The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-05-13
and not in haphazagd and piecemeal

appointed the waterways commission
last year and that I have sought to
this opportunity to express in heart
lest fashion my acknowledgment to
all the members of the commission
At great personal sacrifice Of time and
effort they have rendered a service
to the public for which we can not be
too grateful Especial credit Is due
to the initiative, the energy the de-
votion to duty and the farsightedness
of Clifford Pinchot. to whom we owe
so much of the progress we have al
ready made in handling this matter
of the coordination 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 a change. AS a people we have
the right and the duty, second to none
other but the right and duty Of obey
ing the moral law, of recurring and
doing justice, to protect ourselves and
our children against the wasteful de-
velopments of our natural resources.
whether that waste is caused by the
actual destruction of such resources
or by making them impossible of de-
velopment hereafter.
Any right thinking father earnestly
desires and strives to leave his son
both an untarnished name and a rea-
sonable equipment for the struggle of
life. So this nation as a whole
should earnestly desire and strive to
leave the next generation the national
honor unstained and the national re-
sources unexhauSted. There are signs
that both the nation and the states
are waking to realization of this
great truth. On March 10, 1908, the
supreme court of Maine rendered an
exceedingly important judicial de-
cision This opinion was rendered in
response to questions as to the right
of the legislature to restrict the cut
ting of trees on private land for the
prevention of droughts and floods,
the preservation of the natural water
supply. and the prevention of the
erosion of such lands, and the con-
sequent filling up of rivers, ponds, and
lakes. The forests and water power
of Maine constitute the larger part
of her wealth and form tho basis of
her industrial life. and the question
submitted by the Maine senate to the
supreme court and the answer of the
supreme court alike bear testimony to
the wisdom of the people of Maine,
and clearly define a policy of con-
servation of natural resources. the
portance not merely to. Maine but to
the whole country.
Save the Water.
Such a policy will preserve soil,
forests, water power as a heritage for
the children and the children's chill
drer. of the men and women of this
generations; for any enactment that
provides for the wise utilization of the
forests. whether in public or private
ownership, and for the conservation
of the water resources of the country,
must necessarily be legislation that
will promote both private and public
welfare: for flood prevention, water
power development, preservation of
the soil. and improvement of navigable
river are all promoted by such a
policy of forest cons ervation.
The opinion of the Maine supreme
bench sets forth unequivOcally the
principle that the property rights of
the individual are subordinate to the
rights of the community, and espe-
cially. that the waste of wild timber
land derived originally from the state,
involving as 1t would the impoverish
ment of the state and its people and
tn ereby defeating one great purpose
of government, may properly be pre-
vented by state restrictions.
The court says that there are two
reasons why the right of the public to
control and limit the use of private
property is peculiarly applicable to
property in land: First such proper
ty is not the result of productive labor
but is derived solely from the state
itself, the original owner; second, the
amount of land being incapable of in
crease if the owners of large tracts
| can waste them at will without state
restriction, the state and it's people
| may be helplessly impoverished and
| one great purpose of government de-
| feated We do not think the
| proposed legislation would operate to
take private property within the in
! hibition of the constitution. While 1t
| might restrict the owner of 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
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 oppor-
tunity to realize values. He might
The proposed legislation
49, would be within the legisla-
| tive power and would not operate as
taking of private property for which
| compensation must be made"
] The court Of errors and appeals of
J New Jersey has adopted a similar view,
which has recently been sustained by
the supreme court of the United States.
In delivering the opinion of the court
on April 6, 1908, Mr.. Justice Holmes
said: 1.-The state as quaSi-sovereign
and representatives of the interests OF
| the public has a standing in court to
protect the atmosphere, the water, and
the forests within its territory. ire
spective of the assent or dissent of the
| private owners of the land most i'm
mediately concerned. 1t ap-
pears to us that few public interests
| are more obvious, indisputable and in
| dependent of particular theory than
the interest Of the public of state to
maintain the rivers that are wholly
within 1t substantially undiminished
except by such drafts upon them as