Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-05-13


| to multiply their benefits.
Duty to Posterity.
Neither the primitive man nor the pio-
| neer was aware of any duty to posterfty
| in dealing with the renewable resources
When the American settler felled the for
ests he felt that there was plenty of for
est left for the sons who came after him.
When he exhausted the soil Of his farm
| he felt that his son could go west and
| take up another. So II was with his i'm
mediate successors. When the Sc!l-wash
from the farmers. fields choked the neigh
boring river he thought only of using the
railway rather than boats for moving his
produce and supplies.
Now all this ia changed. On the aver
age the son of the farmer OF today must
make his living on his fathers farm
There is no difficulty in doing this II the
father will exercise wisdom. No wise use
of farm exhausts its fertility. So with
the forests. We are over the verge OF
timber famine in this country. and IT is
objectionable for the nation or the states
to permit any further cutting OF our TIM
Der save in accordance with system
which will provide that the next genera
ton shall see the timber Increased In
stead Of diminished; Moreover. we can
add enormous tracts Of the most valuable
possible agricultural land to the national
domain by irrigation in the arid and
semi-arid regions and by drainage OF
great tracts of swamp land in the humid
regions.
We can enormously increase our trans
portation facilities by the canalization or
our rivers so as to complete a great sys-
tenn of waterways OF, the Pacific, Atlantic
and gulf coasts and in the Mississippi
valley, from the great plains to the Allie
ghenies and from the northern lates to
the mouth Of the mighty father OF waters
But all these various uses OF our natural
resources are so closely connected that
they should be co-ordinated. and should
be treated as part Of one coherent plan
and not in haphazard and piecemeal
fashion
1t is largely because OF this that I ap-
pointed the waterways commission last
year and that have sought to perpetuate
its work. l wish to take this opportuni-
ty to express in heartiest fashion my
acknowledgment to all the members of
the commission. At great personal sac
rifice Of time and effort they have render
cap not be too grateful. Especial credit
is due to the initiative. the energy. the
devotion to duty and the farsightedness
OF Clifford Pinchot. to whom we owe so
made in handling this matter Of the CO.
ordination and conservation OF natural
resources. If it had not been for him
this convention neither would nor could
have been called
We are coming to recognize as never
before the right of the nation to guard
its own future in the essential matter of
natural resources. In the past we have
admitted the right Of the individual to
injure the future OF the republic for his
own present profit. The time has come
for change. AS people we have the
right and the duty. second to none other
but the right and duty OF obey1ng the
moral law of requiring and doing justice.
to protect ourselves and our children
against the wasteful development OF our
natural resources. whether that waste Is
caused by the actual destruction of such
resources by making them impossible
of development hereafter.
Duty Of the Nation.
Any right thinking father earnestly
desires and strives to leave his son both
an untarnished name and a reasonable
equipment for the struggle of life. So this
nation as a whole should earnestly desire
and strive to leave to the next generation
the national honor unstaned and the
national resources unexhausted. There
are signs that both the nation and the
states are waking TO a realization Of this
great truth. On March 10. 1908. the SUI
preme court Of Maine rendered an ex-
ceedingly important judicial decision.
This opinion was rendered in response
to questions as to the right OF the lesis-
lature to restrict the cutting Of trees on
private land for the prevention OF
droughts and floods. the preservation OF
the natural water supply, and the preven-
ton of the erosion Of such lands. and the
consequent filling up Of rivers ponds ana
lakes.
The forests and water power OF Maine
constitute the larger part OF her wealth
and form the basis OF her industrial life,
and the question submitted by the Maine
senate to the supreme court and the an
swer OF the supreme court alike bear tes-
timony to the wisdom Of the people OF
Maine and clearly define a policy of con-
servation Of natural resources, the adop-
ton of which Is Of vital Importance not
merely 10 Maine but to the whole coun-
try.
Such policy will preserve soil. forests,
l'waterpoWer as heritage for the children
and the children's children OF the men
and women Of this generation; for any
enactment that provides for the wise
utilization Of the forests, whether In pub
lie or private ownership, and for the con-
servation Of the water resources of the
country must necessarily be legislation
that will promote both private and pub
lie welfare: for flood prevention. water
power development. preservation or the
soil and improvement Of navtgabe rivers
are all promoted by such policy of for
est conservation.
The opinion Of the Maine supreme bench
sets forth unequvocally the principle that
the property rights OF the individual are
subordinate to the rights OF the communi-
w, ana especially tEat the waste OI Win
timber land derived originally from the
state, involving as it would the impover-
ishment OF the state and its people and
thereby defeating one great purpose Of
government. may properly be prevented
by state restrictions.
The court says that there are two rea-
sons why the right of the public to con-
troll and limit the use OF private property
ia peculiarly applicable to property in
land: First. such property is not the re-
suit of productive labor. but is derived
solely from the state itself. the original
owner; second the amount of land being
incapable Of increase. II the owners OF
large tracts can waste them at will with
out state restriction the state and its peo-
pie may be helplessly impoverished and
one great purpose Of government defeated.
We do not think the proposed leg
islation would operate to take private
property within the inhibition Of the Con-
stitution. While il might restrict the
owner Qf wild and uncultivated lands in
his use of them. might delay his taking
| some Of the product. 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 values He might suffer delay.
but not deprivation. The pro-
posed legislation would be with
in the legislative power and would not
operate as a taking OF private property
for which compensation must be made