The Washington herald., 1908-05-14

troi and limit the use Of private property
is peculiarly applicable to property IN
land
'First, such property is not the
result Of productive labor. but Is de-
rived solely from the State itself, the
original owner. second, the amount OF
land being incapable Of increase, If
the owners of lareg tracts can waste
them at will without State restriction,
the State and its people may be help
lessly Impoverished and one one great
purpose Of government defeated.
We do not think the proposed
legislation would operate 70 take
private property within the inhibition
of the Constitution While it might
restrict the owner OF wild and unculti-
waited lands in his use of them. might
delay his anticipated profits and even
thereby might cause him some loss Of
profit, it would nevertheless leave him
his lands. their product and increase.
untouched. and without diminution
of title. estate, or quantity. He would
still have large measure of control
and large opportunity TO realize value.
He might suffer delay but not depri
vation The proposed legisla-
islative power and would not operate
as a taking Of private property for
which compensation must he made
New Jersey I'm Line.
THE court of errors and appeals OF
New Jersey has adopted a similar view
which has recently been sustained by th'
Supreme Court of the United States. II
delivering the opinion OF the court OF
april s, 1905. Mr. Justice Holmes said
The State as quasi-sovereign and
representative OF the interests Of the
public has a standing In court TO pro-
rect the atmosphere. the water. and
the forests within It's territory, ire
spective Of the assent or dissent Of
the private owners of the land most
Immediately concerned.
Z" Tt appears 10 US that few public in
terests are more obvious, indisputable,
and Independent OF particular theory
than the interest Of the public Of
State 10 maintain the rivers that are
wholly within it substantially undi-
minished, except by such drafts upon
them as the guardian or the public
welfare may permit for the purpose OF
turning them to a more perfect use.
This public interest Is OmnipTesent
wherever there is a state. and grows
more pressing as population grows.
We are Of opinion, further,
that the constitutional power OF the
state 20 insist that it's natural advan-
tages shall remain unimpaired by its
citizens is not dependent upon any
nice estimate OF the extent of the
present use or speculation as 10 future
needs. The legal conception Of the
necessary is apt to be confined to
somewhat rudimentaTy wants, and
there are benefits from a great river
that might escape a lawyers view.
But the State is not required to sub
nit even 20 an aesthetic analysis II
finds itself in possession Of what all
admit to be a great public good, and
what Il has il may keep and give no
one a reason for its will
These decisions reach the root Of tn
idea Of conservation Of our resources {
the interests Of our people.
Gravest Problem of To-day.
Finally, let US remember that the con
servation OF our natural resources, thong
the gravest problem Of to-day, is ye
but part Of another and greater probler
to which this nation is not yet awake
but TO which 1t wiz awake in time. an
with which it must hereafter grapple
il is TO Iive-the problem Of national effi
cheney. the patriotic duty of insuring tn
safety and continuance Of the natior