The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-02-23
SOON TO- HAVE BIG
FOREST RESERVE
Present Congress Will Hardly
Act in Matter. but 1t Is Looked
Upon as Certain.
QUESTION AS TO THE RIGHT
Judiciary Committee Soon to Be
gin Hearing as to Constitu-
tionality of Law.
Times Dispatch Bureau
MInsev Ruilbip {,
Washington. D. G.. Feb. 20.

washington. -. G., req. 70.
If Congress has the constitutional
authority to authorize the national gov
eminent to acquire by condemnation
or purchase wooded lands in the noun
famous sections of the country. and
erect them into national timber re-
serve, the Appalachian forest reserve
will become an actualty The event
may be delayed until the next session
of Congress. possibly until another
Congress, but 1T is regarded as certain
to occur.
The fate of tie great project now
rests In the hands of the House Com
mittee on Judiciary. to which We're re-
ferred all the bills on the subject UNI
der.a resolution introduced in the House
of Representatives by Representative.
Bartlett, of Georgia, last week. The
committee, under the resolution of Mr..
Bartlett, is to consider and report sole
ly upon the constitutlonality of the
project. The committee will begin
hearings on the 27th instant. At
tention will be given solely to the
question of constitutionality, the wis
dom of the governments taking this
step to prevent the overflow of the
rivers which have their sources in the
White Mountains and the Appa
lachians having been established in
former hearings before the House
Committee on Agriculture.
states Rights May Oppose.
The doctrine of States rights is
thought by some 10 stand In the way
of the governments establishing the
forest reserve. OF course. the govern
nlent has the right to create such re-
serves in the West. with It's own land,
but 1t is doubted by some whether 1t
has the right to buy land and establish
such reserve. It Is commended that the
invasion Of State by the Federal gov
ernment and the usurpation of func-
ton which belongs exclusively to the
state is Illustrated in such case as
that of the proposed Appalachian park
or reserve.
1t is claimed by those who contend
that the proposed establishment OF the
Appalachian reserve contemplates doing
an unconstitutional thing that the re-
cent decision of the United States Su-
preme Court in the case involving the
right Of tho national government to
rrigate State lands applies in this case.
In the former case, Colorado set about
diverting the Arkansas River In the
course Of carrying out an irrigation
scheme, tnu oINtlalS VI VIC othlo VI
Kansas proceeded to enJoin those OF
Colorado, on tho ground that the action
Tor Colorado would seriously damage
bands in Kansas. which needed lrriga-
ton and could secure 1t only from the
waters of tho Arkansas,
The United States Interviewed, claim
ing that neither Colorado nor Kansas
had the right to use the waters of
the river inasmuch ms the United
States proposed TO use tho river IN
irrigating certain arid lands for whirn
Congress had already provided by max
Ing appropriations
The supreme Court Of tho Unitel
States held that Congress had exceeded
hts mowers when 1t appropriated money
for specific irrigation, that such rights
belonged to the State alone, that Con-
gress could appropriate for the lrrl-
MA y