the Land 
 Office was not well fitted to carry on the work of forest management, 
 for it had no trained foresters and no facilities of developing them, or 
 of developing the scientific knowledge upon which intelligent forest 
 administration must be based. The Land Office attempted to do little 
 but protect the forests against trespass and fire, although some timber 
 was sold and the grazing of stock was regulated to some extent. This 
 policy of merely guarding the forest reserves, without providing for 
 their proper use — a policy of "locking up" a valuable resource — was 
 
 34 Stat. 30, 952. 
 
 35 Stat. 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, 36 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. 37 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. 38 
 
 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. 39 
 
 Pinchot, with the help of the Secretary of the Interior and the 
 
 se H. R. 10306, H. R. 11536; 57 Cong. 1 sess. 
 3T H. Report 968. 
 
 38 Cong. Bee, Feb. 11, 1901, 2247. 
 
 39 Cong. Bee, June 9, 1902, 6509-6526; June 10, 6566-6573: Beport, Sec. of Int., 
 1904, 28, 380. 
 
THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 157 
 
 Commissioner of the Land Office, continued his campaign to secure 
 the transfer of the forest reserves, however, and early in Roosevelt's 
 administration, Mondell brought in a bill to make the transfer. 40 The 
 Senate committee reporting the bill loaded it down with such a mass 
 of provisos that the original purpose was somewhat obscured, 41 but 
 this measure finally passed both houses without much opposition. 42 
 
 Thus the transfer of the forest reserves to the Department of Agri- 
 culture was finally effected by a western man, Mondell, whose name, 
 in the year just previous, had headed the list of signatures to a House 
 report which asserted the impracticability of any such transfer. 43 In 
 the Senate, another western man, Warren of Wyoming, introduced 
 two bills in the fifty-eighth Congress, providing for the transfer of 
 the reserves to the Department of Agriculture. Warren later devel- 
 oped into a moderate conservationist on forestry questions, and, per- 
 haps even at this time, a regard for the forests might explain his 
 action, but Mondell was always an active enemy of the forest reserves, 
 and his action must be explained differently. The explanation is per- 
 haps indicated in a memorial of the Idaho Wool Growers Association, 
 which in 1903, prayed Congress for a law transferring the reserves 
 to the Department of Agriculture because the Department of the 
 Interior was shutting many of the stockmen out. 44 The Department 
 of the 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 
 Department of Agriculture, under Pinchot's influence, was turning 
 to a more liberal policy in grazing matters. 
 
 The act of 1905 contained several provisions besides the one shift- 
 ing the forest reserves to the Department of Agriculture. The western 
 men secured a little political concession requiring the selection of 
 forest supervisors and rangers, when practicable, from the citizens of 
 the states or territories in which the reserves were located ; while the 
 conservation forces secured a provision requiring that money received 
 from the sale of timber should, for a period of five years, constitute a 
 
 40 H. R. 1987; 58 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 8460; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 
 4i S. Report 2954 ; 58 Cong. 3. sess. 
 
 42 Stat. 33, 628. 
 
 43 H. Report 968; 57 Cong. 1 sess., Pt. 2. 
 
 44 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. 45 
 
 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 1903, for instance, it was the Senate, the stronghold of western 
 sentiment, that raised the House appropriation for the Bureau of 
 Forestry nearly $85,000 ; 46 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. 47 In the Sundry Civil Bill of the same year, 48 a Senate committee 
 
 ^8tat. 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. Bee, Feb. 24, 1903, 2548. 
 
 47 Ibid., 2547. 
 
 48 H. R. 17202; 57 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 159 
 
 raised the House appropriation for the protection of forest reserves 
 from $325,000 to $400,000 ; 49 and this amendment was agreed to in 
 the Senate without a comment. In both these bills, the final amount 
 provided represented a compromise between the two houses, with the 
 Senate calling for the larger appropriation. The situation in 1904 
 was similar, and so again in 1905. 50 In 1907, on the proposal to give 
 the Forest Service $500,000 for working capital and. permanent 
 improvements, it was Mann of Illinois who raised the point of order, 
 while in opposition to this extra appropriation, the western anti-con- 
 servationists, Carter, Heyburn, Fulton, Clark, and Patterson, were 
 assisted by several men from central and eastern states — Tawney of 
 Minnesota, Mann of Illinois, Hemenway of Indiana, and Lodge of 
 Massachusetts. 51 
 
 Thus it is clear that the division on the question of these appro- 
 priations was not sectional, as on most conservation questions. Sev- 
 eral reasons may be given for the failure of the western men to put up 
 a stronger fight against the appropriations. In the first place, irri- 
 gation was assuming greater importance, and some of the men saw 
 that forest destruction would involve hardship for the settler depend- 
 ent upon a steady water supply. Also, the Secretary of the Interior 
 was, during these years, giving some free timber to settlers in the 
 vicinity of the reserves, and this made them look more kindly upon 
 the reservation policy, and upon the appropriations for carrying that 
 policy into effect. 52 As a further reason for the changed attitude of 
 some of the western men, it has been suggested that some of the tim- 
 bermen who had secured land, in some cases at a fairly high price, 
 finally saw that it was to their interest to advocate the reservation 
 of other land which might come into competition with their holdings. 
 This would limit the supply of timber available to other lumbermen, 
 and so enhance the value of their own holdings. Such an attitude as 
 this might be natural enough for those lumbermen who had no inten- 
 tion of securing more lands. 
 
 Some of the stockmen enjoyed free grazing privileges, 53 and a few 
 
 « Cong. Rec, Feb. 25, 1903, 2621. 
 
 so S. Report 811; 58 Cong. 2 sess.: S. Report 3567; 58 Cong. 3 sess. 
 
 si Cong. Rec, Jan. 29, 1907, 1906-1909; Feb. 19, 1907, 3292-3300. 
 
 52 Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 241: Statistical Abstract, 1907, 113. 
 
 53 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. 54 
 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 
 "green 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. 55 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 
 
 si Cong. Bee, Feb. 18, 1907, 3189: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc, 1894-95- 
 96, 71: S. Doc. 189, 58 Cong. 3 sess. (diagram in back of book). For a description 
 of the dimculties arising under unregulated grazing see Forestry and Irrigation, 
 Apr., 1907, 211. 
 
 55 Statistical Abstract, 1907, 660. 
 
THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 161 
 
 of national forests was increasing rapidly, and the appropriations 
 had to cover an increasingly large area, while the income from the 
 forest reserves was increasing faster than appropriations were. 
 
 CREATION OF NEW RESERVES 
 
 Cleveland's forest reserve proclamations of February 22, 1897, 
 were the last he made, for his term expired shortly afterwards, but 
 McKinley had been in office less than a year when he established his 
 first reserve, 56 and during his term of office he increased the number 
 of forest reserves from twenty-eight to over forty, 57 covering in 1901 
 a total area of about 50,000,000 acres. 
 
 President Roosevelt was far more aggressive in his reservation policy 
 than his predecessors had been. His policy, however, should be credited 
 mainly to his chief forester, Pinchot ; in fact, it is perhaps only fair 
 to say that for a very large part of the 150,000,000 acres of forest 
 reserves which are now the property of the American people, credit is 
 due to Gifford Pinchot, who was Roosevelt's most trusted assistant 
 and adviser. Pinchot saw that the government was rapidly losing its 
 timber land, and he organized a field force to gather information as 
 the basis of recommending reserves. During these years, the timber- 
 men of the Lake states were looking westward for new fields to exploit, 
 and their agents in the West were assembling blocks of timber land as 
 fast as they could. Thus proceeded the race between the government 
 and the private individuals for the remaining western timber. Roose- 
 velt set aside thirteen reserves in the first year of his administration ; 58 
 and his zeal increased prodigiously in the last years of his administra- 
 tion. In 1907, the number of national forests had been increased to 
 159, with a total area of over 150,000,000 acres — three times the 
 area at the beginning of Roosevelt's administration. 59 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF THE FOREST FIRE LAW 
 
 Congress made some advances in the protection of timber in other 
 ways than by providing money. In the first place, the law against 
 setting forest fires was somewhat improved. The act of 1897 had pro- 
 se Stat. 30, 1767. 
 
 57 Report, Land Office, 1901, 107. 
 
 58 Stat. 32, 1988-2030. 
 
 59 Report, Land Office, 1907, 20. 
 
162 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 vided that any person who should "willfully or maliciously" set a 
 fire, or "carelessly or negligently" leave a fire unattended near any 
 timber, should be punished by a fine of not more than $5000 or by 
 imprisonment for not more than two years. 60 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. 61 In 1900, this difficulty was partially 
 removed by striking out the words "carelessly or negligently," 62 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. 63 Considerable progress seems to have been made, 
 however, in reducing the number of forest fires, especially in reducing 
 the number of camp fires left burning; and in 1909, the law was 
 further modified. 64 
 
 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. 65 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, 
 for the Attorney-General held that the right to make arrests without 
 warrant, in such cases, was at least questionable. 66 In 1899, the Land 
 Office recommended legislation to meet this condition, 67 and in 1900, 
 
 eo Stat. 29, 594. 
 
 ei H. Report 482 ; 56 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 62 Stat. 31, 169. 
 
 63 Reports, Land Office; 1900, 114; 1901, 153. 
 
 6* 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.) 
 63 Stat. 33, 700. 
 
 ee S. Report 2624 ; 57 Cong. 2 sess. 
 67 Report, Land Office, 1899, 128. 
 
THE PERIOD OF CONSERVATION 163 
 
 bills were introduced by Representative Lacey of Iowa and Senator 
 Hansbrough of North Dakota, but both measures were smothered in 
 committee. 68 Two years later a bill passed the Senate, 69 and was favor- 
 ably reported in the House, 70 but never came to a vote there. In 1904, 
 a bill introduced by Representative Wallace of Arkansas passed the 
 House, 71 and was brought up in the Senate by Depew of New York, 
 but Senator Teller saw a "very important constitutional question" as 
 to whether the United States had criminal jurisdiction over some of 
 the reserves, and his objections sent the bill back to the calendar. 72 It 
 was, of course, true that such a power as this might sometimes be 
 abused, or, as one western writer expressed it, "might give addi- 
 tional means of annoyance and intimidation" to the rangers ; but, in 
 the next session of Congress, five days after the transfer of the reserve 
 to the Department of Agriculture, the power was finally granted. 73 
 
 es H. R. 8912, S. 3947; 56 Cong. 1 sess. 
 69 Cong. Bee, Feb. 7, 1903, 1889. 
 to H. Report 3860 ; 57 Cong. 2 sess. 
 7i Cony. Bee, Apr. 23, 1904, 5449. 
 
 72 Cong. Bee, Apr. 27, 5672. 
 
 73 Stat. 33, 700. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE FOREST RESERVES SINCE 1897 (continued): ANTI- 
 CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 
 
 ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 
 
 It 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 
 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 
 reserves were allowed to hold their lands through permits issued by the 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 165 
 
 Forest Service, but of course they lacked incentive to improve their 
 homes, because they could not obtain title, and the forester might at 
 any time revoke their permits. 1 
 
 It is not to be supposed that all of the western men who railed at 
 the 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 
 upon the forest reserves or upon the Forest Service, and the "hard- 
 ships of the settlers" served excellently for debating purposes. Later 
 developments in certain sections indicate that many of the complaints 
 regarding the inclusion of agricultural land, probably most of them, 
 really arose from the fact that the creation of forest reserves pre- 
 vented speculators from acquiring land which was not really fit for 
 agriculture. 2 
 
 There was no dispute in Congress as to the desirability of opening 
 up agricultural lands to settlement. All agreed that this should be 
 done, but there was a clear division on the question as to how it should 
 be done. The conservationists wanted the opening up of such lands left 
 to the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior — later the Secretary 
 
 i Stat. 30, 34: "Land Decisions," 29, 593; 30, 44: Forestry and Irrigation, June, 
 1906, 267: Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 321, 322. 
 
 2 Thus over 400,000 acres were eliminated from the Olympic National Forest 
 in 1900 and 1901 on the ground that the land was chiefly valuable for agriculture 
 and that the "settlement of the country was being retarded." The land thus elimi- 
 nated for agricultural use was largely taken up under the Timber and Stone Act, 
 which requires oath that the land is "valuable chiefly for timber but not fit for 
 cultivation." Three companies and two individuals later acquired over 178,000 acres 
 of it, in holdings of from 15,000 to over 80,000 acres each. Of timbered homestead 
 claims on this eliminated area, held by 100 settlers, the total area under actual 
 cultivation in 1900 was only 570 acres, an average of but 5.7 acres to each claim. 
 In 1906, petitions were presented to the President and the Secretary of Agriculture 
 asking that certain lands in the Bitter Root Forest Reserve should be restored 
 on the ground that they were unusually well adapted to apple orchards. Exami- 
 nation proved that this land was covered with a fine growth of pine, so the Forest 
 Service decided that the land would not be opened until the timber had first been 
 removed. This was not at all satisfactory to the applicants, who said the timber 
 should be left as a bonus to the homemakers. 
 
 In one case the Forest Service received fifty-nine applications for eliminations, 
 and three of these were found to be bona fide. In another case where land was 
 given to "settlers" for agricultural purposes, the timber was merely cleared off 
 and not one acre in thirteen was ever cultivated. ("Lumber Industry," I, XIX, 
 267: 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 
 
 s Report, Sec. of Int., 1904, 27, 28: H. R. 13631, H. R. 13633; 58 Cong. 2 sess.: 
 H. R. 17576; 59 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 167 
 
 Two years later Lacey brought forward another bill, which finally 
 passed Congress in spite of opposition from certain western men. 4 
 
 The Lacey bill of 1906, following conservation ideals, left the open- 
 ing of these lands to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. 
 The real merits of the bill were not given much attention in the de- 
 bates, 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 
 the lands. Mondell had always complained a great deal about the 
 amount of agricultural land locked up in forest reserves, and had tried 
 to get a bill through Congress providing for their elimination; 5 but 
 Lacey's measure he promptly attacked, on the ground that it would 
 lead to undue extension of the reserves. Smith of Arizona ventured the 
 assertion that there was no longer any room left in the West for more 
 reserves, but Mondell said there were still "patches of sage brush" 
 which might be made the basis of further reservation. French of Idaho 
 considered the bill "a sort of chloroform to the people of the West," 
 while the policy of establishing forest reserves was being carried out. 
 
 Grazing interests were strong in Congress, and were to some extent 
 opposed to this measure. Thus, Smith of California secured the exclu- 
 sion of his state from the provisions of the bill, on the ground that 
 grazing lands were better left under the control of the Secretary of 
 Agriculture. This may have meant merely that Smith preferred graz- 
 ing under regulations to no grazing at all, for grazing lands were 
 sometimes also fit for cultivation, and land opened to settlers was, of 
 course, eliminated from the stock raiser's domain. Also, California 
 had a "no fence" law, according to which settlers were not required 
 to fence against grazing animals, the duty of keeping the animals off 
 of such claims resting with the stockmen. Thus, the stockmen in that 
 state found scattered settlers a source of considerable trouble and 
 expense, and so they were not particularly anxious to increase the 
 number of them. Martin of South Dakota, on the other hand, favored 
 the bill because he considered that it would protect the interests of the 
 settlers as against the stockmen. Mondell held that it was "no part 
 
 * Cong. Bee, Apr. 17, 1906, 5392 et seq. 
 
 5 H. 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- 
 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." 
 
 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. 6 
 
 GRAZING IN THE FOREST RESERVES 
 
 In the forest reserve problem, grazing always played about as 
 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. 7 
 
 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 Cong. Bee, Apr. 17, 1906, 5396: Stat. 34, 233; Stat. 34, 724. For later difficul- 
 ties concerning the elimination of agricultural lands from the forest reserves see 
 Cross References, pp. 255-260. 
 
 i Report, Land Office, 1900, 390: Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 323. 
 
 \ 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 169 
 
 of limited rainfall. 8 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 
 fires were generally started in inaccessible places, far from any road, 
 to insure the burning of a large area before they could be put out. 9 
 
 At first, the Department of the Interior regulated grazing directly, 
 but in 1902, the secretary decided that where there were wool growers' 
 associations representing a majority of the sheep owners or of the 
 interests involved in wool growing, such associations should be allowed 
 to recommend the allotment of permits, providing they would see that 
 permittees complied with all rules and regulations. Qualified wool 
 growers' associations were found in four of the states, and they were 
 given the allotment of the permits in several of the reserves, including 
 one in Arizona and one in Utah, the rules being relaxed to permit some 
 grazing in these two states. In general, the operation of the rule 
 giving wool growers this authority did not prove satisfactory. 10 The 
 issue of permits was often delayed, while too many sheep were gen- 
 erally allowed on the reserves, and in 1903, the Department of Agri- 
 culture again took charge of the allotment. 11 
 
 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- 
 cants, 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. 12 While this arrangement seems just, it was not 
 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. 13 
 
 s Report, Land Office, 1898, 87, 88. 
 
 9 Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 314: Forest Bui. 91, 6. 
 
 io Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 332. 
 
 ii Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 322. 
 
 12 Report, Sec. of Int., 1902, 332. 
 
 is 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. 14 
 
 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. 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 171 
 
 in 1903, the commissioner advised the forest officers not to institute 
 criminal proceedings in case of sheep trespass, but rather to secure 
 an injunction against the parties to restrain them from entering or 
 from remaining in the reserves. Such proceedings were instituted in 
 several jurisdictions, and in every case the court granted the injunc- 
 tion. In one case the sheepmen appealed, but the Circuit Court of 
 Appeals sustained the lower court in granting the injunction. 15 In 
 many cases the prevention of stock trespass by this method of injunc- 
 tion was a slow process, 16 and some owners persisted in taking large 
 numbers 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 ; 17 but, during 
 the period from 1900 to 1911, that right was not generally admitted; 
 in fact, during the earlier years of that period, it was generally 
 denied. 
 
 In 1903, Secretary Hitchcock sent to the Speaker of the House a 
 bill to remedy this condition of affairs, by specifically forbidding the 
 pasturing of livestock in forest reserves without "permission of the 
 secretary, but the bill was never given any consideration. In 1905, 
 the House Committee on Agriculture inserted an amendment into the 
 Agricultural Appropriation Bill, providing a penalty for grazing 
 without permission, but Martin of South Dakota thought the penalty 
 of $1000 too severe, and his point of order eliminated the amendment. 
 During the same session of Congress, another bill for accomplishing 
 the same purpose passed the House, but never emerged from the 
 Senate Committee. 18 
 
 The lack of a law specifically prohibiting grazing would have been 
 less seriously felt if there had been some way by which the department 
 controlling the reserves could impose a reasonable charge for grazing. 
 
 is Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 324, 325: Report, Dept. of Agr., 1905, 206: U. S. vs. 
 Dastervignes ; 122 Fed. Rep., 30. 
 
 is In one case, where 34,000 sheep were found trespassing on the Sierra Forest 
 Reserve, the marshal would have had to travel a distance of about 400 miles to 
 get an injunction. (Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 325.) 
 
 it U. S. vs. Grimaud; 220 U. S., 506. 
 
 is H. Doc. 12; 58 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Rec, Jan. 27, 1905, 1487: H. R. 6480; 58 
 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
172 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 The act of 1897 had authorized the secretary to sell the timber grow- 
 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. 19 
 
 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. 20 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. 21 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 alwaj T s 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 ypu 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. 
 
 2i Forestry and Irrigation, July, 1907, 341, 342, 355. 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 173 
 
 interests, 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- 
 cially to the people of the West ; I believe they cordially approve it, 
 and I do not intend to abandon it." 22 
 
 EFFORTS TO OPEN THE RESERVES TO GRAZING 
 
 There had been, from the very first, considerable opposition to all 
 regulations of grazing. On February 13, 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. 23 
 
 Senator Piatt 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." 24 In spite of the opposition of Piatt 
 and Pettigrew, the amendment was agreed to in the Senate, 25 but the 
 
 22 Forest Bui. 67, 77. 
 
 ™Cong. Bee, Feb. 13, 1899, 1781; Feb. 14, 1879; Feb. 7, 1901, 2075; Feb. 28, 
 1901, 3224.. 
 
 24 Cong. Bee, Mar. 1, 1901, 3283. 
 
 25 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; 26 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 
 
 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 "Lumber Industry," II, 16. 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 175 
 
 hand, that Colorado and Wyoming were trying to seat too many dele- 
 gates; 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 
 Service 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- 
 tory provisions of the law, where it was necessary to protect the pub- 
 lic interests. They did not hang back, after the fashion of ordinary 
 government bureaus, and wait for Congress to give specific orders ; 
 but vigorously took the initiative whenever conditions demanded 
 action. The regulation imposing a charge for grazing in the forest 
 reserves was an illustration of this. There was in the law itself no pro- 
 vision authorizing such a regulation, but neither was there any law 
 forbidding it and the public interests demanded it. Such a policy as 
 this naturally aroused considerable hostility in Congress and else- 
 where, among those who look upon Congress as the seat of all author- 
 ity, and regard the administrative offices as mere agencies to carry out 
 the will of that august body. Roosevelt's and Pinchot's policy was 
 regarded by some as "autocratic," and subversive of our democratic 
 liberties. 
 
 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 
 initiative 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 
 of the West, they would have been obstructions in the path of economic 
 development, until the rising tide of irritation would have swept them 
 away. It was extremely fortunate for the country that during these 
 years there was a man at the head of the Forest Service with energy, 
 
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. 27 
 
 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. 28 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. 29 
 
 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. 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 177 
 
 rule that no portion of the public domain was subject to disposal until 
 after survey, and the statute had not specifically authorized the selec- 
 tion of unsurveyed lands. The following year, his successor, Hitch- 
 cock, reversed this decision, however, and held that both surveyed and 
 unsurveyed land might be selected under the act, on the ground that 
 the statute made no distinction between surveyed and unsurveyed 
 lands, and contained no words which indicated any intention on the 
 part of Congress to limit selection to surveyed lands. Secretary Hitch- 
 cock considered the language "so clear and explicit as to leave no 
 room for construction." 30 Whatever may be said as to the logic of this 
 decision, it was most unfortunate in its results. The right to select 
 from unsurveyed lands was a benefit mainly to railroad companies. 
 It could be of little use to settlers, because they would not only have 
 to select lieu lands, but, in order to get title, would have to reside 
 upon them until surveys could be made. 31 
 
 Private holdings within the forest reserves were of three general 
 classes : first, those of settlers who had gained title through the various 
 settlement laws ; second, those in which the title was acquired through 
 the state by the various educational grants ; and third, railroad lands, 
 or lands acquired from the land grant railroads, wagon roads, etc. 32 
 
 Of these three classes of lands, the first, comprising those owned 
 by settlers, was of no great area or importance, although, in actual 
 numbers, these holdings exceeded the other two combined. The second 
 class, the state school lands, included sections 16 and 36 in each town- 
 ship, in all of the states except Utah, where sections 2, 16, 32, and 36 
 were granted, but it is uncertain how much of these school lands was 
 used as basis for lieu selections. In some cases, Congress had imposed 
 restrictions or conditions as to the disposition of the lands, and in 
 some of the states the provisions regarding their disposition were such 
 that they could not be used as basis ; yet, in some of the states, notably 
 in California and Oregon, these school lands were available in con- 
 siderable amounts, and "school land scrip" was a recognized article 
 of trade among the timbermen and speculators. It has been stated that 
 California, while under "Southern Pacific government," sold most of 
 
 30 "Land Decisions," 27, 472; 28, 284. 
 si H. Report 1700; 56 Cong. 1 sess. 
 32 H. Report 2233 ; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
178 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 her school lands for $1.25 — later $2.50 — per acre. 33 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, etc. 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. 34 
 
 The difficulties experienced in connection with these selections neces- 
 
 33 Outlook, Nov. 23, 1912, 665 et seq.; Feb. 8, 1913, 289: Cong. Bee, Mar. 3, 
 1913, 4823. 
 
 si 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 Fe Pacific — the successor to the Atlantic and 
 Pacific, and by several other corporations and individuals. ("Lumber Industry," 
 I, 229, 242; II, 77, 78.) 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 179 
 
 sitated greater care in the establishment of reserves, to avoid the 
 inclusion of worthless or denuded lands ; and in "the proclamation 
 creating the San Francisco Mountains Forest Reserve in Arizona, 
 the 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 
 small amount denuded, and every alternate section of this land be- 
 longed to the Santa Fe railroad, which ran through the district pro- 
 posed for reservation. Some of this worthless land would have made 
 excellent basis for lieu selections, but the proclamation reserved only 
 even numbered sections, thus establishing a sort of checkerboard 
 reservation. 35 
 
 The opportunity which the Forest Lieu Act gave for profitable 
 disposal of worthless lands no doubt furnished the motive behind many 
 of the petitions praying for the establishment of forest reserves in 
 the West. In 1901, the Commissioner of the Land Office had on file 
 petitions and recommendations from various sources, seeking the crea- 
 tion of over 50,000,000 acres of reserves, 36 a considerable proportion 
 of this area consisting of railroad and private lands. In one proposed 
 reserve alone, there were 250,000 acres of an old land grant, secured 
 long before through a Mexican title of questionable validity. At one 
 time, three United States congressmen were indicted for alleged illegal 
 practices in trying to secure the establishment of a forest reserve to 
 cover some of their holdings. 37 Without doubt many of the petitions 
 were made by persons sincerely interested in timber conservation, but 
 many were made by persons who only sought means of turning worth- 
 less lands into valuable holdings. 
 
 The evils arising under the Forest Lieu Act were very quickly seen 
 by government officials. In 1898, the Secretary of the Interior re- 
 ported that the lieu selection provision needed modification ; 38 and the 
 
 35 Report, Land Office, 1901, 113: Stat. 30, 1780. 
 
 se Report, Land Office, 1901, 114, 117. 
 
 3T Report, Sec. of Int., 1906, 30. Puter says it was a gang of timber thieves that 
 worked hardest for the creation of this reserve — the Blue Mountains Forest Re- 
 serve in Oregon — and that one man was hired to make false signatures to the 
 petition for the creation of the reserve. (Puter and Stevens, "Looters of the 
 Public Domain," 347-350.) 
 
 38 Report, Sec. of Int., p. XVI. 
 
180 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 next year, the commissioner called for changes in the law to prevent 
 the "improvident, reckless, and unjust selection of the public lands." 39 
 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. 40 
 
 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. 41 
 
 EFFORTS TO REPEAL THE FOREST LIEU ACT 
 
 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. 42 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. 43 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. 44 
 
 ss Report, Land Office, 1899, 114. 
 
 40 S. Doc. 189; 58 Cong. 3 sess., XV. 
 
 4i Stat. 30, 409; 32, 1028; 35, 626, 627; 36, 562, 563, 960, 961; 37, 201, 241, 323, 324. 
 
 42 Cong. Bee, 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. Bee, May 31, 1900, 6289, 6290; June 4, 6558; June 6, 6821: Stat. 31, 614. 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 181 
 
 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- 
 veyed 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, 45 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 
 Massachusetts, and McRae of Arkansas. 
 
 The amendment of June 6, 1900, having thus failed to provide 
 adequate 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. 
 Fordney later claimed that he once called the attention of the Com- 
 missioner of the Land Office, Binger Hermann, and of the Secretary 
 of the Interior to the iniquitous effects of the Forest Lieu Act, and, 
 with their cooperation, brought a measure before the House Com- 
 mittee on Public Lands requiring that the lands should be of equal 
 value, but all of the committee except himself voted against it. 46 
 
 Mondell would merely have prohibited the selection of timber 
 lands, 47 while Representative Tongue of Oregon, and later his suc- 
 cessor, Binger Hermann, advocated a limitation on the value of the 
 
 is Cong. Bee, 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. Bee, May 31, 6289.) 
 
 46 H. R. 7456, H. R. 6523; 5T Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Bee, Apr. 18, 1916, 6395. 
 
 47 H. R. 4866; 58 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 14052; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
182 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 land which might be selected. 48 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. 49 
 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. 50 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 48 H. 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.) 
 
 49 S. Res. 30; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 so H. R. 14622, H. Report 2233; 58 Cong. 2 sess.: S. Report 3332; 58 Cong. 
 3 sess.: Cong. Bee, 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 Fe Pacific Railroad Company, the owner of 507,000 acres ; 
 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 
 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 
 in the repealing act provided that "the validity of contracts entered 
 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 
 proved impractical, the secretary tried to get it into better shape. 
 There is evidence that Secretary Hitchcock used reasonable care in 
 the matter. The difficulty was with the Forest Lieu Act itself. 51 
 
 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 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 
 
 si Report, Sec. of Int., 1905, 327: H. Doc. 613; 59 Cong. 1 sess.: S. Doc. 612; 
 61 Cong. 2 sess.: Cong. Bee, Mar. 4, 1905, 4035; Mar. 14, 1914, 4866, 4867; Jan. 22, 
 1915, 2150: "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 
 
 once stated in Congress that the Northern Pacific relinquished its 
 450,000 acres within three days after the act creating the park was 
 signed. 
 
 The establishment of this park had been recommended by a com- 
 mittee 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 
 or agents of the Northern Pacific. 52 
 
 It can now be easily understood how the Forest Lieu Act occa- 
 sioned 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. 
 In this way, the creation of new forest reserves, while it favored the 
 protection of timber within the boundaries established, assisted in the 
 destruction of timber outside. The West had a just grievance; al- 
 though it is to be remembered that it was a western man, Senator 
 Pettigrew, who was partly responsible for the Forest Lieu Act, and 
 another western man, Senator Wilson, who was responsible for the 
 gross abuses arising out of the creation of the Mount Ranier Park. 53 
 
 THE OREGON TIMBER LAND FRAUDS 
 
 Any discussion of the Forest Lieu Act would be incomplete with- 
 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- 
 trated under various public land laws, but perhaps none of the laws 
 were used so much as the Forest Lieu Act. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 
 infested with speculators, agents of timber companies and of the rail- 
 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. 54 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. 55 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. 56 
 
 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. 57 
 
 s* 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. 
 
 si Report, Sec. of Int., 1904, 22 et seq. 
 
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- 
 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. 58 This case was finally terminated in 1908 by the con- 
 viction 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. 59 
 
 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. 60 Detective William J. Burns was given charge of the 
 secret service work, 61 and Francis J. Heney took charge of the prose- 
 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 
 final 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 
 suit in such a way as to make failure inevitable ; 62 and when certain 
 claims required particular dispatch, one of the congressmen or sena- 
 tors at Washington was to be bribed to see the Commissioner of the 
 Land Office, Binger Hermann, and secure desired concessions. In this 
 connection, Senator Mitchell was specifically mentioned, Puter alleg- 
 ing that he had paid him $2000 to secure the issue of certain patents. 63 
 
 58 Report, Sec. of Int., 1904, 23. 
 
 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, 
 Nov. 23, 1912, 665: "Land Decisions," 28, 285; 31, 28; 33, 639; 37, 164; 40, 219, 
 284; 43, 176. 
 
 eo Report, Sec. of Int., 1904, 24. 
 «i Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 12-14. 
 
 62 Puter and Stevens, "Looters of the Public Domain," 136-140. 
 
 63 Ibid., 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. 64 "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. 65 
 
 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. 66 Two of them, Senator Mitchell 
 
 64 Cong. Bee, Jan. 17, 1905, 959. 
 
 «s 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 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 189 
 
 and Representative J. N. Williamson, were convicted, the latter after 
 three trials, but both men appealed. 67 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, 68 and on May 2, 1913, the case against him 
 was dismissed by the Attorney-General. The case against Binger 
 Hermann was also dismissed in 1910. 69 
 
 were implicated in a vast network of conspiracy against the law in connection with 
 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 
 was 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: 
 I 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 
 
 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. . . .' 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, "Autobiography," 391, 440.) 
 
 67 153 Fed. Rep., 46: 199 U. S., 616. 
 
 68 28 Sup. Ct. Rep., 165, 177: 207 U. S., 425. 
 
 6 9 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- 
 clusive 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 
 leaving 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 destroved. 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. Bee, 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.) 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 191 
 
 vice. 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 
 reserve policy. 
 
 Early in President Roosevelt's administration, Secretary of the 
 Interior Hitchcock gave the forest administration an overhauling, 
 and in December, 1904, Roosevelt signed an order placing the adminis- 
 tration under civil service ; but the force which was turned over to the 
 Forest Service in 1905, when the reserves were transferred to the 
 Department of Agriculture, was not a very competent body of men. 
 Immediately 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 regime. 70 
 
 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 
 of timber companies, cattle companies, and speculators generally. 
 
 One of the causes for the hostility of western politicians had little 
 to do with the western people themselves. Some of the western senators 
 and representatives resented the policy of the President in establishing 
 
 ™ Forestry and Irrigation, Apr., 1906, 161: Report, Land Office, 1908, 27: Pro- 
 ceedings, Society of Am. Foresters, Nov., 1905, 43-50: Cong. Rec, Feb. 26, 1909, 
 3239, 3240; 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. 71 
 
 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. ... In a 
 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 
 
 7i S. 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- 
 sary uses for timber, except in small doles, adequate only to purposes 
 of the prospector. Further supplies are far from being assured, even 
 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 
 paradoxical 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 
 boundaries 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 
 the reserves should not have been established, nor that they should 
 not have been established so early, for if they were to be set aside at 
 all, 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 
 were almost constantly before Congress. In 1900, Representative 
 Wilson of Idaho introduced a bill prohibiting the establishment or 
 extension of forest reserves in Idaho except by act of Congress. In 
 the same session, Jones of Washington introduced two bills into the 
 House, 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 
 new reserves. This amendment, however, failed in the conference 
 committee. 72 
 
 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. 73 
 
 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. 
 
 72 H. R. 7332, H. R. 9599, H. R. 11357, H. Reports 1985, 1986; 56 Cong. 1 sess.: 
 Cong. Bee, Feb. 28, 1901, 3225; Mar. 2, 1901, 3570. 
 
 73 H. R. 171, H. R. 172, H. Report 968; 57 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 195 
 
 Early in Roosevelt's second administration, Heyburn brought 
 forward a bill to reimburse the states and territories for school lands 
 included in forest reserves ; 74 but, as he frankly admitted, his purpose 
 was not so much to get cash for the school lands as to make an oppor- 
 tunity for an attack upon the reserves. 75 The debates on this bill, 
 while not fruitful of immediate results, are of considerable interest 
 because they show a conservation attitude, even on the part of some 
 of the western men. Teller of course took the usual stand, but Hey- 
 burn's colleague Dubois stoutly defended the reserves. "In regard to 
 this proposition I differ radically and totally with my colleague," 
 said Dubois. "We want to preserve these forest lands for the present 
 population of Idaho and for future generations. . . . The present 
 administration may, and doubtless does, make some mistakes in the 
 numerous details of carrying on this great work, but they are so few 
 and insignificant as compared with the great benefit which the policy 
 confers on our whole people, that they are entitled to the support of 
 our western representatives at least." 76 
 
 Other western men — Smoot of Utah, Newlands of Nevada, and 
 Warren of Wyoming — showed at least a lack of sympathy with Hey- 
 burn's attack. 77 After Heyburn had berated the Forest Service at 
 some length, Newlands begged permission to "ask the senator, in view 
 of the fact that Idaho's present population is 300,000 and that she 
 some day before very long will probably have a population of a million 
 and a half, whether he regards the present reservation of one fifth of 
 the entire area for purposes of the future as unwise." In a somewhat 
 similar vein, Smoot asked if it were not true that "many times miners, 
 or alleged miners have gone upon forest reserves in Idaho and other 
 states and simply located upon a piece of land, calling it a mineral 
 claim, when there was no other object on earth than to get the timber 
 within the claim, and when there was no mineral whatever there." 
 Heyburn pompously declared that there was "so small a percentage 
 
 74 S. 1661. 
 
 75 Gong. Bee, Jan. 29, 1906, 1689. 
 
 76 Ibid., 1691-1693. For a careful discussion of the attitude of Heyburn and of 
 Dubois, see Forest Bui. 67, 1905, pp. 40 et seq. As indicated there, Dubois some- 
 times criticised Heyburn most severely for his "disregard of facts," in his attacks 
 on the reserves. 
 
 " Cong. Bee, 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. 
 
 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. 78 
 
 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 western 
 hostility. Consideration of these matters opens the way to a better 
 understanding of the anti-conservation attack of 1907. 
 
 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. 79 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 was 
 required by law to follow that policy. Mondell claimed that the gov- 
 ernment, with a monopoly of the timber supply in some districts of 
 the West, was raising prices even above those of the Pacific "lumber 
 combines." "Each inspector who visits our reservation boosts the 
 price a little higher," he said, "until we have a monopoly established, 
 
 ts S. 4470. 
 
 79 Cong. Bee, 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." 80 
 
 In spite of the opposition of Mondell, Tawney, Fitzgerald of New 
 York, 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 
 Bureau is composed of dreamers and theorists, but beyond and out- 
 side the domain of their theories and their dreams is the everyday, 
 busy, 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 
 within the shadow of the whispering pines and the lofty firs of the 
 western forest engage in the laborious work of carving out for him- 
 self and his loved ones a home and a dwelling-place." 81 Senator Pat- 
 terson of Colorado complained likewise, although in somewhat less 
 eloquent vein, of the "little, petty prosecutions" instituted by 
 government agents. 
 
 Secretary of the Interior Ethan Allen Hitchcock was the main 
 target of western vituperation. "I myself believe, and I say here 
 now," announced Senator Fulton, "that the responsibility [for the 
 abuses under the Forest Lieu Act] did rest upon, and the conse- 
 quences must be born by, the Secretary of the Interior." Senator 
 Carter 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 
 
 80 Cong. Bee, 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. 
 
 si Cong. Bee, Feb. 18, 1907, 3183-3206. 
 
198 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 proper construction of the Forest Lieu Act entitled only settlers 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 the 
 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 forest 
 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 only 
 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. 82 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, 83 
 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. 84 
 
 The defense of the forest reserves was taken up by men from all 
 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." 85 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. 
 s* Report, Land Office, 1898, 89. 
 
 ss Cong. Rec, Feb. 18, 1907, 3183-3195; Feb. 19, 3281-3297; Feb. 21, 3521-3542. 
 
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, 86 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 
 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." 87 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. 88 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, 89 and in neither of the conference committees was it in any way 
 changed. 
 
 THE ACT OF 1907 
 
 The appropriation bill as finally passed, 90 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 
 
 ss 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. Bee, Feb. 23, 1907, 3720. 
 
 ss Ibid., 3722. 
 
 89 Cong. Bee, Feb. 25, 1907, 3869. 
 
 so 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. 91 
 
 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 ; 92 while in 
 1906-1907, the receipts were more than double that amount — over 
 $1 ,530, 000. 93 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 
 
 9i 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. Bee, Mar. 10, 1914, 4633.) 
 
 92 Report, Dept. of Agr., 1906, 278, 281. 
 
 93 Report, Sec. of Agr. (abridged edition), 1909, 65. 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY- 201 
 
 report of all receipts from the Forest Service, and a classified and 
 detailed estimate of all expenditures. This was a proper enough re- 
 quirement in itself, but the debates show that one of the motives behind 
 it was hostility to the Forest Service, rather than a desire for more 
 careful government accounting. 
 
 ANTI-CONSERVATION ATTACKS SINCE 1907 
 
 The anti-conservation attack of 1907, although in a measure suc- 
 cessful, did not end the hostility to the "national forests," as they 
 were called after 1907. Almost every year since then, some phase of 
 the reservation policy has been attacked in Congress. In 1909, Sena- 
 tor Teller of Colorado, now grown old in the service of "poor set- 
 tlers," led a determined attack on the reserves ; and he was supported 
 by Borah of Idaho, Bailey of Texas, Carter qf Wyoming, and Hale 
 of Maine. 94 
 
 In the debates on the appropriation bill of the next year, Mondell 
 entered a strong protest in the House against the "scandalous ex- 
 travagance" of the Forest Service ; while the Idaho delegation — Hey- 
 burn and Borah, and Englebright of California — led a similar fight 
 in the Senate. In 1911, Mondell again led the fight on the Forest 
 Service, backed by two of the Colorado representatives, Martin and 
 Rucker, and by Floyd of Arkansas and Booher of Missouri, and in 
 the Senate by Heyburn and by Clark of Wyoming. 95 
 
 The debates on the Agricultural Appropriation Bill of 1912 were 
 the occasion of a determined attack by Representative Hawley of 
 Oregon, 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- 
 successful attempt to open up agricultural lands in the forest reserves 
 will be treated in a later connection. 96 
 
 THE BALLINGER-PINCHOT CONTROVERSY 
 
 In 1913, Representative Humphrey of Washington, one of the new 
 spirits in the opposition, launched a campaign against the national 
 
 94 H. R. 27053 ; 61 Cong. 1 sess., 3222 et seq. 
 
 95 H. R. 18162; 61 Cong. 2 sess.: H. R. 31596; 61 Cong. 3 sess. 
 
 96 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 
 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- 
 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- 
 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 
 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." 9 ' 
 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 
 
 st Roosevelt, "Autobiography," 429. 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 203 
 
 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. 9S 
 
 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. Bee, 63 Cong. 1 sess., 1862: Cong. Bee, Mar. 1, 1909, 3534; Jan. 5, 
 1910, 325. 
 
ANTI-CONSERVATION ACTIVITY 205 
 
 speeches in Congres-s 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. 100 
 
 In the attack of 1916, some men even from 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. 101 
 
 THE ALASKA FORESTS 
 
 In 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 
 coast — 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 
 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 
 inspection of these regions, reported that there was a large amount 
 of timber which would at least be useful in the industrial development 
 of the region near the forest. Perhaps mining interests have been 
 
 ioo Cong. Bee, 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. 
 
 ioi H. R. 20415; 63 Cong. 3 sess., 2148 et seq.: H. R. 12717; 64 Cong. 1 sess., 
 6386, 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 would usually prefer to operate outside of 
 a national forest. 102 
 
 102 Cong. Bee, Feb. 10, 1913, 2945: Am. Lumberman, Sept. 25, 1915, 49: Outlook, 
 Mar. 22, 1916, 679: Report, Dept. of Int., 1916, Vol. II, 401, 402: S. Doc. 77; 62 
 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 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; 1 and the policy of 
 buying 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 
 than ten years after the passage of the Forest Reserve Act; and 
 within 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- 
 land, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
 and from the American Forestry Association, were presented in Con- 
 gress, asking that measures be taken for the preservation of the 
 
 i Cross References, pp. 114-118. 
 
208 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 southern Appalachian forests. 2 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. 3 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. 4 
 
 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. 5 
 This bill was favorably reported by Senator Beveridge of Indiana, 6 
 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. 7 A bill 
 introduced by Senator Burton of Kansas in the same session, however, 
 was not only favorably reported, but after considerable debate, passed 
 the Senate with very little opposition. 8 Senator Depew of New 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. 9 
 
 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 
 
 2 S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 158-165. 
 
 3 Cong. Bee, Jan. 15, 1900, 801; Apr. 21, 1900, 4508: Stat. 31, 197. 
 * S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 166-168. 
 
 5S. 5518; 56 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 6 S. Report 2221. 
 
 7 S. 492; 57 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Bee, Apr. 26, 1902, 4710-4714. 
 
 «S. 5228; 57 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Bee, June 7, 1902, 6429-6432; June 24, 1902, 
 7281-7287. 
 
 9 H. 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 
 lands 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 
 Moody of North Carolina; and here as in the Senate the committee 
 report was favorable, but nothing was accomplished. 10 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. 11 
 
 THE DEMAND FOR FORESTS IN THE WHITE MOUNTAINS 
 
 The movement for Appalachian forests had been under way only a 
 few years when agitation arose for national forests in the White 
 Mountains also, and Senator Gallinger and Representative Currier 
 of New Hampshire introduced several bills into Congress, 12 but none 
 of these passed either house. These men did not have as effective an 
 organization as the southern men, but they presently saw that a com- 
 bination 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 $3,000,000 worth of national forests in the 
 "Appalachian and White Mountains." This bill passed the Senate 
 without a comment. 13 Thus the curious combination of New England 
 and the South seemed to be very effective in the Senate. 14 
 
 io H. R. 3128, H. R. 6543, H. R. 12138, H. R. 13523, H. Report 1547; 57 Cong. 
 1 sess. 
 
 ii S. 887, H. R. 1196, H. R. 5065; 58 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 408, H. R. 40; 59 Cong. 
 1 sess. 
 
 12 S. 2327, H. R. 7284; 58 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 34, H. R. 181; 59 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 is S. 4953; 59 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Bee, June 22, 1906, 8952. 
 
 " See Cong. Bee, June 24, 1910, 8989. 
 
210 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 The House was at no time so favorably disposed toward buying up 
 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. 10 
 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. 16 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. 17 
 
 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. 18 This bill, with a number of amendments, also passed the 
 House, by a narrow margin — 157 to 147 ; 19 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. 20 
 
 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. 21 A bill reported by Scott of Kansas, chairman of the Committee 
 on Agriculture, passed the House, however, by the decisive vote of 
 
 ^Forestry and Irrigation, Jan., 1907, 30; Apr., 1908, 178, 179. 
 is Stat. 34, 1281. 
 
 « Cong. Bee, Mar. 2, 1907, 4489. 
 
 is S. 2985, S. 4825; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Bee, May 15, 1908, 6328-6330; May 
 16, 6385-6401, 6403-6409. 
 
 is Cong. Bee, Mar. 1, 1909, 3566. 
 
 20 Cong. Bee, Mar. 3, 1909, 3749-3751. 
 
 21 H. R. 10456, H. R. 21220, H. R. 21221, H. R. 21357, H. R. 21767, H. R. 
 22238; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 26295, H. R. 26923, H. R. 27056; 60 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
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 cooperation with the states 
 in 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 
 voted for it because they thought it might stave off something more 
 radical. 22 The bill followed the views of Speaker Cannon in shifting 
 responsibility largely to the states, and was for that reason viewed 
 with disfavor by the American Forestry Association; but it never 
 came up in the Senate. 23 
 
 INCREASING SCOPE OF THE MOVEMENT 
 
 Not for the southern Appalachians and White mountains alone were 
 national forests demanded. In 1905, Representative Dovener of West 
 Virginia introduced a bill for the protection of the Potomac water- 
 shed, and Representative Hubbard and Senator Elkins, also of West 
 Virginia, called for the same thing. 24 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 
 Bradley of New York wanted the Highlands of the Hudson presei'ved ; 
 while Stephens of Texas made several efforts to secure a reserve at 
 the head of the Red River. 25 
 
 Thus, at the end of a decade of agitation, the movement for the pur- 
 chase of forest lands had attained a very broad scope as well as great 
 strength; and friends of the movement entered the sixty-first Con- 
 gress, in Taft's administration, with high hopes. Austin and Brown- 
 low of Tennessee, Weeks of Massachusetts, and Guernsey of Maine 
 introduced forest reserve measures into the House ; 26 and Gallinger of 
 New Hampshire brought up a bill in the Senate, 27 which was debated 
 
 22 Cong. Bee, May 21, 1908, 6688-6705. 
 
 2 3 Forestry and Irrigation, June, 1908, 356. 
 
 24 H. R. 5365, H. R. 13784, S. 3504, S. 4271; 59 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 11357; 60 
 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 25 H. R. 11749, H. R. 15938, H. R. 16972, H. R. 20186, H. R. 20887, H. R. 
 21302, H. R. 21487; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 63; 61 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Bee, Mar. 
 31, 1908, 4179. 
 
 26 H. R. 11, H. R. 105, H. R. 11798; 61 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 21589; 61 Cong. 
 2 sess. 
 
 2TS. 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 cooperate 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 
 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. 28 
 
 Once before Congress, the bill aroused more spirited debate than 
 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 was debated 
 with great energy by men from every part of the country. 29 
 
 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 in the title, was to conserve the navigability of 
 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. 30 
 
 28 H. Report 1036; 61 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 29 Cong. Bee, June 24, 1910, 8974-9027; June 25, 9045-9051; Feb. 15, 1911, 
 2575-2602. ' 
 
 so S. Report 459; 60 Cong. 1 sess., pt. 2, pp. 2-4. See also U. S. Geological 
 Survey, Professional Paper 72, 1911 ; and Forest Circ. 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: 31 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. 32 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. 33 
 
 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. 34 
 
 The value of the forest lands as summer resorts was urged as an 
 argument for Federal purchase, 35 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. 36 
 
 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- 
 ness maintain some also in the East. 37 
 
 si Cong. Bee, June 24, 1910, 8986; Forest Circ. 176. 
 
 32 Cong. Bee, June 24, 1910, 8991, 9007: S. Report 459; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 2-5: 
 U. S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 72, 1911, 13, 14. 
 
 33 S. Report 2537; 59 Cong. 1 sess., 5, 6: S. Doc. 91; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 13: Forest 
 Circ. 144. 
 
 ^ Cong. Bee, June 24, 1910, 8992: S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 162: S. Doc. 91; 
 60 Cong. 1 sess., 9-12. 
 
 35 S. Report 2742 ; 58 Cong. 3 sess., 2, 3. 
 
 36 S. Report 2537 ; 59 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 37 Cong. Bee, 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. 38 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, Avhile 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. 39 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. 40 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. 
 
 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 
 
 ss Cong. Eec, June 24, 1910, 9017, 9018, 9021; Feb. 15, 1911, 2578: H. Res. 365; 
 60 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 39 Ibid., Feb. 15, 1911, 2578: S. Report 2742; 58 Cong. 3 sess. 
 
 40 H. 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. 41 
 
 Of course those who did not believe in the vital relation of forests 
 to 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. 
 Thus Senator Smith of South Carolina seemed to assume that the 
 only thing necessary to prevent future floods was the preservation of 
 the forests at the headwaters of rivers ; and the loss of $18,000,000 
 worth 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. 42 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 
 breaking 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- 
 struction — were never mentioned. The opponents of the bill were 
 justified in saying at least that the effect of forests on floods and on 
 navigability was greatly exaggerated. 
 
 An important argument against the bill was the great ultimate 
 cost of the new reserves. While the amount appropriated by the Weeks 
 Bill was only $11,000,000, many feared that it was launching the 
 government on a policy which would ultimately prove very expensive. 
 Of course the danger here was purposely exaggerated by some of the 
 opponents 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. 43 It was not open to question 
 
 4i S. Doc. 84; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 123 et seq.: S. Doc. 676; 60 Cong. 2 sess., Vol. 
 II, 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 
 et seq.; 1897, 139, 165: Scientific American, May 23, 1908, 372; Oct. 29, 1910, 334: 
 Hearings before the House Committee on Agriculture, Dec. 9, 1908; 60 Cong. 2 
 sess., 15, 16: Forest Circ. 143, 144: Forest Bui. 85: Agr. Yearbook, 1903, 279. 
 
 ^Cong. Bee, Feb. 15, 1911, 2601: H. Report 1547; 57 Cong. 1 sess., 3: S. 
 Report 459 ; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 7. 
 
 43 Cong. Bee, 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. 44 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. 45 
 
 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. 46 
 
 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. 47 
 
 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. 48 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. 
 
 45 S. Doc. 91 ; 60 Cong. 1 sess., 32-37. 
 
 46 Cong. Bee, June 24, 1910, 9017. 
 
 nCong. Bee, June 25, 1910, 9049, 9051; Feb. 15, 1911, 2587-94, 2602. 
 48 Cong. Bee, 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. 49 
 
 If the protection of these forests had been assumed to benefit mainly 
 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. 
 
 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- 
 tion, the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, the American 
 Mutual Newspaper Association, the American Paper and Pulp Asso- 
 ciation, 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- 
 
 49 S. 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. 50 
 
 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; 51 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. 52 
 
 so 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. Bee, Jan. 20, 1908, 907; Mar. 28, 1908, 4083; Feb. 11, 1909, 2241. 
 
 si 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 
 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- 
 sidered, and with much justice, dangerous "pork barrel" legislation. 
 In the Senate, however, the uselessness of debate seems to have been 
 generally recognized, and after several amendments had been rejected, 
 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 
 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 Presidents 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, since 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 
 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 
 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 
 have 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. 53 
 
 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 54 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 
 
 SENATE VOTE ON THE WEEKS BILL 
 
 D STATES Tff Wff/Cti tlElTHZZ 
 ■3EHAT0X. 1/otED OB t/i Wrt/CH 
 VOTED OI~l OPPOSITE SIDES. 
 
 7pped includes 1 
 pairs tv/iicfi could be ascertained) 
 
 Cong. Rec, Feb. 15, 1911, 2602 
 
 54 Stat. 36, 961. 
 
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 cooperation 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 land 
 subject to mineral or timber reservations. 55 
 
 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, 56 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. 57 
 
 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 1913 that the 
 entire annual appropriation was used. Of the total 1,501,357 acres 
 approved prior to June 30, 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 small 
 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. 58 
 
 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 
 
 ss S. 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. 
 ss 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 223 
 
 time required for the growth of a forest crop is longer than most indi- 
 viduals can or will wait for financial returns ; in the second place, 
 danger of fire makes such an investment somewhat risky ; and in the 
 third place, in a few instances at least, an irrational system of taxa- 
 tion has prevented private capital from engaging in this work. We 
 may take little pride in a transaction whereby the government buys 
 up for $5 per acre land which was sold for less than half that amount, 
 or given away, or turned over to perjured entrymen; nevertheless, it 
 is to our Federal government that we must eventually look for forest 
 planting and forest management; and under the Weeks Law a work 
 is being inaugurated which must grow vastly in magnitude if the 
 future interests of the nation are to be conserved. 59 
 59 Report, National Conservation Commission, II, 633 et seq. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND SINCE THE PAS- 
 SAGE OF THE FOREST RESERVE ACT 
 
 The 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. 1 
 
 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. 2 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 
 
 i Cross Reference, pp. 70-78. 
 
 2 Olson vs. U. S.; 133 Fed. Rep., 1849, 1850, 1851. 
 
THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 
 
 225 
 
 pine and western pine timber land, securing a large amount of it 
 under the Timber and Stone Act. 3 
 
 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 
 Minneapolis, owned any stock; and the other officers in the corpora- 
 tion — vice-president, secretary, and treasurer — were his wife, son, and 
 daughter, respectively. S. A. D. Puter, author of "Looters of the 
 Public Domain," was Smith's agent in securing much of his timber 
 land, but Puter became dissatisfied with the treatment he received, 
 and published the details of Smith's transactions, with the result that 
 Smith was indicted by the Federal government and some of his patents 
 cancelled. 4 
 
 No residence or cultivation being required, it was easy for non- 
 resident timber speculators to secure title under the Timber and 
 Stone Act, and the amount of land taken up increased greatly during 
 the first few years of the twentieth century. This is shown by the 
 following table, compiled from the reports of the Commissioner of the 
 Land Office: 
 
 Year 
 
 No. Acres 
 
 1891 
 
 259,913 
 
 1892 
 
 137,539 
 
 1893 
 
 182,340 
 
 1894 
 
 153,081 
 
 1895 
 
 70,066 
 
 1896 
 
 66,182 
 
 1897 
 
 40,609 
 
 1898 
 
 60,955 
 
 1899 
 
 59,019 
 
 1900 
 
 300,019 
 
 1901 
 
 396,445 
 
 Year 
 
 No. Acres 5 
 
 1902 
 
 545,253 
 
 1903 
 
 1,765,222 
 
 1904 
 
 1,306,261 
 
 1905 
 
 696,677 
 
 1906 
 
 647,997 
 
 1907 
 
 1,444,574 
 
 1908 
 
 1,437,431 
 
 1909 
 
 722,893 
 
 1910 
 
 170,989 
 
 1911 
 
 143,456 
 
 1912 
 
 17,295 
 
 3 "Lumber Industry," II, 91. 
 
 * Report, National Conservation Commission, III, 389: 181 Fed. Rep., 545: 196 
 Fed. Rep., 593. See also Williamson vs. U. S. ; 207 U. S., 425 : S. Doc. 189 ; 58 Cong. 
 3 sess., 26. 
 
 s 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 gov- 
 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. 6 
 
 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." 7 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." 8 Four years later, Secretary Hitchcock announced that this 
 act, together with the Free Timber Act, would "result ultimately in 
 the complete destruction of the timber on unappropriated and mi- 
 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 the Timber and Stone Act even more than 
 before. 
 
 6 "Lumber Industry," I, XVIII. 
 
 7 S. Doc. 105 ; 55 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 s Report, Sec. of Int., 1897, XV. 
 
THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 227 
 
 reserved public land." 9 Almost every report of the Secretary of the 
 Interior and of the Commissioner of the Land Office pointed out the 
 evil results of the act and asked for its repeal. Periodicals described 
 the frauds perpetrated under the act and recommended its repeal. 10 
 The Public Lands Commission stated in 1904: "The repeal of the 
 Timber and Stone Act will unquestionably cure the most obvious 
 defect in the administration of the public lands" ; and the next year 
 this commission again urged the repeal of the law. 11 In 1906, a com- 
 mittee of the National Board of Trade quoted reports of the Secre- 
 tary of the Interior showing the evils of the act. 12 In 1909, the 
 National Conservation Commission said : "It is clear that the Timber 
 and Stone Act does not fulfill the purpose for which it was passed, 
 and that it should be repealed." 13 Of course the American Forestry 
 Association constantly worked for the repeal of the act. 14 
 
 President Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot were well aware of the evils 
 of this law, and did all in their power to secure its repeal. In 1906, 
 Roosevelt 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. 15 This action of course stirred up a great deal 
 of opposition in the West, but Roosevelt stood firmly by his order, 
 and called for an appropriation of $500,000 with which to carry it 
 out. 16 President Taft also sent a special message to Congress in 1910, 
 asking for the repeal of this act. 17 
 
 FURTHER EXTENSION OF ITS PROVISIONS 
 The response of Congress to these urgent recommendations con- 
 stitutes one of the numerous discreditable chapters in the history of 
 
 9 Report, Sec. of Int., 1901, LXV. In November, 1892, Hitchcock ordered the 
 investigation of all entries made under the act, in Oregon, California, and Wash- 
 ington; and nearly 10,000 entries were suspended. {Report, Sec. of Int., 1903, 316.) 
 
 io Outlook, Feb. 1, 1908, 239: Atlantic Monthly, July, 1908, 6. 
 
 ii S. Doc. 189; 58 Cong. 3 sess., V, XVII. 
 
 i 2 Forestry and Irrigation, Jan., 1906, 49. 
 
 is S. Doc. 676; 60 Cong. 2 sess., Vol. I, 87. 
 
 i* Forestry and Irrigation, Jan. 1907, 14. 
 
 is S. Doc. 141 ; 59 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 is S. Doc. 310; 59 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 it 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, 18 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 unoffered 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, 19 
 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. 20 President Cleveland did not sign 
 it, but in the next Congress, Representative Lacey of Iowa brought 
 up another bill of similar design. 21 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. 22 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, "To abolish the distinction between offered and unoffered lands," 
 was favorably reported by the Committee on Public Lands, but re- 
 ceived no further consideration. 23 The object sought was accom- 
 plished during this session, however. Another bill, providing for the 
 
 is S. 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. 
 
 is H. R. 7259. 
 
 20 H. Report 988: Cong. Bee, July 24, 1894, 7834; Feb. 26, 1895, 2783. 
 
 21 H. 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. Bee, Dec. 5, 1905, 112.) 
 
 22 H. Report 137; 54 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 23 H. R. 5877, H. Report 130; 55 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 229 
 
 sale of public lands in Missouri, 24 had passed the Senate, and when it 
 came 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, 
 no Grover Cleveland being in the President's chair, it became a law 
 on May 18, 1898. 25 
 
 It might seem that the Timber and Stone Act had now been ex- 
 tended as far as the most enterprising timber speculator could have 
 wished, but during the next few years, Lacey made efforts to extend 
 the provisions of the act to Alaska. 26 In 1900, a bill for that purpose 
 was favorably reported by the House Committee on Public Lands ; 27 
 but nothing further was accomplished. 
 
 UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO REPEAL OR AMEND THE TIMBER 
 
 AND STONE ACT 
 
 In 1900, Commissioner Binger Hermann sought to limit the evil 
 effects of the Timber and Stone Act by providing for the sale of timber 
 without the land, just as in the forest reserves. He drafted a bill for 
 this purpose and Hitchcock sent it to the Speaker of the House, but 
 it was lost in the Committee on Public Lands. 28 
 
 The first efforts to repeal the Timber and Stone Act were of course 
 made by eastern men. In 1902, Representative Power of Massachu- 
 setts introduced a bill providing for the repeal of the act, 29 but it was 
 never reported. A Senate bill, introduced the same day by Quarles of 
 Wisconsin, to repeal the Timber and Stone and several other acts, 
 fared somewhat better, receiving a favorable report from the Com- 
 mittee on Public Lands. 30 In this bill, the question of timber land sales 
 was 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. 
 
 s* S. 1586. 
 
 25 Cong. Bee, May 3, 1898, 4526; May 5, 1898, 4628: Stat. 30, 418. 
 
 26 H. 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. 
 
 29 H. R. 15503; 57 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 so S. 6363, S. Report, 3166. « 
 
230 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 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. 31 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, 32 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. 33 
 
 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. 34 Gibson himself, although a western man, spoke 
 in no uncertain terms of the great evils which had arisen under the 
 act. 35 "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 
 
 si S. 370, S. 932; 58 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 4916, S. 5054; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 32 S. Report 1535 ; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 33 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 S. 5168; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 35 Cong. Rec, Mar. 24, 1904, 3606. 
 
THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 231 
 
 organization of the lumber interests, with headquarters in Washing- 
 ton, was working hard for the repeal of the law. 36 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 
 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 pressing 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 
 valuable." 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, 37 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 lobb}^ of scrip holders was the main influence behind the 
 bill. 38 "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 
 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. 
 Senator Warren opposed absolute repeal of the act unless some other 
 law were passed, permitting the sale of timber. 39 
 
 ss Cong. Bee, Mar. 25, 3662, 3663, 3665, 3666. 
 
 37 Ibid., 3668, 3669. 
 
 38 Ibid., Mar. 31, 4032. 
 
 39 Ibid., 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 
 likelihood 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. 
 
 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. Bee, Jan. 6, 1910, 336.) 
 
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 
 Public Lands, and it never emerged from that committee. 40 
 
 THE SUSPENSION OF TIMBER AND STONE ENTRIES IN 1906 
 
 For several years, there seemed to be very little interest in the 
 Timber and Stone Act. In 1905, Lacey, who had changed his mind in 
 regard to this act, brought in a bill for its repeal, but the bill was 
 never reported. 41 In 1906, the action of Roosevelt and Hitchcock in 
 suspending the issue of all patents under this and other public land 
 laws, 42 immediately aroused a spirited discussion in Congress. In 
 January, 1907, Senator Carter of Montana introduced a resolution 
 into the Senate to compel the issue of patents in all cases where there 
 was no evidence of fraud, 43 and somewhat later made a long and stir- 
 ring 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- 
 ing in their scope as to create the impression in other sections that 
 the entire western population is, and has been, engaged in a veritable 
 saturnalia of criminal conspiracy, fraud, and perjury, over the whole 
 broad surface of the public domain," said Carter. "Since 1901 insidi- 
 ous interviews and boisterous proclamations have passed from the 
 Interior Department to the public press, reflecting upon all those 
 seeking title to the public domain. The words 'grafters,' 'land grab- 
 bers,' 'conspirators,' 'looters of the public domain,' and like terms 
 have become a part of the vernacular of the secretary's office in refer- 
 ring to public land entrymen of all kinds. The routine work of the 
 Land 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 
 
 40 Cong. Bee, Apr. 12, 1904, 4672. 
 4i H. R. 3019; 59 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 42 S. Doc. 141; 59 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 43 Cong. Bee, 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 
 day with loud acclaim, that crime and moral leprosy overwhelmed you 
 all, he would, at his pitiable best, play in your field the part the Sec- 
 retary of the Interior and his cohorts have played as regards the 
 people of the public land states for the last six years." 44 
 
 Carter laid the entire responsibility for the "indefensible" order 
 upon Secretary Hitchcock rather than upon Roosevelt, who "had 
 been deceived and alarmed" by the reports of the secretary. "The 
 President and all others misled by the crusade of misrepresentation," 
 he declared, "are clearly free from responsibility." 
 
 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" 45 was without foundation. "Those 
 laws are older than the public experience of any man in this 
 body," he said. 46 "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. 47 
 
 Senator Heyburn was not contented with discussing the issues 
 
 44 Cong. Bee, 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. 
 (Independent, 60, 667: Leslie's Weekly, Oct. 27, 1910.) 
 
 45 S. Doc. 141 ; 59 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 *6 Cong. Bee, 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," 48 and fell into some rather obvious inconsistencies in 
 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. 49 At this point, Smoot 
 of 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 
 to entry under the Timber and Stone Act, they would very soon be 
 taken up by wealthy timbermen. Unquestionably the result which 
 Newlands 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. 50 He affected a 
 great antipathy for the great lumber monopolies, and yet, on almost 
 every question, he played into their hands. Had his views always pre- 
 vailed, 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- 
 velt 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. Bee, Jan. 30, 1907, 2021. 
 
 49 Ibid., 2200. 
 
 so 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. 
 (Forestry and Irrigation, 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. 51 
 
 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, 52 
 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, 53 was not to protect the public timber lands, but 
 to secure an addition to the reclamation fund. 54 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, 55 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. 56 
 
 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 
 
 si 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. 
 
 54 H. R. 21140; 60 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 55 S. 5489; 61 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 se H. R. 23698; 61 Cong. 2 sess.: S. 1586; 62 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
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 ; 57 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. 58 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 ; 59 but in 1898, the Department of the 
 Interior attempted such sales, under the Permit Act of 1891. 60 The 
 Permit Act merely authorized the issue of free timber permits, under 
 such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior should provide. 61 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. 62 
 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. 63 
 
 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. 
 1 sess.: H. R. 24266; 62 Cong. 2 sess. 
 68 Stat. 37, 1015. 
 59 See however, Stat. 30, 414. 
 eo "Land Decisions," 26, 399, 404. 
 si 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, Con- 
 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. Gi 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." 65 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." 6 * 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. 
 
THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 239 
 
 Many examples might be given to show the extent of the abuses 
 under 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. 67 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- 
 pose of bringing lumber and fuel to its mines, from land never shown 
 to be mineral ; and, according to reports, shipped millions of feet of 
 lumber to Omaha for sale there. 68 It has been claimed that, owing to a 
 rule 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. 69 
 
 The Permit Act was at first perhaps even more destructive in its 
 effects than the Free Timber Act, because its provisions were more 
 extravagantly liberal. By allowing free timber for manufacturing pur- 
 poses, it practically gave away, subject to the regulations of the Sec- 
 retary 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- 
 tion, nearly 300 permits were issued, granting to mining and lumber 
 companies about 300,000,000 feet of lumber. Some of the grantees — 
 notably the Big Blackfoot Milling Company, the Bitter Root Devel- 
 opment Company, and the Anaconda Mining Company — secured per- 
 mits at different times to cut many million feet. 70 The Anaconda Min- 
 ing Company for years consumed an annual average of probably more 
 than 250,000 cords of wood and 40,000,000 feet of lumber, and sup- 
 plied 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. 71 Part of this timber 
 was secured under the provisions of the Permit Act. 
 
 67 Quoted in Report, Land Office, 1901, 97, 98. 
 es S. Doc, 105 ; 55 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 69 Proceedings, Society of Am. Foresters, Nov., 1905, 59. 
 to Report, Land Office, 1897, 76. 
 
 7i Ibid., 77. In 1900, the Secretary of the Interior adopted regulations prohibit- 
 ing 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. 72 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 
 been received. 73 
 
 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, 74 and in 1910, 
 by President Taft in a special message to Congress. 75 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- 
 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 
 
 " Report, Land Office, 1898, 100, 101. 
 
 ™ Report, Land Office; 1893, 77; 1895, 85; 1898, 100. 
 
 74 S. Doc, 105; 55 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 75 Cong. Rec., Jan. 17, 1910, 682. 
 
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 
 certain 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. 76 This bill was favorably reported in the House, passed both 
 houses without a word of opposition, and was signed by President 
 Harrison. 77 In the next year, Senator Squire of Washington intro- 
 duced a bill extending the Free Timber Act to eastern Oregon, but it 
 was not reported. 78 In 1894, Representative Houk of Tennessee intro- 
 duced another free timber act, applying to the entire public domain, 
 but it also failed in committee. 79 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. 80 The House bill was never reported, but the Senate 
 bill passed both houses without opposition, 81 and became a law on 
 March 3, 1901. 82 
 
 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. 83 The next year, Senator Mitchell of that 
 state brought up a bill to provide free timber for Oregon, Washington, 
 and California. 84 Senator Fulton reported it favorably from the Com- 
 
 ™ H. R. 8268; 52 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 77 H. Report 1379; 52 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 8268; 52 Cong. 2 sess.: Stat. 27, 444. 
 
 78 S. 612; 53 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 79 H. R. 7818; 53 Cong. 2 sess.: Cong. Bee, Vol. 26, p. 8328. 
 so H. R. 8065, S. 2866; 56 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 si Cong. Bee, Mar. 19, 1900, 3036; Mar. 2, 1901, 3481. 
 
 82 Stat. 31, 1436. 
 
 83 H. R. 8143, H. R. 8144; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
 84 S. 2994; 58 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
242 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 mittee on Public Lands, and it passed the Senate without comment, 85 
 but never came up in the House. The next year, Senator Fulton intro- 
 duced a bill into the Senate to extend the Free Timber Act to the 
 coast states, but it was never considered. 86 From 1905 to the present 
 time, little effort has ever been made to secure a further extension of 
 free timber privileges. 
 
 UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO CURTAIL FREE TIMBER 
 PRIVILEGES 
 
 It seems strange that while extension of free timber acts was thus 
 secured in every case without any opposition or comment, several bills 
 were introduced into Congress to restrict the provisions of these very 
 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." 87 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, 88 
 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. 89 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. 90 On March 2, 1900, Secretary 
 Hitchcock sent a bill to the Speaker of the House and to the President 
 of the Senate, 91 but it was not reported in either chamber. The next 
 year, Jenkins of Wisconsin introduced a bill of similar nature, which 
 likewise failed of a report. 92 
 
 The question of free timber received no attention for nearly ten 
 years after this, and when, at the request of President Taft in 1910, 
 Senator Nelson brought in a bill to regulate timber disposal, 93 almost 
 all of the timber of unreserved lands was gone, and the failure of this 
 
 ss S. Report 1364; Cong. Bee, Apr. 19, 1904, 5080. 
 se S. 268; 59 Cong. 1 sess. 
 87 H. R. 7854 ; 53 Cong. 2 sess. 
 ss H. Report 1400. 
 ss Cong. Bee, Dec. 5, 1894, 52-57. 
 
 so H. R. 40; 54 Cong. 1 sess.: H. R. 4090, H. R. 10878; 55 Cong. 2 sess.: H. R. 
 1032; 56 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 »i H. R. 10405, S. 3498 ; 56 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 92 H. R. 4371 ; 57 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 93 S. 5489; 61 Cong. 2 sess. 
 
THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 
 
 243 
 
 bill was not of very serious consequence. The two free timber acts, 
 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. 
 
 CONSERVATION ACTIVITY IN CONGRESS: INCREASING 
 APPROPRIATIONS FOR TIMBER PROTECTION 
 
 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 
 greatly increased, as the following table clearly shows : 
 
 Year 
 
 Appropriation 
 
 Year 
 
 Appropriation^ 
 
 1891 
 
 $ 120,000 
 
 1904 
 
 $ 250,000 
 
 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 
 
 1900 
 
 125,000 
 
 1913 
 
 500,000 
 
 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 depredations 
 was always somewhat ineffectual. The committee of the National 
 
 9* Compiled from the Statutes at Large. These figures do not include deficiency 
 appropriations, of which there were several during this time. The decrease of appro- 
 priations 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, 95 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, 96 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. 97 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. 98 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. 99 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 
 
 as S. Doc. 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. 
 
THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 245 
 
 Federal jurisdiction in such matters. 100 The amendment of this law in 
 1900 has been discussed in the preceding chapter. 101 The laws of 1897 
 and 1900 applied to reserved and unreserved lands alike. 
 
 In 1906, a law was passed forbidding the boxing of trees on the 
 public domain to get pitch, turpentine, etc. 102 This of course applied 
 mainly to the southern states, where the lack of such a law had 
 already resulted in the destruction of great forests of yellow pine. 
 In yet another matter, Congress voted for conservation, by passing, 
 in 1903, a law permitting registers and receivers to compel the attend- 
 ance of needed witnesses. 103 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 ; 104 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 1903, 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, 105 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- 
 
 ioo 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.) 
 
 ioi Stat. 31, 169. 
 
 102 Stat. 34, 208. 
 
 103 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- 
 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, 106 
 and in 1905, the Commissioner of the Land Office urged upon Congress 
 the amendment of this section, but such an amendment has not been 
 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 
 years later, a similar grant was made to Wisconsin. Since then there 
 have been several efforts to secure grants for forestry purposes, but, 
 except for the grant of some small islands to Wisconsin, no results 
 have accrued from these efforts. 107 
 
 RAILWAY LAND GRANTS ONCE MORE 
 
 The land grant forfeitures hitherto referred to were for failure to 
 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. 108 Even as early as 
 1872, according to the Attorney-General, the Oregon & California 
 
 loe Report, Sec. of Int., 1905, 339. 
 
 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 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 
 
 Railroad 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. 109 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 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 having 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 five 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 
 800,000 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 
 according to the limitations provided by the act. 110 The Coos Bay 
 Wagon Road grant, 111 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 
 alleged to have occurred. 112 
 
 Early in the year 1908, a Senate resolution introduced by Tillman 
 
 109 S. Doc. 279; 60 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 no Ibid., 9. 
 
 in Stat. 15, 340. 
 
 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. 113 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 
 the Attorney-General to enforce compliance with the conditions of the 
 grant, and restore the lands to the public domain. 114 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, 115 but the resolution was adopted without any 
 serious difficulty. 116 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. 117 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 
 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 eight of them ran 
 for cover. 118 
 
 The Tillman resolution directed the Attorney-General to institute 
 suits, and determine the rights of the United States in regard to the 
 
 ii3 S. Doc. 279; 60 Cong. 1 sess.: Cong. Bee., Feb. 3, 1908, 1449. 
 
 in Cong. Bee., Jan. 31, 1908, 1367. 
 
 us Ibid., Feb. 18, 1908, 2111-2114. 
 
 lie Ibid., 2277. 
 
 H7 Cong. Bee, Apr. 22, 1908, 5093. Fordney was interested in the lumber busi- 
 ness in Washington, and this probably explains his attitude in this matter. (Cong. 
 Bee., 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. 
 
 us Cong. Bee., Apr. 23, 5122-5139. 
 
THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 249 
 
 grants to the Central Pacific, the Coos Bay Wagon Road, and the 
 Portland, Astoria & McMinville Railroad; 119 and four years later 
 Congress passed another act, ratifying and confirming all claims of 
 forfeiture which had been asserted by the Attorney-General. 120 
 
 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. 121 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 
 Congress should have a reasonable opportunity to provide for their 
 disposition. Thus the entire matter was thrown back upon Congress. 122 
 In 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 public forest lands. 
 
 THE ACT OF 1916 
 
 This law provides, in the first place, that the Secretary of the 
 Interior, cooperating with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall classify 
 
 us Stat. 14, 239; 15, 80; 15, 340; 16, 47; 16, 94; 35, 571. 
 
 120 Stat. 37, 320. 
 
 121 186 Fed. Rep., 861, 923. 
 
 122 35 Sup. Ct. Rep., 908, 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 cooperation 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- 
 tation is permitted. 
 
 The main fund arising from the sale of timber and lands is to be 
 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. 
 
 In several ways this statute was unwisely drawn. In the first place, 
 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 
 possibility that they may grow another crop of timber. 
 
 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 
 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 
 unnecessary to dwell much upon the logic of this position, but a gov- 
 ernment 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 
 mainly 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. 
 
 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 ; 
 but 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 
 "unalterable opposition" to any further increase of forest reserves 
 in Oregon. A government investigator who was sent out to look over 
 the lands asserted that this conference was not representative of the 
 people as a whole ; but the Oregon senators and representatives, who 
 may be assumed to have sounded out public opinion, seem to have been 
 generally 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. 
 
 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, 
 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. 123 
 
 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. 124 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, 125 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. 126 
 
 123 H. R. 14864; 64 Cong. 1 sess.: Stat. 39, 218 et seq. 
 
 124 Stat. 16, 379. 
 
 125 "Lumber Industry," I, 235. 
 
 126 Ibid., 236, 237. 
 
THE UNRESERVED TIMBER LAND 253 
 
 As a result of the government suit against the Oregon & California, 
 a large number of persons settled on the railroad lands involved, and 
 also on the Northern Pacific lands in southwestern Washington, evi- 
 dently with the idea that the act of 1870 127 gave them the privilege 
 of buying at $2.50 per acre. The case of one of these settlers was 
 brought before the Land Office, and there the decision was against 
 the claimant, 128 on the ground that the real issue as to the effect of 
 the conditions in the law of 1870, regarding sale to settlers, was a 
 question for the courts. It is of course established by a long line of 
 decisions that Congress alone, rather than individual settlers, would 
 have the right to challenge the railroad company for non-performance 
 of the condition. 
 
 127 Stat. 16, 379. 
 
 128 "Land Decisions," 38, 77. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 HOSTILITY TO THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN RECENT 
 
 YEARS : OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL POLICY 
 
 OF RESERVATION 
 
 Hostility 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. 1 
 
 OPPOSITION TO THE GENERAL POLICY OF RESERVATION: INTER- 
 FERENCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WEST 
 
 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 : 
 
 i 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. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 255 
 
 "The forest reserve system hampers all forms of industrial develop- 
 ment. 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 
 Borah was particularly anxious that something be done to make the 
 laws of the United States so liberal that settlers would no longer 
 have to go to Canada to secure homes. Senator Smoot of Utah very 
 properly pointed out, however, that in many respects the Canadian 
 land laws are less generous than those of the United States. 2 
 
 Without a doubt, many of the complaints about the interference 
 with the development of the West were made in all earnestness and 
 good faith ; but in general they were based upon a narrow view of the 
 interests of the country as a whole, often on a short-sighted view of 
 the development of the West itself. 
 
 INCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS 
 
 In no way has the reservation policy "interfered as much with the 
 development of the West," perhaps, as by the inclusion of agricultural 
 lands within the forest reserves. This has of course been a cause of 
 western hostility since the very beginning of the reservation policy. 
 Representative Taylor of Colorado once asserted that the opposition 
 of the West was directed largely at the "conservation of sage brush, 
 cactus, and buffalo grass." 3 
 
 As indicated in a previous chapter, an act was passed in 1906 pro- 
 viding that the Secretary of Agriculture might examine and segregate 
 any lands within forest reserves which were chiefly valuable for agri- 
 culture and might be so used without injury to the forest reserves. 
 Since 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, 
 6521; May 14, 1912, 6397; Mar. 10, 1914, 4637; 63 Cong. 1 sess., Appendix, 465: 
 No. Am. Rev., Apr., 1910: Independent, 68, 697. 
 
 3 Cong. Rec, Feb. 1, 1910, 1352. 
 
256 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 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." 4 
 
 EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE AGRICULTURAL LANDS: THE 
 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 prevent 
 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. Bee, 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 role, supported of course by his colleague Borah, and by 
 other western men, and also by men from farther east — Cummins of 
 Iowa and Gallinger of New Hampshire. One of the chief objects of 
 criticism in these debates was the inclusion within national forests of 
 agricultural 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 
 homestead 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 
 valuable for agriculture which might be so used without injury to the 
 forest 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 
 public use. Thus heavily timbered lands of only a slight value for agri- 
 culture 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 
 timber owners, and the "poor settlers" would have built no "homes" 
 after all. Also it should be noted that all ranger stations or other 
 plots necessary to the efficient management of the forests would have 
 been opened up under this provision, if they possessed even a slight 
 value for agriculture. 
 
 Thus the Nelson amendment was calculated to do immense injury 
 to the national forests, perhaps to overthrow the entire reservation 
 policy, 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 
 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 
 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 
 AGRICULTURAL LANDS 
 
 The fact that some agricultural lands have been eliminated from 
 the national forests indicates that there was some basis for complaint. 
 It is certain, however, that the great majority of "settlers" who told 
 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 
 
 Careful investigation of 116 perfected homestead claims in Idaho and 
 eastern Washington disclosed the fact that, of the timbered claims, 
 about one half of 1 per cent were later reduced to cultivation. Another 
 investigation of 160 claims in Idaho revealed 100 claims with no lands 
 susceptible of cultivation, 40 or 50 claims with about five acres each 
 which might be cultivated after the timber was removed, 20 claims 
 with an average of 10 acres, and only 10 claims with an average of 
 40 to 80 acres of cultivable lands. A careful study of 95 timbered 
 homesteads in the Kaniksu National Forest showed that only 1.34 
 per cent of the cultivable land had been put to agricultural use. A 
 similar examination of 71 claims in the Clearwater National Forest 
 of Idaho showed that only slightly over 1 per cent of the claims had 
 been cultivated. Of a total of 12,330 acres in certain contested claims 
 in the Northwest, only 47 acres were found to be under cultivation — 
 less than four tenths of 1 per cent. 5 
 
 Almost all of the heavily timbered land, of course, found its way 
 into the hands of lumber companies. Figures were obtained on nine 
 townships in Idaho adjacent to the St. Joe National Forest, and it 
 was found that, of 264 homesteads patented, 208 passed to lumber 
 companies within three years after patent was issued, and nearly all 
 the rest were being held for speculation. In another township in the 
 same state, investigation of 100 patented homesteads revealed the fact 
 that, although in many cases patent had only recently been issued, 
 70 of the homesteads had passed to lumber companies. 
 
 At the earnest solicitation of some of the Washington delegation 
 in Congress, over 400,000 acres of land were eliminated from the 
 Olympic National Forest in Washington, on the ground that it was 
 agricultural land. The land thus eliminated for agricultural use was 
 largely taken up under the Timber and Stone Act, which required 
 oath that the land is "valuable chiefly for timber but not fit for agri- 
 culture"; and ten years later the total area in cultivation was only 
 570 acres. 6 Many other examples might be given to show that very 
 many of the efforts to secure the elimination of alleged agricultural 
 lands were not made in good faith at all, but were really attempts to 
 secure valuable timber, minerals, or other resources. 
 
 s Report, Forester, 1914, 2, 3, 4. 
 
 6 "Lumber Industry," I, 267: Cong. Bee, 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." 7 
 
 Although the charge has been made repeatedly that the Forest 
 Service has been hostile to settlers within the national forests, and 
 has tried to put unnecessary impediments in the way of settlement, it 
 seems doubtful if this has often been true. A Federal bureau would 
 naturally be slow in its action upon claims and would perhaps require 
 considerable "red tape" in applications. A few of the officials have 
 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 prevent 
 forest fires, and the force organized for this purpose is recruited 
 largely from those living in or near the forest. Settlers are also a help 
 in locating fires, and by means of telephone connections are able to 
 report quickly to the forest officers. 8 
 
 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 
 occasions voiced his sentiments in no uncertain terms. Representative 
 7 Cong. Rec, Mar. 10, 1914, 4637. 
 
 s On agricultural lands in the forest reserves, see H. R. 18960 ; 62 Cong. 2 sess. : 
 Stat. 34, 233; 37, 287, 842; 38, 429, 1099; 39, 460: Am. Forestry, Aug., 1912, 527, 
 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. Res. 54; 62 Cong. 1 sess.: S. 7203; 62 Cong. 2 sess. For opposition to 
 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 
 
 Martin of Colorado likewise regarded this as one of the worst abuses 
 of the reservation policy, and in the debates on the Agricultural Ap- 
 propriation 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 
 to impose some restriction on their construction or use. In 1912, 
 Representative Martin of South Dakota secured an amendment for- 
 bidding the Forest Service to use the residences of homesteaders for 
 ranger stations. 9 
 
 The Forest Service has denied that there is any real justification 
 for complaints regarding the appropriation of administrative sites. 
 In response to a Senate resolution in 1913, demanding information 
 on this point, Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson made a report 
 showing that in the state of Washington, with about 10,000,000 acres 
 of national forests, 424 administrative sites had been withdrawn, with 
 a total area of about 40,000 acres, and of this total only 272 acres 
 were under cultivation. Over 80 per cent of the area of these adminis- 
 trative sites was reported to be under heavy timber or permanently 
 unsuited to agriculture by climate or soil. 10 It is of course sometimes 
 necessary for the Forest Service to use sites for administrative pur- 
 poses which are not absolutely worthless for agriculture. Successful 
 protection of the forests requires not only an adequate force, but a 
 well-placed force of rangers. Furthermore, since ranger stations must 
 be placed where forest officers can either actually live with their fami- 
 lies throughout the greater part of the year, or make headquarters 
 during the summer months with sufficient feed for their saddle and 
 pack horses, it is necessary to select for this class of sites areas which 
 furnish a fair pasture. The Forest Service must obviously provide for 
 its own needs ; but it does not displace settlers already in possession, 
 or reject applications for the listing of land in order to take the land 
 for public purposes. 11 
 
 *Cong. Rec, Mar. 8, 1910, 2891; Feb. 4, 1911, 1957, 1958; Mar. 7, 1912, 
 Stat. 37, 280. 
 
 io S. Doc. 1075; 62 Cong. 3 sess. 
 ii 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?" 12 
 Mondell, in similar vein, pointed out that the charge for grazing had 
 never been specifically authorized by Congress. 
 
 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- 
 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 
 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 
 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. 13 
 
 12 Cong. Bee, Feb. 1, 1910, 1352. 
 
 is Cong. Bee, Feb. 1, 1910, 1338, 1339; Feb. 10, 1911, 2291. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 263 
 
 Mondell claimed that thorough grazing of the forest reserves was the 
 best of all safeguards against the spread of forest fires, and that the 
 Forest Service, by interfering with grazing, had actually in some 
 cases increased the fire hazard. His theory was that under the manage- 
 ment of the forest reserves previous to 1910, the grasses grew year 
 after year, died, and finally formed a mat through which fire, under a 
 wind, ran with great rapidity. 14 
 
 Doubtless there has been occasional justification for the criticism 
 of the management of grazing lands, but in general the control of 
 such lands by the Forest Service has resulted in a great improvement 
 in range conditions. Previously, overstocking had caused the destruc- 
 tion of some ranges, and in many regions a decrease in carrying capac- 
 ity. Perhaps the greatest evil was the "transient" or "tramp" herds 
 of sheep, usually bands of sheep being driven from distant ranges to 
 points of shipment, or being driven between summer and winter ranges, 
 which were often long distances apart and sometimes located in differ- 
 ent states. These bands just drifted around in search of good feeding 
 grounds and camped wherever such areas were found, often grazing 
 the land far too close. This and other evils the Forest Service has now 
 under fair control. The criticism that the Forest Service has favored 
 the large cattlemen and sheepmen has certainly not been valid. The 
 policy of the service has been to favor the smaller owners. It was once 
 explained in Congress that, in disagreements between the stockmen 
 and the Forest Service, the wealthier stockmen could hire adequate 
 counsel to look after their business, and were less likely to cherish any 
 grievance ; but the Forest Service has tried to promote the organiza- 
 tion of local livestock associations, and through these associations the 
 smaller owners are able to secure somewhat the same service as the 
 larger owners. These associations assist, not only in the settlement of 
 disputes, but in the salting of stock, in the improvement of breeds of 
 cattle, and in many other ways. One of the great advantages arising 
 from government control of ranges has been the prevention of the 
 range "wars" — the quarrels among grazers, particularly the deadly 
 feuds that were waged between the sheepmen and the cattlemen. 15 
 
 As to what is really the attitude of the majority of the stockmen 
 
 I* Cong. Bee, Feb. 2, 1911, 1855. 
 is Forest Bui. 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. 16 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 Bui. 62, p. 24. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 265 
 
 plaints. Senator Smoot of Utah called attention in 1909 to numerous 
 attempts 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 
 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- 
 lion dollars. In one instance a large livestock company, in order to 
 establish 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 
 locations were upon formations containing no mineral showing what- 
 ever, and the alleged development work consisted of tunneling and 
 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 
 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, 
 and 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 
 considerable area. 
 
 In 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 
 shale, which the locators alleged had some value for cement making. 
 In the application, the locators alleged $1500 worth of work, and 
 investigation showed that all the work that had been performed was 
 in grading for driveways and for building locations, and that it 
 actually amounted to less than $300. It appeared also that the 
 locators had incorporated a company for the exploitation and sale 
 of 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 Canon there are many mining claims, 
 locations made years ago, ostensibly for mineral, but in reality cover- 
 ing portions of the canon rim and trails in such a way as to give the 
 claimants the right to exact a charge upon the traveling public. 17 
 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 
 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 
 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 
 its conservation policy, provides the only practicable future supply of 
 timber for mining, and so provides best for its long-time develop- 
 ment. 18 
 
 it Am. Forestry, Apr., 1917, 225 et seq.: Report, Forester, 1914, 3. 
 
 is See Cong. Bee, Feb. 26, 1909, 3040; Mar. 8, 1910, 2893; Mar. 1, 1911, 3772; 
 Mar. 12, 1914, 4752, 4753: Forest Bui. 67, 13: Beport, Sec. of Agr., 1908, 415; 1912, 
 475: Beport, Forester, 1914, 3. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 267 
 
 WATER POWER DEVELOPMENT IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS 
 
 Agricultural, grazing, and mineral lands are not the only natural 
 resources that the national forests have been accused of "bottling up." 
 There has recently been a great deal of complaint that the national 
 forests included many valuable water power sites and that the policy 
 of the Forest Service was so exacting as to prevent adequate develop- 
 ment of these resources. It is estimated that there is within the 
 national forests approximately 12,000,000 horse power which can be 
 developed from natural streamflow, and that this amount can be 
 increased very greatly by the construction of storage reservoirs. 
 
 The act of 1891, providing for the creation of forest reserves, made 
 no provision for the development of power. One of the sections of that 
 act, however, provided that rights of way across the reserves might 
 be granted for irrigation purposes ; and seven years later, this was 
 expanded to include the development of power, providing it was "sub- 
 sidiary to the main purpose of irrigation." In 1901, this proviso was 
 removed, and the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to permit 
 the use of rights of way through the public lands and reserves for 
 electric plants. Under this act, the permit must be approved by the 
 chief officer of the department concerned, and might be revoked by 
 the Secretary of the Interior at his discretion. This is still the law on 
 the subject, although a section was added in 1911, authorizing the 
 issue of permits for rights of way, for not to exceed fifty years. The 
 issue of such permits is, however, still at the discretion of the Secre- 
 tary having jurisdiction over the land. 19 
 
 Under the regulations adopted by the Forest Service in 1910, a 
 certain charge was exacted of those who used power sites, and this 
 has of course aroused some opposition: Representative Martin of 
 Colorado spoke of the "dog-in-the-manger" policy of the government 
 in charging this rental. "The proposition of the government is this," 
 he said, in discussing the agricultural appropriation bill of 1912 : 
 " 'It is true we do not own the water in the stream, but we happen to 
 own the land bordering the stream, land that is probably not worth 
 farming. 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, 
 1253. See also Opinions, Atty.-Gen., 25, 470; 26, 421; and Proceedings, Society of 
 Am. 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.' " 20 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. 21 
 
 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. Bee, Mar. 7, 1912, 2991. 
 2i Cong. Bee, Mar. 2, 1911, 4016. 
 
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 
 Forest Service claims that its policy results in some cases in more 
 rapid development than would otherwise occur, by preventing specu- 
 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 
 are usually for fifty years, but they may specify a shorter time or 
 may 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 
 to abide by reasonable regulation of rates and of service by the state, 
 or, if the state does not exercise such regulation, by the Secretary of 
 Agriculture. 
 
 It is easy to suppose that under such restrictions as these, the 
 water power resources in national forests would not present a very 
 attractive 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 
 western states in 1912 was two and one half times as great as in other 
 parts of the country, that there is even a "considerable overdevelop- 
 ment in nearly all the power centers of the western states, California, 
 Oregon, and Washington in particular showing installations far in 
 excess of maximum demands." 
 
 The water power question is still unsettled, and it is not the pur- 
 pose of this book to point out any solution. The present situation is 
 certainly not satisfactory in all respects. On the other hand, it must 
 be noted that the present situation is vastly better than it would be if 
 the Forest Service had not guarded the power sites very carefully, for 
 the 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 should be 
 settled wisely, for it involves the interests of future generations. 22 
 
 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 
 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." 23 
 
 WITHDRAWAL OF OTHER RESOURCES 
 
 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. Bee, 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' Bui. 327. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 271 
 
 action, but instead of restoring the land to the public domain, he 
 secured from Congress in 1910 an act specifically authorizing such 
 withdrawals. The effect of this legislation, it later developed, was to 
 restrict rather than enlarge the authority of the President, for the 
 Supreme Court later held that previous legal authority was sufficient. 
 In June, 1916, the total withdrawals amounted to nearly 50,000,000 
 acres, of which 45,935,954 acres were coal and oil lands, 2,352,652 
 acres were power sites, and 193,272 acres were public water reserves. 
 Naturally this policy brought various interests, other than the timber 
 interests, into a position of hostility to the reservation policy. 24 
 
 OPPOSITION TO SAVING FOR POSTERITY 
 
 An argument that interference with the immediate development of 
 the West might yet be a good thing for posterity, has not appealed to 
 some of the western men, for some of them have not been at all con- 
 cerned about the interests of posterity. As Senator Teller said in 
 Congress 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 
 an opportunity to get what I myself ought to get." 25 
 
 DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE WEST 
 
 A great many complaints have always been made that the West is 
 being denied the same advantages the East had in an earlier period. 
 As Senator Carter once expressed it: "The state of Maine and the 
 state of Illinois and Iowa and Missouri and Wisconsin enjoyed, 
 through the operation of the laws that have heretofore obtained within 
 their respective boundaries, the full benefit of the natural resources 
 the great Creator had placed there; but these states of the Rocky 
 Mountains and the western slope, where nature presents the hardest 
 conditions settlers have ever faced on this continent, must conduct 
 their local affairs subject to a tribute to the Federal government upon 
 the natural resources within their borders." 26 Representative Martin 
 
 z* Stat. 36, 583, 847, 855; 3T, 497: Report, Sec. of Int., 1916, Vol. L, 174, 510: 
 "Land Decisions," 37, 277; 41, 528: Wilcox vs. Jackson; 38 U. S., 498: Wolsey vs. 
 Chapman; 101 U. S., 755. 
 
 25 Cong. Rec, Feb. 26, 1909, 3226. 
 
 26 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." 27 
 
 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," as of expediency. The fact that the East exploited its lands 
 without restriction is no reason why the West should do the same 
 thing, unless the results have demonstrated the wisdom of that policy. 
 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. Bee, Apr. 7, 1910, 4376; Mar. 2, 1911, 4017. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 273 
 
 than all the herds of deer that you could put upon acres of ground. I 
 have no doubt that the beautiful spotted fawns would look more beau- 
 tiful to our friends from the East, when they come out there, but they 
 perhaps would not care a snap about seeing the western people driv- 
 ing up the lowing kine. They would rather see them shooting deer ; but 
 we are talking about practical life and practical government and 
 practical things, and we are substituting cities for forests; we are 
 trading off the timber for civilization, and you come out there and 
 undertake to stay our hand !" Senator Borah complained of the elk 
 crowding the sheep out of the reserves. Governor Richards of Wyo- 
 ming suggested that the West wanted "to raise agricultural products, 
 not wolves, bear, and other game for the purpose of making Wyoming 
 a game preserve for eastern sportsmen." 28 
 
 There is room for a difference of opinion as to the advisability of 
 establishing extensive game preserves ; but it is to be noted that the 
 movement for the preservation of our wild life has made a great deal 
 of headway in the past decade, and almost no session of Congress 
 passes without a number of bills being introduced for the establish- 
 ment of such preserves. 
 
 LOSS OF TAXING POWER 
 
 Few arguments against the reservation policy have been urged as 
 often as the argument that it causes a serious loss in the taxing power 
 of the states and local units in the West, and, by reducing the number 
 of taxpayers, throws a heavy burden on the few who reside in or near 
 the forest reserves. 
 
 It was as a compensation for this loss in taxing power that the 
 Agricultural Appropriation Bill of 1906 provided for the payment 
 of 10 per cent of the revenues from national forests to the various 
 states and territories, for the benefit of the public schools and roads 
 of the counties in which the reserves were situated. This was not satis- 
 factory to the West, however, and in 1908, the amount was raised to 
 25 per cent ; but even 25 per cent was not enough, and repeated efforts 
 have 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: 
 Cross Reference, pp. 302-305. 
 
274 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 tural Appropriation Bill to increase this contribution from 25 to 35 
 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 gov- 
 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 35 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 
 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 
 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 
 
 of Colorado argued that 35 per cent was not enough, since the other 
 states had got all. As Martin expressed it, "We regard it in the light 
 of having returned to us 35 per cent of what you have first taken away 
 from us." Appealing to Payne of New York, he continued: "Your 
 state has had the benefit of its public domain and all its resources, 
 and now you propose to take away all that remains of the public 
 domain 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 
 bureau to milk them perpetually as a source of Federal profit." Martin 
 of South Dakota enlarged on the "burden of maintaining order" in 
 the reserves, which, of course, was saddled on the states. Taylor of 
 Colorado called upon Congress to "give the pioneer settlers of the 
 West a fair share of the hard earned fees they are paying into this 
 forest refund, and let them build their roads, maintain their schools, 
 educate their children and build up the West as you have the East." 
 Mondell claimed that the localities should have a return somewhere 
 near what they would receive if the lands were in private ownership 
 and taxed, and pointed out that it was the people of the West who 
 paid the grazing fees, and, in fact, all the revenues of the forests. 
 Hawley of Oregon argued that since the people living -near the forest 
 reserves were of great assistance in fighting fire, they ought to be 
 compensated by a larger percentage of the forest reserve receipts. 
 Even one eastern man, Sulzer of New York, expressed sympathy with 
 the claims of the West. 
 
 In spite of the efforts of these men, the House absolutely refused to 
 accede to the 35 per cent amendment, and sent it back to a conference 
 committee twice. The conference committee was long unable to come 
 to any agreement. The House conferees — Scott of Kansas, Cocks of 
 New York, and Lamb of Virginia — stood out for the elimination of 
 this amendment, and the Senate conferees — Dolliver of Iowa, Warren 
 of Wyoming, and Money of Mississippi — insisted upon its retention. 
 After considerable wrangling, the Senate finally receded from its 
 amendment. 29 This attempt of the western men to secure more of the 
 national receipts for schools and roads thus failed, but that did not 
 stop the complaints, nor the efforts to secure a larger share of the 
 revenues. 
 
 29 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 gov- 
 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. 30 
 
 JUSTICE OF COMPLAINTS REGARDING LOSS OF TAXING POWER 
 
 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 
 $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 
 
 so S. Report 696; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: Cong. Bee, May 30, 1912, 7411; Feb. 10, 1913, 
 2957; Feb. 27, 1913, 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. Bee, Jan. 24, 1913, 1049, 1950: Stat. 39, 358. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 277 
 
 institutions of public benefit maintained upon the very forest reserves 
 themselves. . . . Would it be fair to have a non-resident landholder 
 in the state exempted from contribution to the expenses of the state 
 and 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 
 forest reserves. 31 
 
 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. 32 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. 
 Speaking of the withdrawal of 700,000 acres of so-called agricultural 
 land from the Olympia National Forest in 1901, Johnson admitted 
 that the land fell mainly into the hands of the big timber owners ; but 
 he insisted that "the money they paid the settlers was the money that 
 kept 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 
 country in question. But for the withdrawal of 1901, another county 
 would have been bankrupted." 33 Hawley of Oregon claimed that his 
 state was getting $50,000 a year in lieu of about $1,000,000 which 
 she would have got by taxation, had her timber lands been in private 
 hands. 34 
 
 There is no doubt some justice in these complaints. The Forest 
 Service admits that in some cases the national forests impose a heavy 
 burden on settlers, and as Mr. Graves puts it : "There is little com- 
 fort to the man who, with a handful of neighbors, must pay heavy 
 taxes for roads, schools, and other purposes, in the thought that at 
 some time in the more or less indefinite future, conservation will mean 
 increased local prosperity. He bears his burdens now. Though the 
 
 . 31 Cong. Rec, Mar. 7, 1910, 2842; Mar. 8, 1910, 2893. 
 
 32 Cong. Rec, 63 Cong. 1 sess., 1867. 
 
 33 Cong. Rec, 63 Cong. 1 sess., 5972; 63 Cong. 2 sess., 4635. 
 s* Cong. Rec, 64 Cong. 1 sess., 6404. 
 
278 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 forests had been bought up and were being held undeveloped by specu- 
 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." 35 
 
 The loss in "taxing power" has generally been grossly exaggerated, 
 however. The complaints of such men as Heyburn on this as on other 
 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 
 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: 
 
 School and road Road and trail 
 
 State moneys (25 per cent) moneys (10 per cent) 
 
 Montana $ 79,589.78 $ 31,835.91 
 
 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 
 
 Oregon 49,675.83 19,870.33 
 
 Utah 48,675.96 19,470.38 
 
 Wyoming 43,086.86 17,234.75 
 
 Washington 37,445.56 14,978.23 
 
 New Mexico 31,786.46 12,714.58 
 
 Nevada 16,244.53 6,497.81 
 
 South Dakota 12,988.11 5,195.25 
 
 The states of Arizona and New Mexico received additional shares of 
 
 national forest receipts amounting to over $40,000 for their school 
 
 funds, on account of school lands included within national forests. 36 
 
 The growth in the amount available for the states is indicated by 
 
 35 Cong. Rec, 63 Cong. 1 sess., Appendix, pp. 465 et seq. 
 
 36 Report, Sec. of Agr., 1916, 278. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 279 
 
 the following table, showing the total contributions for the road and 
 school fund since 1908 — the year when this contribution was raised 
 from 10 to 25 per cent: 
 
 1908 
 
 $ 447,063 
 
 1913 
 
 $ 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 
 superficial, or worse. In figuring what revenues would have been 
 enjoyed if the reserves had been subject to taxation, the assumption 
 has usually been made that the standing timber would be taxed, 
 according to the unscientific system common in the United States. A 
 rational tax should of course be levied mainly on the annual cut, 
 rather 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 
 out in Congress by Representative McLaughlin of Michigan, when 
 Humphrey and Johnson were bewailing the fact that many sawmills 
 in the West were being run at a loss, and that private individuals could 
 hardly afford to own timber lands. McLaughlin pertinently sug- 
 gested that if private individuals could not afford to own lands, they 
 could hardly afford to pay taxes on the lands. 37 Even if it had been 
 possible to levy a heavy yield tax on timber lands, it would have 
 yielded little revenue in some sections, for much of the government 
 timber 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 
 "prosperity" ; but if such a policy resulted in the speedy and wasteful 
 destruction of this timber, such a "prosperity" would be short-lived. 
 
 3? 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. 38 
 
 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. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 281 
 
 power 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 
 get farmers to farm land, miners to prospect and develop mines, 
 water power companies to build construction works, lumbermen to 
 buy timber, stockmen to put in their herds to feed on the grass. In 
 other words, people are needed in the forests to use the resources. 
 
 It should be noted finally, that, even if the complaints of hardship 
 from loss of taxation be given full credence, it is not probable that the 
 best way to help unfortunate communities would be to increase the 
 percentage of national forest receipts, for where little use of the for- 
 ests has as yet been developed, the receipts would not do much good 
 even 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 
 that the western men may yet secure an increase. The proposition has 
 a "pork barrel" flavor which might make an irresistible appeal to 
 Congress, under certain circumstances. Furthermore, it presents a 
 rather attractive and indirect way of attacking the reservation policy. 
 If 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 
 would be attacking the forests in the safest and most effective way. It 
 is not certain that the average congressman from the West gains 
 public favor, even among his "home folk," by attacking the reserves 
 directly, 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 
 seriously prejudice the reserves. It is notable that several of the 
 recent attacks on the reservation policy have been inaugurated by an 
 attempt to secure an increase in this fund. 
 
 INCLUSION OF STATE LANDS IN THE NATIONAL FORESTS 
 
 Frequent complaints have been made regarding the inclusion of 
 state lands in the national forests. It has been claimed that, in some 
 cases, the value of state lands has been reduced to almost nothing; 
 and in almost every session of Congress a great many bills are intro- 
 duced 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. 39 
 
 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 
 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- 
 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." 40 
 
 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 
 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 
 
 39 Report, Sec. of Agr., 1909, 399; 1912, 473; 1916, 45: Report, Forester, 1914, 
 27; 1915, 20. 
 
 40 Cong. Rec, Mar. 9, 1912, 3108. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 283 
 
 and the executive. . . . He is in fact a very sovereign"; while as to 
 the people of the West, "their souls are not their own ; their American 
 manhood is subdued; there is ringing in their very souls a hatred of 
 this government." It has often been claimed that the Forest Service, in 
 its management of the reserves, was accustomed to disregard the state 
 laws. 41 
 
 4i Cong. Bee, Apr. 28, 1909, 1567; May 14, 1909, 2019; Feb. 1, 1910, 1351; May 
 19, 1910, 6526-6529; Feb. 27, 1912, 2529: No. Am. Review, 191, 465; Apr., 1910. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 HOSTILITY TO THE NATIONAL FORESTS IN RECENT 
 
 YEARS (continued): 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. 1 
 
 This so-called "insolvency" of the reserves was attributed to the 
 extravagance of the Forest Service ; and complaints on this point have 
 
 i Receipts from National Forests and Amounts Expended for 
 
 Maintenance of Forests from 1908 to 1917 iNCLUsrvE 
 
 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 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 285 
 
 come not only from Mondell and Heyburn and the other western anti- 
 conservationists, but from farther east — from Tawney and Steener- 
 son of Minnesota, Fitzgerald, Perkins, and Bennett of New York, 
 Clark and Stone of Missouri, Haugen of Iowa, Hamilton of Michigan, 
 and others. 
 
 The extravagance of the Forest Service is alleged to have been 
 shown in various ways. Mondell claimed in 1911 that not over 15 per 
 cent of the annual appropriations for the Service in the previous six 
 years had been used directly in protection of the reserves, a consider- 
 able share of the rest going for an unnecessarily large clerical force, 
 traveling expenses, for unnecessary junkets, and for the prepara- 
 tion of newspaper and magazine articles for advertising the Forest 
 Service. 2 Various men have complained of the payment of traveling 
 expenses of forestry officers, who "stand before the national geo- 
 graphic societies and other learned societies with impressive titles and 
 tell them how the world ought to be run." 3 In 1908, an amendment to 
 the Agricultural Appropriation Bill provided that none of the money 
 appropriated should be used to pay traveling expenses of any forest 
 officer except on business directly connected with the Forest Service ; 
 but it was often charged even afterward that government funds were 
 used to pay the expenses of officials who were merely going about 
 lecturing to conventions and associations. 4 
 
 The "press bureau" of the Forest Service has often been criticised, 
 the 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 
 1910 that the Forest Service had a mailing list of 750,000 names. 5 
 In 1908, the appropriation bill was amended to prevent the use of 
 money for the preparation or publication of such articles, but it has 
 been charged that the Forest Service often evaded this. 6 
 
 JUSTICE OF THESE COMPLAINTS 
 The weight to be given to these complaints of extravagance in the 
 
 2 Cong. Bee, Feb. 2, 1911, 1836. 
 
 s Speech of Senator Heyburn, Cong. Bee, Mar. 1, 1911, 3774. 
 
 * Stat. 35, 259. 
 
 s Cong. Bee, 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 regime. 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 
 
 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- 
 siderable expenditure for expenses of officials going to deliver lectures. 
 A number of members of the Forest Service have at different times 
 performed such work, but it was usually incidental to other work. As 
 a rule, addresses before educational institutions, associations of wood 
 users, 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. 8 Even so, however, this has not been 
 an altogether negligible item, for, as late as 1916, 425 addresses were 
 given by members of the Forest Service. Whether this be a proper 
 function of the Forest Service or not is a question concerning which 
 there may well be an honest difference of opinion. 9 
 
 Regarding the preparation and publication of articles by the Forest 
 Service, much the same must be said. Almost all investigators em- 
 ployed by the Forest Service who have done work of any considerable 
 importance, have doubtless been engaged at some time in writing 
 matter 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 
 years had in its employ one or more men engaged primarily in editing 
 manuscripts for official publication, and these editors have sometimes 
 written matter for publication, both in official bulletins and circulars 
 and in periodicals and newspapers. At times the Service has had men 
 whose function was chiefly or entirely to diffuse information through 
 the press. At one time the Service had a mailing list of 750,000 names 
 and from five to seven men were employed in editing and sending out 
 material. That the work of attending to this mailing list is an expen- 
 sive matter, may be inferred from the fact that the installation of an 
 addressing machine by the Forest Service in 1908 is reported to have 
 reduced the clerical force of the Service by thirty persons. 
 
 In some ways, this publicity work has been about as much needed 
 and as valuable a line of work as any that the Forest Service performs. 
 
 s H. Doc. 681; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912, 466 et seq. See also 
 S. Doc. 485; 60 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 9 H. Doc. 681; 62 Cong. 2 sess.: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1912, 466 et seq. See also 
 S. Doc. 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. 10 
 
 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 cooperation 
 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 
 expenditures for road and trail construction but likewise to fire 
 protection. 11 
 
 10 Reports, Sec. of Agr., 1907, 347; 1908, 438 et seq.; 1909, 407 et seq.; 1916, 190. 
 a Am. Forestry, May, 1917, 305: Am. 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 
 the object of severe, criticism and, perhaps strangely, on diametrically 
 opposite grounds. Some critics have asserted that the price charged 
 by the government was too high, while others, although not so many, 
 have charged that the price was too low. 
 
 With the increase in lumber prices since 1897, it was inevitable that 
 many people should suspect the working of a lumber trust and that 
 they should wonder why the government did not at least try to keep 
 prices down, by selling its own timber at a price somewhat below those 
 established by the so-called "lumber trust." The charge has often been 
 made that the government not only did not undersell the "trust," but 
 actually established a price somewhat higher than that of private own- 
 ers in the same vicinity. E. M. Amnions, later governor of Colorado, 
 criticised the Forest Service for its method of selling timber to the 
 highest bidder, and charged that the "lumber trust" bid just high 
 enough to get it, and then added correspondingly to the consumer's 
 price. Senator Heyburn called attention to a conference between the 
 forestry officials and the lumber operators to fix a scale of prices, and 
 asserted that the Forest Service had increased prices 100 per cent. 
 Representative Humphrey of Washington charged the Forest Ser- 
 vice with being largely responsible for the timber "monopoly" in the 
 West, and alleged that the big "interests" — Frederick Weyerhaeuser, 
 J. J. Hill, and others — were among the most prominent influences in 
 the conservation movement. He asserted that the "so-called forest- 
 conservation movement" had "operated solely to bull the lumber and 
 timber market." 12 
 
 Much of the complaint regarding the high price set by the govern- 
 ment on its timber was not made in any spirit of sincerity. Men who 
 disliked the system anyhow found here a good line of attack — one 
 which would make a strong bid for popular support. This is clearly 
 indicated by the following extract from a confidential letter which the 
 
 12 Cong. Bee, May 19, 1910, 6527; May 16, 1912, 6545; Mar. 10, 1914, 4621, 
 4628; Mar. 12, 1914, 4759, 4760; June 2, 1913, 1865; Apr. 18, 1916, 6388: H. Res. 
 114; 63 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
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." 13 
 
 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. 14 
 
 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 
 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 
 
 is "Lumber Industry," Pt. IV, 61 et seq. 
 
 " Cong. Bee, Apr. 18, 1916, 6390, 6392 et seq. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 291 
 
 price were put below the prevailing market price, it would only tend 
 to increase the demoralization which has existed in the lumber industry 
 much of the time during the past ten years. 
 
 It is not certain that the government revenues could be greatly 
 increased by reducing the price, even if that were possible. In those 
 districts where the amount of government timber is not large enough 
 to affect the market greatly, no great increase in sales could be 
 expected, no matter what the price, and in regions where the govern- 
 ment timber is an important factor in the market, reduction in price 
 would simply compel private owners to reduce too, and thus leave the 
 amount of government sales somewhat the same as before. It is stated 
 that the reason why the government has not sold more is not that the 
 price is too high, but rather that it is impossible to dispose of inac- 
 cessible blocks of timber at any price. Much of the government timber 
 is comparatively inaccessible, and large investments are necessary to 
 its development on any considerable scale. 
 
 Even from the point of view of the consumer, very little is to be 
 said for a reduction in the government price of stumpage. Unless the 
 amount of such timber is so great as to have an important influence 
 on the market, it is likely that if the government lowered its price the 
 fortunate purchasers of this cheap stumpage would nevertheless sell 
 their product at the regular market price, and pocket the profits 
 accruing. Under any circumstances, it is of course the lorg-run inter- 
 ests of consumers rather than their mere immediate interests which 
 should be considered. 15 
 
 It might be possible for the Forest Service to increase its revenues 
 somewhat by charging for the timber which it has for many years 
 been giving away free to settlers ; but the amount of timber thus given 
 away has not been very great — 120,000,000 feet in 1916 — and even 
 if it were a very considerable item, it is not certain that it would be 
 just or expedient to charge settlers for it. 
 
 As already stated, the Forest Service should increase the grazing 
 fees. The rates allowed in the past have hardly been fair to all con- 
 cerned. Not only has the government been meeting an annual deficit 
 
 is Report, Sec. of Agr., 1908, 422; 1912, 491; 1916, 157 et seq.: Report, Forester, 
 1914, 9, 10. See also "Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry," 
 by W. 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. 16 
 
 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. 
 
 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 Northern 
 Pacific could get its scrip located. 
 
 The merits of the Forest Lieu controversy have been discussed in 
 a previous connection, 17 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 protesting against something which 
 was officially none of their business. 18 
 
 is Am. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 177: Am. Lumberman, May 27, 1916, 58. 
 it Cross Reference, pp. 176-190. 
 
 is Cong. Bee, 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. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 293 
 
 Criticisms of the Forest Service naturally involved a considerable 
 criticism of Gifford Pinchot, for many years the head of the Service. 
 He was accused of ruling over the reserves as a feudal lord over his 
 demesne ; and "Pinchotism," in the vernacular of certain congressmen, 
 was meant to imply all that was arbitrary, unreasonable, and despotic. 
 The fact that he was an eastern man, wealthy, and represented by 
 some as an aristocrat, did not raise him in the estimation of some of 
 the western people. 19 Representative Humphrey also criticised Pinchot 
 for not having protested against the operation of the Forest Lieu 
 Act, and several western men accused him of being in large measure 
 responsible for the frauds arising under that act. 20 
 
 HEYBURN'S CRITICISMS 
 
 It is perhaps hardly worth while to point out all the various criti- 
 cisms made by Senator Heyburn in his opposition to the Forest Ser- 
 vice : his assertion that the Forest Service was in politics ; that for- 
 estry officials in Idaho had admitted they were instructed to see that 
 he was not reelected to the Senate; that forest rangers were accus- 
 tomed to get their tree seeds by robbing squirrels' nests, thus leaving 
 the squirrels to starve, etc. There may have been truth in some of his 
 charges, but, as pointed out in a previous chapter, Senator Heyburn 
 was so wholly lacking in judicial poise when he spoke of the Forest 
 Service that his statements have to be received with considerable 
 caution. 21 
 
 Senator Heyburn was wont to tell a great many stories about the 
 atrocities committed by the Forest Service. One story he several times 
 recounted was that of Robert Byrne, a miner, who was shot from 
 ambush for refusing to vacate ground from which he had been ordered 
 by a forest ranger. Another story was of the mayor of Senator Hey- 
 burn's town, who, riding along the road with his family one day, met 
 
 is Something of the acerbity of some of the western writers may be judged from 
 the following editorial from one of the western newspapers: "Of the asininity of 
 Pinchotism, of the unfeeling selfishness with which mad theorists plan to build up a 
 Federal empire in the sovereign states of the West and in Alaska, . . . Seattle long 
 has had knowledge." (Cong. Bee, Mar. 10, 1914, 4636.) 
 
 20 Cong. Bee, Jan. 7, 1910, 393-399; Mar. 10, 1914, 4636; Jan. 22, 1915, 2151, 
 2152; Apr. 18, 1916, 6390, 6395; Jan. 6, 1910, 366: Forest Bui. 67, 1905. 
 
 2i Cong. Bee, Mar. 8, 1910, 2885, 2893; Mar. 1, 1911, 3771, 3774. 
 
294 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 a forest ranger, but did not give him enough of the road, whereupon 
 the ranger pulled a revolver and commenced shooting at him. These, 
 Heyburn declared, were "merely little instances of the manner of 
 administration. 22 
 
 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- 
 man Taylor of Colorado once claimed that three representatives from 
 Colorado had failed of reelection 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. Bee, Mar. 8, 1910, 2893: Forestry and Irrigation, Aug., 1908, 445. For 
 a similar story told by Senator Carter, see Cong. Bee, Feb. 26, 1909, 3233. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 295 
 
 ment of reserves, that is, the establishment of reserves within reason- 
 able boundaries, properly and wisely administered, is a good thing 
 for that country and for the country as a whole." 
 
 One conservation writer concludes that Colorado is now friendly 
 to the reserves, because the people of northern Colorado petitioned 
 Congress for a law permitting the President to add a half million 
 acres to one of the Colorado forests. Only three years before this, 
 however, the legislature of Colorado had adopted a memorial to Con- 
 gress strongly protesting against the reserves. It will be remembered 
 that when the question of the disposition of the forfeited railroad 
 grant in Oregon was up in Congress, certain representatives of Oregon 
 expressed "unalterable opposition" to the creation of any more 
 reserves. 23 It seems that the hostility which led to the withdrawal of 
 the President's power in 1907 has not disappeared entirely, for in 
 1910, the section forbidding him to create national forests in the six 
 northwestern states was reenacted, and in 1912, the state of California 
 was added to the list. 24 In the fall of 1912, Gilford Pinchot sent out 
 2000 questionnaires to representative individuals in the western states, 
 asking their opinion as to the value of the forests. Of the 1500 replies 
 received, 90 per cent were claimed to be favorable to the reserves. 25 
 
 Other illustrations might be given, but enough has been said to indi- 
 cate that general statements are misleading, if not meaningless. It 
 would probably be safe to say, however, that in general the people 
 of the West are gradually abandoning their hostility to the national 
 forests. Since 1910, following the Ballinger row and the dismissal of 
 Pinchot from the Forest Service, Mr. Henry Graves was appointed 
 chief forester, and his administration was far more acceptable to 
 western people, for some reason. Even Senator Heyburn once ex- 
 pressed his belief in "the fairness and justice of the new regime. 26 
 
 It might perhaps be worth noting that some states have generally 
 been less hostile than others. Thus, Utah and California have been 
 less hostile than Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, probably be- 
 cause irrigation is more important in the first-named states. The 
 
 23 Am. Forestry, July, 1917, 399: Outlook, May 3, 1913, 9. 
 2* Stat. 36, 848; 37, 497. 
 
 25 Cong. Bee, June 17, 1913, 2066. 
 
 26 Cong. Rec, Mar. 8, 1910, 2894; Feb. 4, 1911, 1958.. 
 
296 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 attitude of Utah men in Congress, Senator Sraoot, 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." 27 
 
 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 
 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." 28 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." 29 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 
 
 ^Cong. Bee, 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. Bee, Feb. 1, 1910, 1338. 
 
 29 Cong. Bee, Mar. 1, 1911, 3774. 
 
HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 297 
 
 retention of the national forests. The tendency of governmental policy 
 is clearly away from the "laissez-faire" policy and toward government 
 ownership and control at least of certain classes of lands. Further- 
 more, the trend is toward Federal control rather than state control. 
 Also, it is being made clearer each year that the government made a 
 serious mistake in alienating so much of its timber lands. The lumber 
 industry for some time previous to the war had been in a very unsatis- 
 factory condition, that is, private ownership had worked badly, even 
 for those in the industry itself, while the threat of a future shortage 
 of timber is always before the consumers. All this is being brought 
 more and more clearly before the public through government and 
 private investigations; and the purchase of timber lands under the 
 Weeks Law indicates a purpose of seeking out a remedy, even at 
 great expense. It would be very strange if the government, after going 
 extensively into the purchase of denuded lands, should sell the tim- 
 bered land it already has. 
 
 While it hardly seems likely that the government will soon, or per- 
 haps ever, abandon its great reserves, it should be noted that there 
 are ways in which the reservation policy could be seriously perverted. 
 It will be remembered that the attack on the forests in 1912 took the 
 form of an attempt by the western states to get a larger portion of 
 the proceeds. They now get 25 per cent — which for certain communi- 
 ties is doubtless too high — and have tried to get this raised to 50 
 per cent. Perhaps they will not be successful, but anything in the 
 way of a "pork" grab has some chance of success in Congress, because 
 those to be benefited are very zealous, and the rest of the members are 
 likely to be less interested in defending the public treasury than in se- 
 curing some "pork" of a different kind for their own constituents. If 
 the share given to the western states should be raised to 50 per cent, or 
 perhaps even higher, and the receipts were to increase greatly, as they 
 certainly will in the future, the national forests might be a source of 
 revenue 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 
 in the forests, and for the cost of purchases under the Weeks Law. 
 It is possible to imagine a situation in which the West, and perhaps 
 those eastern states in which reserves were being bought up, would be 
 vastly 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 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. 30 
 
 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. 
 
 so Cong. Bee, 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. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 THE WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 
 
 It is the purpose of this book to treat of the congressional forest 
 policy, rather than the internal administration of the national forests 
 or of other timber lands; nevertheless it seems appropriate to note 
 briefly some of the developments in the administration of the national 
 forests. 
 
 The work of the Forest Service has broadened greatly during the 
 past 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 
 
 In the first place, the Forest Service offers expert advice and assist- 
 ance to private timber owners. As early as 1899, the appropriation 
 bill recognized this as a legitimate function, and it has grown in im- 
 portance. The advisory work of the Service may assume various 
 forms. In a limited number of cases, it may take the form of advice 
 and instruction regarding the practice of forestry, based upon exami- 
 nation of certain tracts. These examinations are restricted mainly 
 to states not equipped to furnish expert advice, and usually they are 
 made 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 
 referring 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 
 desire to obtain planting stock, either seeds or young trees, with 
 which to reforest waste lands, or establish farm woodlots or wind- 
 breaks, 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 cooperative 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 cooperative fire protection organizations. 
 
 During the second stage of this work, from the transfer of the 
 reserves in 1905 until about 1915, the cooperative 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. 
 
WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 301 
 
 This cooperation with private owners is a field of work which 
 should broaden greatly in the future. The Forest Service must get 
 into closer touch with the private timber owners if it is to accom- 
 plish the most possible; and the Service is making a vigorous effort 
 to secure closer cooperation. Perhaps the Forest Service may some- 
 time be given supervisory authority over private timber lands, coupled 
 with the duty of assisting in fire protection, reforestation, and man- 
 agement; at any rate, the study of forest management in European 
 countries indicates that some extension of the powers and duties of 
 the Forest Service may be necessary if the forest interests of the 
 country are to be adequately guarded. The different states will grad- 
 ually extend the scope of their work in forestry, but the burden of 
 this work must fall mainly on the Federal government. 1 
 
 One of the principal means of assisting private owners is by the 
 preparation and distribution of publications on forestry. These 
 include "planting leaflets," which briefly describe the principal species 
 adapted to the various parts of the United States, and methods of 
 planting them; commercial tree bulletins, which deal with the char- 
 acteristics of the more important commercial species ; and a series 
 of "regional studies," which discuss questions of forest management, 
 planting, and utilization, with reference to the needs of private 
 owners within regions where the conditions of forest growth and 
 markets for wood products are comparatively uniform. Other pub- 
 lications dealing specifically with markets and uses of wood are issued 
 from time to time. 
 
 Indicative of the sympathetic attitude of the Forest Service toward 
 private interests, is the recent investigation of the lumber industry. 
 This investigation by the Forest Service, unlike that made by the 
 Bureau of Corporations a few years earlier (1907-1914), was con- 
 ducted with a view to helping the lumber interests remedy the un- 
 fortunate conditions which had prevailed in the lumber industry for 
 nearly a decade. The Bureau of Corporations had carried on its 
 investigation with the apparent purpose of proving the existence of 
 monopolistic conditions in the industry, no matter what the actual 
 facts disclosed ; while the Forest Service, in the first part of its report, 
 
 i See the annual reports of the Forester: Forest Circ. 21, 22, 27, 37, 79, 100, 138, 
 203: Forest Bui. 32, 39, 56, 68. 
 
302 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 published in 1917, disclosed a point of view which was clearly sym- 
 pathetic and helpful. 
 
 COOPERATION WITH STATES 
 
 The Forest Service has developed a policy of assisting not only 
 private owners, but states as well, through cooperative 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 cooperation 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. 2 
 
 The most important work done in cooperation with states has been 
 that of fire protection. One of the sections of the Weeks Law appro- 
 priated the sum of $200,000 for cooperation with the states in pro- 
 tecting the forested watersheds of navigable streams from fire. Such 
 cooperation 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. 3 
 
 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 
 Circ. 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. 
 
WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 303 
 
 considerable 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 
 Canon Game Preserve in Arizona, and the Pisgah Game Preserve in 
 North Carolina. In 1918, the Wichita preserve contained a herd of 
 100 buffalo, with some elk, antelope, deer, and smaller game; the 
 Grand Canon preserve supported 6000 to 8000 deer and other game ; 
 while the Pisgah preserve sheltered deer, wild turkey, and wild fowl. 
 The 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 
 jurisdiction 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 
 in 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 
 insignificant fraction of the game which could be supported upon 
 them; in fact, in many sections the game has been almost entirely 
 exterminated. The individual states have jurisdiction over the game, 
 the Forest Service merely cooperating with the states in carrying 
 out the state laws for protection ; and this division of responsibility 
 has not worked for efficiency. The Federal government has full 
 authority to protect game in only seven of the sixteen national 
 parks — the Yellowstone, Glacier, Mount Ranier, Crater Lake, 
 Platte, Hot Springs, and the Hawaiian. The states have not ceded 
 jurisdiction of the other nine parks, and, in the absence of Federal 
 legislation, the Federal authorities can punish poachers there only 
 by expelling them from the park limits. Of the thirty-four national 
 "monuments," twenty-one are administered by the National Park 
 Service, 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 cooperation. Perhaps 
 the entire jurisdiction over 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. 4 
 
 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 laAv; 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. 
 
 Probably the development of the game resources of the national 
 
 * Am. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 133, 139; Jan., 1917, 48, 49. 
 
WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 305 
 
 forests and of the country generally will receive greater attention in 
 the future. The number of bills introduced in Congress to establish 
 "game sanctuaries" indicates a growing public interest in the 
 matter. 5 
 
 RECREATIONAL USES OF THE FORESTS 
 
 The development of the recreational uses of the national forests is 
 also receiving increasing attention. To an increasing extent the for- 
 ests are being used as playgrounds for the people of the country. It 
 is said that nearly seven hundred thousand people visited the national 
 forests of Colorado in the summer of 1916, left the sweltering heat 
 of the prairie states and the states farther east, for a vacation in 
 the mountains. The Forest Service is trying in various ways to in- 
 crease the usefulness of the national forests to those seeking 
 recreation. 
 
 In 1915, a law was passed authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture 
 to grant permits for summer homes, hotels, and for similar uses in 
 the national forests for periods of not more than thirty years; and 
 under this law a great many permits have already been issued. 
 Through the issue of permits in this way, the Forest Service is able 
 to prevent any class of individuals from permanently appropriating 
 the most beautiful lake and mountain sites. Wholesale appropriation 
 of beautiful mountain regions, as for instance in the case of the 
 Dunraven estate in what is now Estes Park, is not possible in the 
 national forests. 6 
 
 ASSISTANCE TO GRAZING INTERESTS 
 
 The problems of grazing and of range management are still im- 
 portant. The ranges of the national forests cover about 100,000,000 
 acres of land, on which a total of about 15,000,000 animals, including 
 5,000,000 young, are grazed each year. In addition, there are several 
 
 5 Reports, Sec. of Agr., 1909, 396; 1910, 404; 1911, 398; 1912, 525; 1916, 172: 
 Report, Forester, 1914, 23: Report, Sec. of Int., 1916, Vol. I, 237: Report, Chief of 
 the Bureau of Biological Survey, 1917: Proceedings, National Park Conference, 
 Washington, 1917, 187, 200, 206: Am. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 139: Stat. 33, 614; 34, 
 536, 607; 35, 102, 1104, 1137; 36, 1258; 37, 292,' 459, 847; 38, 49, 434, 648, 862, 1105; 
 39, 233, 467, 476: H. R. 6881, 11712, 14972, 17381; S. 3044, 4418; 64 Cong. 1 sess. 
 
 *Stat. 38, 1101: Forest Service, Use Book, 1915, 136: Report, Sec. of Agr., 1916, 
 176: Am. Forestry, Mar., 1917, 133; June, 1917, 358: Outing, May, 1916, 172. 
 
306 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 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 cooperate 
 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 
 
 7 Forest Bui. 72, 97. 
 
WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 307 
 
 The Forest Service, in cooperation with other branches of the 
 government, has been trying to reduce stock losses from disease and 
 poisonous plants. This work has been largely experimental in its 
 nature, but it is claimed that stock losses have been materially 
 reduced. 
 
 The question of grazing in the new national forest areas of the 
 Appalachian region has recently come up for consideration, and in 
 1916, these areas were placed under regulations very similar to those 
 enforced in the West. 
 
 One great problem still awaits solution, and that is the problem 
 of preventing the too frequent loss of animals on the public range 
 from starvation and exposure. Under a system which is a disgrace 
 to civilization, stockmen regularly turn animals out on the range 
 without any provision for feeding them in case of an unusually un- 
 favorable season; and in severe winters many animals always starve 
 to death on the plains. Thus the winter of 1908-1909 was very severe, 
 and the result was "considerable losses of newly sheared sheep." The 
 following winter "prolonged periods of extremely cold weather caused 
 suffering among all classes of stock; winter losses were above the 
 average, and the percentage of increase among sheep and cattle was 
 materially reduced." The winter of 1911-1912 was severe, and govern- 
 ment officials reported that "there was a pronounced shortage of 
 winter feed, and heavy losses of stock occurred in Colorado, Wyo- 
 ming, and southeastern Montana." In some sections of Arizona, 20 
 per cent of the ewes were reported to have died. The winter of 1915- 
 1916 brought a similar condition, and travelers in the West in the 
 spring of 1917 noted the carcasses of cattle scattered along the 
 plains. Conditions have been better on the ranges within the national 
 forests, and the Forest Service has made special efforts to assist the 
 stockmen who were unable to provide their herds with feed; but the 
 conditions which recur with every hard winter demand a more effec- 
 tive remedy. 8 
 
 INVESTIGATIVE WORK 
 
 The Forest Service has developed many kinds of investigative 
 work. In the first place, it has carried on research work in range con- 
 8 See the annual reports of the Forester. 
 
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 methods 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. 9 
 
 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. 
 
 SILVICULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS 
 
 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 
 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 other 
 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 Circ. 156, 158, 160, 169: Forest Bui 97. 
 
WORK OF THE FOREST SERVICE 309 
 
 each in Idaho, Minnesota, Utah, and California. There is also a seed- 
 testing laboratory at the Arlington Farm, Washington, D. C. 
 
 FORESTATION 
 
 The work in forestation is an important line of silviculture. This 
 includes experiment in reforestation of cut-over lands, and in the 
 forestation of lands which have never grown trees. The work covers 
 the entire field of establishing a forest by artificial means — from the 
 collection of the seed to the final sowing of seed or planting of trees. 
 It includes investigations in regard to the collection and testing of 
 seed; factors influencing the amount and quality of seed produced, 
 such as site and condition of the tree; periodicity of seed years; 
 effect of the source of seed, such as the locality in which the seed was 
 produced and the condition of the mother tree upon the size and 
 hardiness of the seedlings. It covers studies in the nursery relating 
 to the time of sowing, depth of covering, necessity of shade, protec- 
 tion from birds and rodents, age of transplanting, methods of trans- 
 planting, use of fertilizers for the various species ; also experiments 
 in seed sowing and planting of nursery- and forest-grown stock, to 
 determine the comparative values of each for the various species and 
 sites, as well as the best seasons, the best age of stock,the possibility 
 of extending the range of native species, or of introducing exotics. 10 
 
 Probably reforestation will get increasing attention in the future. 
 There are millions of acres of natural forest lands, divested of timber 
 but unfit for agriculture; and, with the rapid exploitation of our 
 remaining timber lands, this area will increase. In most regions forests 
 which are cut reproduce themselves without any assistance other than 
 protection from fire, but in some regions and under some circum- 
 stances artificial restocking is necessary. Whether mere protection or 
 artificial replanting is necessary, the work must be done mainly by 
 the Federal government. As lumber prices advance, an added stimulus 
 will be given to such work, and, when prices have reached something 
 like the European level, perhaps reforestation will be as important 
 as it now is in some European countries. 11 
 
 10 Review of Forest Service Investigations, Forest Service, 1913: Forest Bui. 
 98: Agriculture Bui. 475. See also annual reports of Forester, 1908 to 1916. 
 
 ii Report, Sec. of Agr., 1908, 424; 1909, 388; 1910, 386; 1911, 372; 1912, 505; 
 1916, 166: Report, Forester, 1914, 15. 
 
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 
 1873, 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. 12 
 
 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 Bui 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 311 
 
 the character of the flow of each stream. There has been no general 
 agreement among writers as to the exact influence of forests on cli- 
 mate and streamflow, and it is to be hoped that these investiga- 
 tions will furnish the basis for the settlement of some long mooted 
 questions. 13 
 
 OTHER SILVICULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS 
 
 Among other silvicultural studies of the Forest Service are those 
 relating to forest mensuration, that is, studies as to the growth, 
 volume, and yield of the different species and types of forests ; pro- 
 tection studies, aiming to ascertain the exact effect of fire, grazing, 
 diseases, insects, animals, snow, hail, and wind; regional studies, to 
 secure authentic information concerning the forest resources of state 
 or forest regions ; silvical studies, which try to establish a definite 
 relation between the forest region, forest types, and forest trees in 
 general, and the climatic and physical factors affecting their distribu- 
 tion and growth; and also some field studies in utilization of timber. 
 
 INVESTIGATIONS IN FOREST PRODUCTS 
 
 A field of investigation which is expanding tremendously in recent 
 years is that relating to forest products. The work fs mainly directed 
 from headquarters in the Forest Products Laboratory at Madison, 
 Wisconsin. This laboratory, which is maintained in cooperation with 
 the University of Wisconsin, is one of the best of its kind in the world. 
 Laboratories are also maintained at Wausau, Wisconsin, and at 
 Seattle, Washington, and district stations have been established at 
 several points. Studies in this field fall under four heads — mechanical 
 and physical properties and structure of wood, wood preservation, 
 derived products, and statistical studies. 
 
 The first class of studies includes those relating to strength of 
 structural timbers ; stiffness, toughness, hardness, specific gravity, 
 and other qualities of different woods, effect of air seasoning, kiln- 
 drying, and high temperature and pressure treatments. 
 
 13 Review of Forest Service Investigations, 1913, 36: Fotest Bui. 44, 91: Forest 
 Circ. 143: House Committee on Agriculture, "Report on the Influence of Forests 
 on Climate and Floods," by Willis L. Moore, 1910: Yale Review, 10, 241: Review 
 of Reviews, 47, 605: Proceedings, Am. Forestry Assoc, Sept., 1897, 133: Agr. 
 Yearbook, 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 cooperation with various 
 cities ; experiments in the preservation of railroad ties and telephone 
 poles, carried on in cooperation with railroad companies, and tele- 
 phone and telegraph companies; experiments in the preservation of 
 mine timbers, carried on in cooperation with mining companies ; tests 
 in the prevention of wood decay in cotton factories, where conditions 
 are very favorable to decay, carried on in cooperation 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 seven 
 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 cooperation 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 cooperation 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 
 
 tine, and various miscellaneous products. Recent experiments in 
 the production of ethyl alcohol from wood waste have resulted in 
 great economies. Methods of producing naval stores devised by the 
 laboratory are reported to have increased the yield 30 per cent. 
 Nearly a million dollars' worth of dye is now manufactured annually 
 from Osage-orange wood — an industry built up as a result of investi- 
 gations carried on in the laboratory at Madison. 
 
 Statistical studies have been made from time to time covering the 
 amounts, prices, sources, and uses of various forest products. Such 
 studies are of course of an economic nature, but are necessary to the 
 development of an intelligent forest policy. 
 
 FOREST PRODUCTS RESEARCH AND THE WAR 
 
 The entry of the United States into the war in 1917 brought out 
 clearly the importance of the forest products investigations. Much 
 of the technical information that had been secured in this research 
 work was immediately important in the solution of war problems, 
 which demanded exact knowledge of the properties of wood, and the 
 mechanical, physical, and chemical methods of conditioning. In the 
 construction of airplanes, for instance, there was a demand for 
 knowledge of the qualities of different woods, the availability of 
 substitutes for the spruce commonly used, methods of drying woods 
 speedily, the strength of laminated structures and veneers and ply- 
 wood — a multitude of problems of great importance in the prosecu- 
 tion of the war. The Forest Products Laboratory had a large amount 
 of data on the properties of airplane woods at the beginning of the 
 war, but much more was needed immediately, and soon the war air- 
 craft problems occupied the attention of about two thirds of the 
 force at the Madison laboratory. 
 
 At the beginning of the war, it was customary to air-dry all wood 
 used 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 
 necessary. Investigations in kiln-drying had been under way at Madi- 
 son for several years, and methods had been worked out for a number 
 of 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 
 
 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 
 
 RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY: CONCENTRATION IN 
 THE OWNERSHIP OF STANDING TIMBER 
 
 The unfortunate results flowing from our unwise forest policy have 
 been pointed out in various connections throughout the preceding 
 chapters ; but it will be appropriate at this point to consider these 
 results in somewhat greater detail. They may be briefly summarized 
 as follows : In the first place, almost all the standing timber of the 
 country has gravitated into the hands of a relatively few holders ; in 
 the second place, on the basis of this concentration of ownership of 
 timber, a certain unity of control has developed in the lumber indus- 
 try, which, though of no very serious importance in the past, may 
 hold a threat of future difficulty ; in the third place, private owner- 
 ship of standing timber has proved unfortunate, even for the lumber- 
 men themselves. Carrying charges on standing timber have been so 
 heavy in some instances as to force cutting regardless of price, and 
 the consequent demoralization of the market has meant that many 
 producers must sell below actual cost of production. In the fourth 
 place, lumbering in the United States has always been characterized 
 by extravagant wastes ; and in the fifth place, few lumbermen have 
 made any effort to reforest cut-over lands. 
 
 During the past forty years or more, various government officials 
 and others have pointed out repeatedly that the timber lands were 
 going rapidly into the hands of a few timbermen and speculators. 
 Most thoughtful students of the question have realized that such a 
 process was going on ; but the full extent to which the concentration 
 of ownership had proceeded was not clearly understood until recently. 
 In 1913, the Bureau of Corporations, after several years of investi- 
 gation of the most important timber regions in the country, published 
 the first part of its "Report on the Lumber Industry" ; and this report 
 brought the situation clearly before the public. 1 
 
 iH. Res. 652, S. Res. 189; Cong. Bee, 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. 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 317 
 
 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 
 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. 
 
 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- 
 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 
 acres, 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 
 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 
 acres of timber land and land owned in connection with or in the vicin- 
 ity of this timber land — an average of nearly 100,000 acres each. 
 There were also 961 smaller holders owning a total of 6,731,000 acres, 
 an 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 
 1,694 holders — nearly one twentieth of the land area of the United 
 States, from the Canadian to the Mexican border. 
 
 It may be noted that even within the national forests, private 
 parties owned much of the valuable timber land. In the national forests 
 of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana, they had 
 nearly 15,000,000 acres. In some of these reserves as much as 30 or 
 40, or even 62 per cent of the land was privately owned ; and of course 
 the privately owned land was the best. 
 
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. 2 
 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 93 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 398.1 545.8 
 
 Washington 294.6 . 391.0 
 
 California 248.1 381.4 
 
 Idaho 50.4 129.1 
 
 Montana 21.8 65.6 
 
 Southern Pine Region: 
 
 Louisiana 119.8 
 
 Mississippi 95.3 
 
 Arkansas 78.7 
 
 Florida 73.9 (Almost all of the timber in the 
 
 Texas 66.0 southern pine region and in the 
 
 Alabama 56.3 Lake states is privately owned, so 
 
 Lake States: no totals are given.) 
 
 Michigan 47.6 
 
 Wisconsin 29.2 
 
 Minnesota 23.2 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 319 
 
 five largest holders owned 73 per cent. The holdings of the Weyer- 
 haeuser Timber Company, the Northern Pacific, and three others 
 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, 
 in 1914, 380,599 acres in Oregon, largely acquired from the Northern 
 Pacific 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 
 timber is exceedingly heavy, running often from 100,000 to 150,000 
 feet 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 
 unusually 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 
 ownership and common directorships. In no other species of timber 
 did the holders of 60,000,000 feet or over own as large a percentage 
 of the total amount of the species. Even in cypress, where ownership 
 is highly concentrated, such owners had only 72 per cent of all, and 
 in white and Norway pine, 80 per cent; while in redwood they had 
 93 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 
 
 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 Weverhaeuser Timber Com- 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 321 
 
 pany about 2,000,000 acres, and the Northern Pacific over 3,000,000 
 acres. 
 
 Stumpage figures for these three great holdings are more significant 
 than acreage figures, because the average stand of timber is far heavier 
 in the Pacific Northwest than in the Lake states or in the South. 3 The 
 total stumpage owned by these three holders amounted to over 237,- 
 000,000,000 feet — 11 per cent of all the non-reserved timber in the 
 United States, and nearly 25 per cent of the privately owned timber 
 in the entire Pacific Northwest, where over half of the country's tim- 
 ber supply stands. This was more than double the entire timber supply 
 of the Lake states, over three times the total stand of Florida or Texas 
 or Alabama. 
 
 The Southern Pacific Railroad, with over 105,000,000,000 feet of 
 timber, standing on 4,500,000 acres of land, was the largest timber 
 owner in the United States, before the forfeiture of its Oregon hold- 
 ings. This one corporation owned more timber than is found in the 
 three Lake states, or in any state in the South, except Louisiana ; but 
 in 1916, Congress forfeited over half of this, so that its present 
 holding is less than that of the Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, or 
 perhaps even the Northern Pacific. 
 
 The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company owned about 2,000,000 acres, 
 the main bulk of which was in Washington, though the company had 
 also 380,000 acres in Oregon, and smaller tracts in Idaho and in the 
 Lake states. This did not include further interests of the Weyerhaeuser 
 family and their associates. Perhaps it should be stated also that the 
 Weyerhaeuser Timber Company had apparently some friendly rela- 
 tion at least with the Northern Pacific, and some connection with 
 various timber companies in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. 
 
 While the Northern Pacific owned a much larger acreage than the 
 Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, the quality of its lands was rela- 
 tively so much poorer that its total stumpage was less than half as 
 great— about 36,000,000,000 feet. The Northern Pacific originally 
 
 s The average stand per acre is about 32,000 feet in the Pacific Northwest, 6100 
 in the southern pine region, and only 5600 in the Lake states. Even Montana has 
 an average stand of 7300 feet per acre, which is above that of the Lake states and 
 above that of any state in the South except Louisiana and Mississippi. Oregon has 
 the heaviest stand, with an average of 39,500 feet per acre, and Washington and 
 California rank only slightly lower. 
 
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 32,000,000,000 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 
 
 trated than in the southern pine region. One of the holders in this 
 region had over 1,500,000 acres, another 626,000, and several others 
 owned holdings of more than 300,000 acres each. Six holders in Minne- 
 sota had 54 per cent of the white and Norway pine in the state, and 
 the same number in Michigan owned over half. 
 
 COMPARISON OF OWNERSHIP IN THE DIFFERENT REGIONS 
 
 Of the three great timber regions studied — the Pacific Northwest, 
 the southern pine region and the Lake states^the Pacific Northwest 
 contained the largest holdings ; and it was there that the greatest pro- 
 portion of the timber was in the hands of the few very large holders. 
 More than one third of all the timber in the Pacific Northwest was 
 included in eight holdings, while in the Lake states it took forty-four 
 holdings, and in the southern pine region, 159 holdings to represent 
 the same proportion. In the Pacific Northwest, holders of over 3,500,- 
 000,000 feet each owned 50 per cent of the timber, in the Lake states, 
 12 per cent, and in the southern pine region only 8.7 per cent. 
 
 There are several reasons why the very large holders did not have 
 so much of the total supply in the southern pine region as in the West. 
 In the first place, there was no railroad grant in the South which 
 compares in size with the Pacific grants. In the second place, the stand 
 is not nearly so dense in the South. Moreover, the lumbering opera- 
 tions of many years have brought most parts of the South to a con- 
 dition unfavorable to assembling immense holdings. Large buyers, 
 whether they plan to establish a mill or to sell their timber standing, 
 prefer solid blocks of virgin timber, and the parts of the South where 
 considerable areas of such forest still exist have for some years been 
 comparatively restricted. Probably a more important factor, however, 
 in the determination of the size of holdings has been the price at which 
 the timber could be bought. It is true that vast tracts of land in the 
 South were sold at low prices by the government many years ago ; but 
 when investors began to assemble very large holdings, the timber in 
 the Pacific Northwest could be bought at a lower price, compared 
 with its probable future price, than that in the South. 
 
 While it is true that a few very large holders owned a far greater 
 proportion of the timber in the Pacific Northwest than in either of 
 the other 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 43,230,000 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 13,030,000 acres in the hands of owners of 60,000,- 
 000 feet or over. Louisiana came next with only slightly over half as 
 much — 7,307,000 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 
 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. 
 
 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 1 greater than mere figures as to 
 acreage and stumpage would indicate. 
 
 FACTORS AUGMENTING THE POWER OF LARGE HOLDERS: LARGE 
 HOLDINGS PROPORTIONATELY MORE VALUABLE 
 
 In the first place, a large holding is worth more in proportion to its 
 acreage or stumpage than a small holding. A 100,000 acre tract of 
 timber is worth much more than ten times as much as a 10,000 acre 
 
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." 
 
 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 32,000 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. 
 
 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 
 per cent of the longleaf and 47 per cent of the hardwoods. In Alabama, 
 hardwoods constituted only 15.2 per cent of the larger holdings and 
 42.8 per cent of the smaller holdings. The thirteen largest holders in 
 this state had 29.7 per cent of the longleaf pine, 7.3 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) 
 had 80.7 per cent of the yellow pine and cypress and only 42.6 per 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 327 
 
 cent 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. 
 
 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, particularly with trans- 
 portation. 
 
 CAUSES OF CONCENTRATION OF OWNERSHIP: RAILROAD LAND 
 
 GRANTS 
 
 It will be profitable to note briefly the causes which have been 
 responsible for the remarkable concentration in timber ownership de- 
 scribed 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 ; 
 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 
 roads. Among the largest timber owners are some of the original rail- 
 road beneficiaries ; and a great many of the holdings of large timber 
 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 
 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, 
 
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 
 36,000 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 370,000 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 320,000 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. 
 
 In the 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 
 
 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 
 
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. 5 
 
 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.), 23,000 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. 6 
 
 OTHER STATE GRANTS 
 
 A few large holdings were traced to other varieties of grants to the 
 states. Two large holders in Oregon had all their lands in sections 16 
 and 36. 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.) 
 
 s Cross Reference, pp. 53-55. 
 
 6 Cross Reference, p. 46. 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 331 
 
 state, almost all in the form of timber rights ; and several other large 
 lumber companies had small amounts. 7 
 
 THE CASH SALE LAW 
 
 Comparatively little information is available regarding the number 
 of holdings based upon the old cash sale law, but there is some evidence 
 to show that large owners used this law a great deal. In the longleaf 
 pine district of Louisiana, nearly a million acres were traced back to 
 the cash sale law, and nearly all of it was in the hands of large holders. 
 The Long-Bell Lumber Company had 203,000 acres ; the Lutcher- 
 Moore interests, 120,000; the Central Coal and Coke Company, 
 76,000 acres ; the Industrial Lumber Company, 58,000 acres ; the 
 Chicago Lumber and Coal Company interests, 54,000 acres; Lud- 
 dington, Wells and Van Schaick, 54,000 acres; the Calcasieu Pine 
 Company and Southland Lumber Company, 46,000 acres ; and a dozen 
 other large companies had amounts ranging from 50,000 acres down. 
 The Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company obtained over 200,000 acres of 
 its 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. 8 
 
 LIEU SELECTIONS AND LARGE HOLDINGS 
 
 The Forest Lieu Act of 1897 has been treated at some length in a 
 previous chapter, but it is interesting to note here that several large 
 holdings are at least partly traceable to this act. Thus, 35,000 acres 
 of 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 
 Atlantic 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 
 
 7 Cross Reference, p. 47. 
 s 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. 9 
 
 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. 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 333 
 
 harvesting, but rather to speculation. When the timbermen of the 
 Lake states and farther east found their supplies of stumpage dis- 
 appearing, they looked about for places to invest the large amounts of 
 capital which they had accumulated. The forests of the South and 
 West presented attractive fields for investment, and some of these 
 timbermen bought up tracts for speculation — tracts larger than any 
 considerations of efficiency or economy would have dictated. 
 
 If the forests of the country are to be privately owned, perhaps it 
 is quite as well that they should be owned in large tracts; yet this 
 concentration in ownership contains a threat of future monopolistic 
 control which cannot be ignored. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY (continued) : CONDI- 
 TIONS IN THE LUMBER INDUSTRY 
 
 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. 1 
 
 i It is not the purpose of the writer to enter into any exhaustive discussion of 
 the lumber industry in this chapter. For more 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 
 
 Associations among lumbermen existed at least as early as 1883, 
 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 
 various functions. One function has often been that of trying to give 
 stability to the lumber market in various ways, particularly bj r issuing 
 price lists, and by organizing curtailment campaigns. Among the 
 other activities have been the following: 
 
 1. Advertising of lumber products, and demonstration of their 
 value 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 
 service to buyers and aiding in the settlement of disputes ; elimination 
 of sharp practices, grade manipulation, and fraudulent or irresponsi- 
 ble methods of selling lumber. 
 
 3. Maintenance of credit bureaus and sale of fire insurance at 
 cost to members. 
 
 4. Investigation and handling of freight rates and other traffic 
 matters 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 
 manufacturers and distributors, and dissemination of data on the cost 
 of production and distribution. 
 
 8. Furnishing of authentic, responsible information to the public 
 regarding conditions in the lumber industry. 
 
 9. Conducting of studies in forest management. 
 
 10. Agitation for better methods in taxation of forest lands. 
 Besides the ordinary associations, a number of selling agencies have 
 
 and by Professor Compton in the American Economic Review, June, 1917, 289; 
 and 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 cooperative methods in selling. 
 
 THE NATIONAL LUMBER MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION 
 
 Cooperation 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, 2 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 
 
 cent of the cut in the territory covered. The California Redwood 
 Association, with seventeen mills, represents 70 per cent of the total 
 production in the region covered, the California White and Sugar 
 Pine Manufacturers' Association 70 per cent, the Western Pine 
 Manufacturers' Association 80 per cent, the Northern Hemlock and 
 Hardwood Manufacturers' Association 50 per cent of the cut of 
 Wisconsin and upper Michigan, the Michigan Hardwood Manufac- 
 turers' Association 70 per cent of the cut of lower Michigan, the 
 West Coast Lumber Manufacturers' Association 70 per cent of the 
 total cut in the region covered. Associations affiliated with the Na- 
 tional Lumber Manufacturers' Association control 40 per cent of 
 the total lumber production of the United States. 
 
 The cypress producers are about as strongly organized as any 
 group of lumbermen in the country. The Southern Cypress Manu- 
 facturers' Association represents about 50 per cent of the principal 
 cypress mills of the United States. An editorial in the New Orleans 
 Lumber Trade Journal refers to the nature of the control over cypress 
 in 1900: "No lumber list ever promulgated has been as rigidly kept 
 as that of the Southern Cypress Association. A deviation of a hair 
 would not be tolerated. Their moderation in good times and their 
 firmness during periods of depression has imparted a stability to the 
 wood highly appreciated by buyers, for they know that an ample 
 power behind will maintain its value intact." At a meeting of the 
 Southern Cypress Manufacturers' Association in 1906, President 
 Wilbert said: "Probably less than one hundred men could be named 
 who control more than 95 per cent of the cypress production." 3 A 
 prominent western lumberman, pleading for closer organization 
 among lumbermen, recently stated: "We need an organized effort to 
 bring about the results, such as you have brought about in connection 
 with your cypress." 4 
 
 The Washington Logging and Brokerage Company was said to 
 include in its membership 85 per cent of the logging companies in the 
 Puget Sound district. Its successor, the Washington Brokerage Com- 
 pany, had exclusive control over the output of its members, at first 
 through a written agreement, later by a tacit understanding. It 
 
 3 "Lumber Industry," IV, 723, 724. 
 
 * Proceedings, 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. 6 
 
 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. 7 
 
 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 manufacturers 
 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. 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 339 
 
 in some cases they established price list committees whose duty it was 
 to issue lists from time to time. 
 
 About 1906, the Federal government, and some of the state gov- 
 ernments as well, became very active in the enforcement of the anti- 
 trust laws, and the lumbermen's associations resorted to various 
 schemes to conceal their activities. Some of them issued "market re- 
 ports," or "statements of market conditions," or lists of "prevailing 
 prices," or "current prices." These "market reports," etc., were in 
 the same form and served the same purpose as did the "price lists" of 
 the earlier days, and they have been issued by certain associations 
 from that time down to the present. 
 
 During the first few years of the "market reports," the prices 
 approximated the actual selling prices, but later some associations 
 substituted what might be termed high "basis" lists in place of the 
 "market reports." The prices shown in these "basis" lists were pur- 
 posely fixed above the market price, while discount sheets were issued 
 to indicate actual selling prices. 
 
 In some instances, lumber associations have got lumber journals, 
 printing houses, or so-called "information bureaus" to print and 
 issue these price lists. Some of the cypress manufacturers have thus 
 issued price lists under the name of a printing company — Miller and 
 Brandao, and later the Brandao Printing Company. The Southern 
 Lumber Journal assisted the North Carolina Pine Association in a 
 curtailment campaign in 1913 ; and the Yellow Pine Manufacturers' 
 Association has employed the Lumbermen's Printing Company to 
 issue price lists from time to time. Some of the Pacific associations 
 have sometimes put the name of the Pacific Lumber Trade Journal 
 on the lists they were issuing. 
 
 Associated lumbermen have tried various means of securing adher- 
 ence to price lists. In many cases, agreements have been circulated 
 and signatures required. One of the so-called "Centralia agreements" 
 of 1905 read as follows : 
 
 "Joint Agreement : 
 
 "We, the undersigned, hereby agree to maintain the official list 
 adopted at a joint meeting of the Southwestern Washington Lumber 
 Manufacturers' Association- and a committee of the Pacific Coast 
 
340 UNITED STATES FOREST POLTCY 
 
 Lumber Manufacturers' Association, held at Centralia, Washington, 
 March 8, 1905, same to be maintained in all territory, with the excep- 
 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 
 
 "Address " 
 
 POOLS IN THE LUMBER INDUSTRY 
 
 Pools have not been common among lumbermen, yet there has been 
 at least one example of this form of cooperation, 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 $3 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 termed 
 "open price" associations, and this type of organization is being 
 pushed. The theory of this type of association is that each manufac- 
 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 
 
 of business are due chiefly to ignorance or misinformation as to actual 
 market conditions, and as to costs of manufacturing and marketing. 
 Accurate knowledge of these matters is assumed to be a sufficient 
 remedy. The Southern Pine Association was recently considering an 
 extension 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. 
 Perhaps the most notable example of open price associations is the 
 Hardwood Manufacturers' Association of America. Originally merely 
 a trade association, it has recently adopted the open price plan in its 
 entirety 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 
 produced by its members. 8 
 
 It is not to be assumed that all the price list committees, informa- 
 tion bureaus, etc., are suggestive of "open price" associations. In 
 many instances such agencies have tried to fix an artificial price level. 
 The price lists have often represented nothing like the prevailing 
 market. 9 
 
 OTHER EFFORTS TO FIX PRICES 
 
 It has long been a common practice among lumber manufacturers 
 to try to effect concerted curtailment of production in order to influ- 
 ence prices. Sometimes an agreement to curtail the output has been 
 circulated among the members of an association, perhaps also among 
 manufacturers who were not members. In other instances, resolutions 
 to curtail have been adopted by associations at their meetings. 
 
 Since the associations have become more fearful of government 
 prosecution, they have largely abandoned these practices, but have 
 tried other means of accomplishing the same results. Trade papers 
 have been influenced to proclaim the benefits of a reduced output, 
 association secretaries have issued reports showing the extent of 
 curtailment and urging all members to reduce their output. In some 
 instances, the curtailment campaign has been directed by some asso- 
 
 s "Open Price Associations," by Professor H. R. Tosdal; American Economic 
 Review, June, 1917, 331-334: Am. Lumberman, Dec. 22, 1917, 26, 46; Feb. 15, 
 1917, 16. 
 
 9 "Lumber Industry," IV, 79, 93, 416. 
 
342 UNITED STATES FOREST POLIjCY 
 
 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' cooperative yards, consumers, or any but "legitimate retail 
 dealers." Other less important judicial decisions describe a similar 
 state of affairs. 10 
 
 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 con- 
 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. 11 
 
 10 Gibbs et al. vs. McNeeley; 107 Fed. Rep., 210: Grenada Lumber Co. vs. State 
 of Mississippi; 217 U. S., 433: Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Association 
 vs. U.S.; 224 U.S., 600. 
 
 ii Am. Lumberman, Dec. 22, 1917, 32: Compton, "Organization of the Lumber 
 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. 
 
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- 
 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 
 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. 12 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 
 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. 13 
 
 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. 14 
 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. 15 
 
 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 
 
 is Compton, opus cited, 105. 
 
 i* Proceedings, Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the National Lumber Manufac- 
 turers' Association, 95. 
 
 is Compton, opus cited, 41 et seq. 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 345 
 
 number 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- 
 petition between different regions. 
 
 Akin to the competition of woods is the competition of substitute 
 building materials — brick, cement, stone, steel, fiber, and the great 
 variety of substitute roofings. Any great increase in the price of 
 lumber for building purposes would lead to an increased use of some 
 of these substitutes. 16 
 
 It may be worth while to point out that competition between lumber 
 manufacturers 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 
 policy. Many lumbermen must meet heavy fixed charges, and so must 
 sell 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 most important in the case of woods which are approaching ex- 
 haustion, as, for instance, white pine, or those which for any reason 
 are increasing rapidly in value. It must be noted, however, that prices 
 of some grades of lumber did not increase at all between 1905 and 
 1915, but even declined somewhat; and, while prices during the past 
 
 ic Report No. 117, U. S. Dept. of Agr., Office of Secretary. 
 
346 UNITED STATES FOREST POLIGY 
 
 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."' 7 
 
 "The committee on values of the Southern Lumber Manufacturers' 
 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." 18 
 
 "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." 19 
 
 "The efforts of wholesalers to maintain list price [of hemlock] 
 early in the spring have practically failed, and the man who wants 
 
 it Am. Lumberman, Mar. 21, 1908, 38. 
 is Am. Lumberman, Mar. 26, 1904, 15. 
 19 Am. Lumberman, Minneapolis news, Feb. 22, 1902, 48, 49. 
 
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." 20 
 
 "Spruce demand has remained about the same with low prices 
 and a general disregard for the list by some of the larger manu- 
 facturers." 21 
 
 "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 
 general." 22 
 
 Not infrequently market 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." 23 
 
 "Many items of white pine on the list are selling at a premium." 24 
 
 "It was shown that sales were being made in nearly every instance 
 at a figure considerably higher than the list." 25 
 
 The Missouri ouster suit of 1918, in which the Supreme Court of 
 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 IV. Y. Lumber Trade Journal, May 15, 1908, 27. 
 2i 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. 26 
 
 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." 27 
 
 "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." 28 
 
 "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." 29 
 
 "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." 30 
 
 "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." 31 
 
 "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." 32 
 
 "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 Lumberman, May 15, 1904, 37. 
 
 28 St. Louis news in Am. Lumberman, Aug. 26, 1905, 67. 
 
 29 St. Louis news in Am. Lumberman, Nov. 5, 1904, 61. 
 
 30 St. Louis news in Am. Lumberman, Jan. 14, 1905. 
 
 si New York news in N. Y. Lumber Trade Journal, Apr. 15, 1902, 22. 
 32 Am. Lumberman, Jan. 13, 1906, 69. 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 349 
 
 admit that but for the new White Pine Association there would prob- 
 ably have been a lot of cutting that has not developed now." 33 
 
 "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 
 that they have the situation fully in hand." 34 
 
 Regarding the cypress market, some of the following quotations 
 from the lumber journals are significant of the situation in 1901: 
 
 "Prices are up to the full list, the cypress representatives here 
 stating 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- 
 stances." 
 
 "Cypress is selling at full list and the firmness of the market is not 
 questioned 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 
 market, although in times of depression and slack demand, as, for 
 instance, 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- 
 moters of cooperative 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 
 
 33 Am. Lumberman, Apr. 9, 1904, 57. 
 
 3i N. Y. Lumber Trade Journal, Jan. 1, 1904, 9. 
 
350 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 market that such lists have had the most effect. 35 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- 
 
 ss "Lumber Industry," IV, 126, 563, 681. 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 351 
 
 tailment campaign carried on in 1904 by the Southern Lumber Manu- 
 facturers' Association, one influential lumberman stated: "That 
 values are what they are to-day is the result solely of this curtail- 
 ment movement." 36 
 
 Mr. R. A. Long, one of the most influential men in the yellow pine 
 field, in speaking of curtailment among the producers of yellow pine, 
 said in 1905 : "Some of the most successful men in our line of business 
 shook their heads and made the statement that we could not 'legislate 
 prices'; that supply and demand must govern and that the supply 
 would be governed by the 'survival of the fittest.' In spite of these 
 prophecies we succeeded in securing the cooperation of about 80 per 
 cent 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 
 from July 1 the downward tendency of prices had been checked, and 
 within 30 days a substantial advance had been made. Before we had 
 reached October 1 it was believed that the commencing of the opera- 
 tion of our mills on full time on that date would practically mean a 
 loss of all we had gained, and an effort was made, and accomplished, 
 continuing the curtailment until January 1 of this year. On October 
 15, a further notable advance was made. Desiring to be as nearly 
 correct as possible as to the extent of the advance between July 1 
 and October 1, and as to the further advance made between October 
 1 and January 1, I addressed a letter to a number of the larger 
 manufacturers asking their views on this point, also as to whether 
 or not they attributed the advance to the curtailment movement or 
 otherwise. These replies did not vary to any great extent, and the 
 summary of the same developed an average advance between July 1 
 and 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 
 which brought about this favorable condition." 37 
 
 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, 
 and February was a very satisfactory one, fully 50 of the mills being 
 closed from 30 to 90 days. In addition to this, a large number of our 
 
 36 "Lumber Industry," IV, 129: Miss. Valley Lumberman, Jan. 27, 1905, 35. 
 
 37 "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." 38 
 
 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 
 cooperating 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 cooperating, can eliminate many of the unneces- 
 
 38 "Lumber Industry," IV, 467. 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 353 
 
 sary evils that have demoralized the industry in former years, par- 
 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 
 curtailment 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 
 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 
 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- 
 tionists are calling for. 39 
 
 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 
 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 Am. 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 
 
 has been far less satisfactory from the point of view of the lumber- 
 men than from that of consumers. 40 
 
 The lumber market has always been very unstable. Prices of most 
 woods have fluctuated widely and often. Occasional years of high 
 prices have been followed by longer periods of depression and low 
 prices. Taking the years between 1907 and 1915, for instance, the 
 average price of southern yellow pine shows a range of from $12.50 
 to $16.50, or 32 per cent of the lower rate. The average price of 
 Douglas fir in the same period ranged from $9.60 to $15.20 — a spread 
 of 58 per cent of the lower rate. Such an instability must be regarded 
 as an evil from every point of view. 41 
 
 THE LUMBER INDUSTRY AND TIMBER SPECULATION 
 
 One of the vital weaknesses of the lumber manufacturing business 1 
 has been its close alliance with timber speculation. Twenty years ago 
 much of the timber in the West was worth very little, and purchasers 
 were able to buy stumpage at from three to twenty-five cents per 
 thousand feet. At that price it was good investment, for, with the 
 development of lumbering, the construction of transcontinental rail- 
 roads, expanding markets, and the influence of eastern conceptions 
 of timber values, enhancement of stumpage price-s was very rapid — 
 particularly from 1900 to 1908. There was a rush of entrymen to 
 the public timber lands, not to settle them, but to acquire salable 
 claims ; and millions of acres were patented from the government 
 every year. The agents of lumber companies and eastern investors 
 bought up claims and "blocked up" holdings while local speculators 
 assembled properties of a few thousand acres. Trading was active, 
 hundreds of men made fortunes by buying and selling stumpage, and 
 confidence in future timber values seemed unlimited. It was the common 
 feeling that prices would go up — as far as in eastern lumbering 
 regions. Within ten or fifteen years, the initial cost of government 
 timber was multiplied in subsequent transfers — ten, fifteen, or twenty 
 times, in some parts of the Northwest." 42 
 
 40 Proceedings, National Lumber Manufacturers' Association, Thirteenth An- 
 nual Meeting, 172 et seq. 
 
 4i "Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry," 21-23; Am. Lumber- 
 man, Jan. 1, 1916, 52: Forest Bui. 34, 43. 
 
 42 "Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber 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 mostly 
 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 
 each new block acquired. Manufacturers sometimes bought addi- 
 tional timber with earnings which should have been used to reduce 
 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 of 
 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 Brief 
 on Behalf of the National Lumber Manufacturers' Association, May, 1916, 23 et 
 seq.; and Cong. Rec, Apr. 19, 1916, 6459. 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 357 
 
 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- 
 sented. 
 
 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, 
 through underassessment and lax administration of laws, taxes have 
 not been a very heavy burden in most regions. Occasional gross in- 
 equalities in assessment, however, and uncertainty as to the future, 
 have doubtless been something of a menace to lumbermen and to the 
 stability of the industry. 43 Cost of fire protection has added slightly 
 to the carrying charge. This cost, however, including such fire losses 
 as may occur, rarely exceeds one tenth or one fifth of a cent per 
 
 « 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. 
 
 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- 
 parent that any timber, no matter how cheaply obtained, will acquire 
 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. 44 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 burdensome that they would 
 be glad to have the government take them over. 45 
 
 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, a 
 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 demor- 
 alized much of the time. It was noted in 1913 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 decline 
 in the speculative value of timber holdings fostered rapid forest de- 
 struction. Beginning about 1915, lumber prices rose again because 
 of the war demands, and at the present time (1919), the general 
 
 44 For an interesting computation by Professor Kirkland of the University of 
 Washington, see the Forestry Quarterly, 12, 432. See also an article by Professor 
 Compton in the Journal of Forestry, Apr., 1917. 
 
 45 Cong. Bee, 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. 46 
 
 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. 47 
 
 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. 48 
 
 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. 
 
 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 1912-1913, southern and western loggers left from 20 to 30 
 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 found 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 
 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 
 
 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 
 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." 49 
 
 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 
 the question of remedy may safely be left to the future, if it ever 
 becomes an acute problem. 
 
 The unfortunate situation of some of the lumbermen during a large 
 part of the past decade seemed to demand more attention than it 
 ever got ; and a few years ago the Forest Service, in cooperation with 
 the Bureau of Corporations, and later with the Trade Commission, 
 undertook a study of conditions. Their report, 50 completed in 1916, 
 called attention to the depressed situation of the lumbermen, and 
 
 49 Kellogg and Ziegler, "The Cost of Growing Timber," Pub. by Am. Lumber- 
 man, 1911. 
 
 so "Some Public and Economic Aspects of the Lumber Industry": Report No. 
 114, Dept. of Agr. 
 
RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY 363 
 
 suggested the following general remedies : first, adequate capital, 
 better financial backing, and better methods of accounting ; 51 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 regime 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 
 
 5i Am. Lumberman, Jan. 1, 1916, 26; Jan. 29, 1916, 1; Apr. 8, 1916, 26. 
 
364 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 benefits of cooperative action, and at the same time would protect the 
 public from monopolistic exaction. 52 
 
 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. 53 
 
 It is true that government regulation of prices is not the most 
 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 cooperation; 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 Am. 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 Manufacturers' Association, May, 1916, 13. 
 
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 
 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 
 very 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, 
 
368 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 as already pointed out, the government is slowly taking over tracts 
 of land under the Weeks Law. Thus the relative importance of pub- 
 licly owned timber will gradually increase. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 The 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 future timber supply arose even in colonial times, and expressions 
 of concern were voiced at various times throughout the later history 
 of the country. The idea of conservation gained momentum most 
 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. 
 
 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 
 
 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 conventions 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. 1 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 
 lands. 
 
 THE ETHICS OF TIMBER STEALING 
 
 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 
 
 i New England Magazine, July, 1907, 515. 
 
372 UNITED STATES FOREST POLI€Y 
 
 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 lands — 
 "saving" it for the West. 
 
 The West has alwa3's 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- 
 siastic brand, partly because optimism was in the very 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 represented 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 
 
 2 Outlook, May 14, 1910, 57. 
 
374 UNITED STATES FOREST POLICY 
 
 In the question of the conservation of any natural resource, there 
 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." 3 
 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 surely had sufficient difficulty 
 securing the comforts of life. 
 
 3 Cong. Bee, 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 valuable 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, 
 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 of the 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 a country 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 
 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 POLI-CY 
 
 unlikely that many "homes" will ever be established under this act, 
 and the government will lose control over one more resource. 4 
 
 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. 5 
 
 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 problems 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 Bui. 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' Bui. 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 House and Senate. Executive and miscellaneous documents. 
 
 (H. Doc, H. Ex. Doc, H. Misc. Doc; S. Doc, S. Ex. Doc, S. Misc. Doc.) 
 Journal of the House and of the Senate. 
 Reports 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, relating 
 
 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. 
 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. 
 
 Message and Documents. A series of volumes issued by the Government at Wash- 
 ington, containing the annual messages of the President and other documents, 
 1858-1901. 
 
 Opinions of Attorney-General of the United States, 1852 — . (Opinions, Atty.-Gen.) 
 
 Donaldson, Thomas, The Public Domain, Its History, with Statistics. (H. Misc. 
 Doc. 45; 47 Cong. 2 Sess.) Washington, 1884. (Donaldson, Public Domain.) 
 
 Fox, William F., A History of the Lumber Industry in New York. U. S. Bureau of 
 Forestry, Bulletin 34, 1902. 
 
 General 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- 
 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; 47 Cong. 2 Sess.) 
 
 Laws, Treaties and Other Documents Having Operation and Respect to the Public 
 Lands. Compiled 1811. 
 
 Lumber Industry, The. Department of Commerce and Labor, Report 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 Waterways Commission. (S. Doc. 325; 60 Cong. 
 1 Sess.) 
 
 Proceedings of a Conference of Governors, 1908. (H. Doc. 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. 
 283; 61 Cong. 2 Sess.) 
 
 Report of the Public Lands Commission. Washington, 1905. (S. Doc. 189; 58 Cong. 
 3 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 POLICY 
 
 FORESTRY PUBLICATIONS 
 
 American Journal 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 Reports, 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. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 381 
 
 Maine: 
 
 Forest Commissioner. Biennial Reports, 1902 — . 
 Maryland : 
 
 State Board of Forestry. Reports, 1907 — . 
 Massachusetts : 
 
 Forestry Association. Annual Reports, 1898 — . 
 
 State Forester. Annual Reports, 1904 — . 
 
 State Forest Commission. Annual Report, 1914. 
 Michigan: 
 
 Commissioner 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.) 
 New Jersey: 
 
 Forest Park Reservation Commission. Annual Reports, 1905 — . 
 
 State Geologist. Annual Report, 1899. 
 New York: 
 
 Arbor Day Annual. 1906 — . 
 
 Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 370. 
 
 Forest Commission. Annual Reports, 1888-1894. 
 
 Forest, Fish and Game Commission. Annual Reports, 1904 — . 
 
 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 Reports, 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 Forestiere 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. Chicago, 1906. 
 Dorrien, S. V., Forests and Forestry. 1879. 
 
 Protection of Forests a Necessity, 1879. 
 
 Emerson, George B., A Report on the Trees and Shrubs Naturally Growing in 
 
 the Forests of Massachusetts. Boston, 1846. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 383 
 
 Fernow, B. E., A Brief History of Forestry. Toronto, 1907. 
 
 Economics of Forestry. New York, 1902. 
 
 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; 
 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- 
 nomics, January, 1887, 169. 
 
 Hill, Robert T., The Public Domain and Democracy. Columbia University Studies. 
 New York, 1910. 
 
 Hodges, Leonard B., Practical Suggestions on Forest Tree Planting in Minnesota. 
 St. Paul, 1874. 
 
 Hotchkiss, George W., History of the Lumber and Forest Industry of the North- 
 west. Chicago, 1898. 
 
 Hough, F. B., The Elements of Forestry. Cincinnati, 1882. 
 
 Japan, Forestry of. Bureau of Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Com- 
 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 Question 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 
 
 Association. Cincinnati, 1884. 
 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. 
 Forestry Conditions of Northern Wisconsin. Wisconsin Geological and Nat- 
 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. Proceedings 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 Pioneer 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 — . 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 385 
 
 Hardwood Record. Chicago, Illinois. 1895 — . 
 Lumberman's Review. New York. 1892 — . 
 Lumber 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 — . 
 Lumber Trade Journal. New Orleans. 1882 — . 
 Mississippi Valley Lumberman. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1876 — . 
 New York Lumber Trade Journal. New York. 1886 — . 
 Northwestern Lumberman. Chicago: 
 
 Title: — Michigan Lumberman. February, 1873, to January, 1874; 
 
 Northwestern Lumberman, February, 1874, to 1898 ; 
 
 United with the Timberman to form American Lumberman, January, 1899. 
 Pacific Lumber Trade Journal. Seattle. 1895-1913. 
 
 Merged into West Coast Lumberman, October 1, 1913. 
 Pennsylvania Lumberman. Scranton, Pennsylvania. 1903 — . 
 Pioneer Western Lumberman. San Francisco. 1884 — . 
 
 Title:— Wood and Iron, 1885 to 1888; 
 
 Pacific Coast Wood and Iron, 1889 to 1909 (?) ; 
 
 Pioneer Western Lumberman, 1911 (?). 
 St. Louis Lumberman. St. Louis. January, 1888 — . 
 
 Schuster's Yellow Pine Lumber Rate Book. Eastern Ed., St. Louis, 1896 — . 
 Southern Industrial and Lumber Review. Houston, Texas. 1893 — . 
 Southern Lumber Journal. Wilmington, North Carolina. 1898 — . 
 Southern Lumberman. Nashville, Tennessee. 1881 — . 
 Timberman. Portland, Oregon. 1899 — . 
 West Coast Lumberman, Tacoma and Seattle. 1889 — . 
 
 Succeeded the Pacific Lumber Trade Journal. 
 
INDEX 
 
 ^^c^ 
 
 Advertising by the Forest Service, 285, 
 287, 288 
 
 Advice to private timber owners, 154, 
 299, 300, 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, 
 233, 234, 241, 242, 256-258, 289-290 
 
 Anti-trust activity of the government, 
 339, 347 
 
 Appalachian Mountains, forest re- 
 serves in, Ch. VI 
 
 Appropriations for forest protection, 
 41, 100, 107, 141, 154, 155, 158, 159, 
 243 
 
 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, 
 193, 194, 196-199, 201 et seq., 289, 290, 
 297 
 
 Austin, Representative, 211 
 
 Averill, Representative, 60 
 
 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 
 
 INDEX 
 
 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 Conservation Commission, 
 152 
 
 Cannon, Joseph, Representative, 138, 
 156, 181, 210, 211, 218 
 
 Cannon, Senator, 140 
 
 Carnegie, 151 
 
 Carter, Senator, 131, 159, 1T3, 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 
 
 Colorado, 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; 
 
 and the National Conservation Com- 
 mission, 153; incapacity of, 297, 370, 
 371 
 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 management, 
 
 284 
 Crumpacker, Representative, 216 
 Cummins, Representative, 257 
 Currier, Representative, 209, 210 
 Curtailment campaigns among lumber" 
 
 men, 350-353 
 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 
 Deuster, Representative, 112 
 Development of the West, interference 
 
 with, 131, 135, 136, 166, 254, 255 
 Dies, Representative, 256 
 Discrimination against the West, 135, 
 
 136, 262, 271, 272 
 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 
 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 
 
INDEX 
 
 389 
 
 Edmunds, Senator, 51, 68, 69, 104, 105, 
 
 112, 113, 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, 109 n., Ill, 122, 
 142, 369, 370 
 
 Fitzgerald, Representative, 197, 256, 
 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, 
 110; first bill for creation of, 45 
 
 Forest Service, criticism of, Ch. IX 
 
 Forest Service, work of, Ch. X ' 
 
 Forestation, work in, 309, 310. See 
 Timber Culture Act 
 
 Forestry associations, 34, 95, 148 
 
 Forestry journals, 95, 148 
 
 Fort, Representative, 45 
 
 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 lumber 
 
 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 
 
 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 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Harrison, President, 69, 92, 114, 120, 
 
 241 
 Hartman, Representative, 124, 125, 137 
 Hatch, Representative, 112, 113 
 Haugen, Representative, 205, 285 
 Hawley, Senator, 104, 105, 136 
 Hawley, Representative, 201, 256, 275, 
 
 277 
 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, 66 n., 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 
 
 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 
 
 391 
 
 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 
 
 McMillan, Senator, 108 
 
 McRae, 74, 117, 122, 126, 138, 181, 228, 
 282 
 
 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, 
 127, 130, 133, 137, 138, 264-266 
 
 Minnesota, state forest reserves in, 144, 
 145; frauds in, 80; railroad grants 
 in, 54 
 
 Mississippi, timber 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 
 
 Mt. Ranier National Park, 183, 184, 292, 
 
 332 
 Municipal forest reserves, 145 
 Murdock, Representative, 204 
 
 National Conservation Association, 153 
 National Conservation Commission, 152, 
 
 227 
 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, 
 
 231, 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 
 
 INDEX 
 
 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 
 Piatt, 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 & McMinville Rail- 
 road, 249 
 Posterity, objection to saving for, 53, 
 
 271 
 Power, Representative, 229 
 Pray, Representative, 237 
 Predatory animals in forest reserves, 
 
 306 
 Preemption 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 
 
 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 Schurz, 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 
 
 lumber industry, 362 
 Republican party, hostile to reserves, 
 
 201-205 
 Resources, withdrawal of other than 
 
 timber, 270 
 Retailers of lumber, price activities 
 
 among, 342 
 
INDEX 
 
 393 
 
 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, 188 n., 191, 194, 200, 
 
 201, 205, 227, 234-236, 270, 303, 369, 
 
 370 
 Ross, Senator, 43 
 Rucker, A. W., Representative, 201, 256, 
 
 262, 275 
 Rucker, W. W., Representative, 215 
 Ryan, Representative, 89 
 
 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 
 Savers, 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, 
 
 324-326 
 
 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 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Summer homes in the national forests, 
 305 
 
 Summer resorts in Appalachian Moun- 
 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, 
 224-236, 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 
 
 Vermont, state forest reserves in, 145 
 Vilas, Secretary, 88, 111 
 Votes on conservation, 53, 57, 60, 90, 91, 
 126, 139, 141, 211 
 
 Wads worth, Representative, 197 
 Walcott, Charles D., 132, 369, 370 
 Walker, Thomas B., 47 n., 224, 319, 330, 
 337 
 
 Wallace, Representative, 163 
 
 Walthall, Senator, 101, 116 
 
 War, forest products research and the, 
 313 
 
 Warren, Senator, 157, 173, 195, 199, 275, 
 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 
 
 Wilson, Representative, 193 
 
 Windom, Senator, 42, 50, 53 
 
 Wisconsin, "saw log dynasty" in, 371; 
 
INDEX 
 
 395 
 
 state forest reserves in, 144, 145; for- 
 ests in, 33, 54; timber stealing in, 41, 
 81 
 Wood preservation, 311, 312 
 
 Wren, Representative, 57 
 Wright, Senator, 43 
 Wright, Representative, 89 
 Wyoming, reserves in, 120 
 
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 

 3 * ■ ' 
 '» N ' > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 

 V s 
 
 
 u & *V 
 
 
 "~\fs» 
 
 ^ 
 
 rO