New-York tribune., 1905-07-08
CORNELL CASE DECIDED.
THE UNIVERSITY LOSES.
Action Invol0ing Thirty Thousand
Acres To Be Begun by Mayer.

Albany. July THE famous Cornell forestry
case, which involves 10000 acres OF timber land
,y the Adirondacks between Tupper and Upper
saranac lakes. was decided to-day by Attorney
General Mayer against Cornell University and
,n favor OF the members OF the Association Of
residents OF Upper Saranac Lake. who In De-
Gambler 1901. took the first steps in the PRO-
oesding-
or the application OF Eric P swenson. repre-
sent.ng this organization. the Attorney General
has consented TO begin an action TO deprive Cor
neu University OF this land and to annul a con-
tract between the university and the Brooklyn
coope-zge Company. under which the latter has
,nce Nay. 1900. been cutting timber on the tract
n litigation
This land was purchased by Cornell with
gl650 600 appropriated for that purpose by the
legislature In 1898 for conducting experiments
in forestry. The nature OF this experiment
not generally understood until IN the spring OF
1900 when the Brooklyn Cooperage Company
began cutting timber there Then II was re-
ported that In pursuance Of the plans of Pro-
lessor 3. z. Fernow. head Of the Cornell School
of Forestry. the tract was to be almost denuded
and then replanted with seedlings. Speaking
Of this contract In hts opinion. the Attorney
General says:
In brief. therefore. this was contract where
l,v the Brooklyn Cooperage Company made
business arrangement with Cornell University
70 lumber this tract upon terms which the As
sembly Committee regarded as loss TO Cor
nell There IS no suggestion that the authori-
ties OF Cornell University entered into this con-
tract through other than good motives. 1t
seems that they had been advised by the Forest
ny expert n their employ that the best method
81 experiment was to denude the tract, in order
that the result OF reforestation could De ascer-
tained within the life Of men then living.
SO far as the testimony and arguments be-
fore me disclosed, no official Of the State OF
New-York was consulted directly or indirectly
n regard to the agreement above referred to.
Il was q responsibility undertaken by Cornell
and by the cooperage company. II cannot be
said, therefore, that the State was in any way
responsible for this contract, or that il acQui-
esced IN the terms thereof.
. The real difficulty. IT seems 10 me- lies in the
fact that an expected educational forestry ex-
pertinent has resulted in a situation whereby
The experiment has been abandoned, and in
place thereof a thirty thousand acre tract, pur-
chased with money advanced py the state, is
likely 70 be cleared Of timber. in contravention
Of the essential purpose OF the legislation above
referred TO-
The entire sum appropriated by the legislature
for this experiment was S5O0OOO but in 1903
Governor Odeu declined to let any further in
stalnents be taken The present application
was made on constitutional grounds, and also
on the allegation that the purpose Of the statute
was being defeated snd that at present con-
Quoted the enterprise was not a forestry expert
uaeut. Attorney General Mayer passes by the
constitutional aspect Of the case, but agrees
with the applicants IN their other arguments.
He says;
Briefly stated. 7 think the purpose Of the
Statute was 70 establish an experiment in for
estry, under the jurisdiction and supervision Of
Cornell University, and that the cutting. re-
mOval or sale OF timber should be by Cornell or
its students, solely IN the ordinary course Of
such experiment In my opinion, IL was never
contemplated that under any circumstance
Cornell was 10 be permitted 10 make a contract
Tor the stripping Of the forest within possible
fifteen years, q tract Of land which was
dedicated TO an educational experiment of thirty
years.
II seems 10 me that the complaint heretofore
served should be amended. All allegations as
10 fraud should be eliminated. and all the facts
should be fully set forth for submission 10 the
court