The Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1903-1909, 1908-05-16

ton OF natural resources, the auop-
ton OF which ia of vital mportans e
not merely to Maine but to the
whole country.
Such policy will preserve soil,
forests, water power as a heritage
for the children and the children's
children OF the men and women oil
this generation; for any enactment
that provides for the wise utiliza.
ton of the forest, 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
food prevention, water power de-
velopment, preservation OF the soil
and and improvement of navigable
rivers are all promoted by such a
policy of forest conservation.
The opinion of the Maine su-
preme bench sets forth unequivo.
cally the principle that the proper.
ty rights of the individual are SUBJ
ordinate to the rights of the com
munity and especially that the
waste of wild timber land derived
originally from the state, involving
as it would the impover shment OF
the state and it's people and there
by defeating one great principle of
government, may properly be re-
stricted by state restrictions.
The court says that there are two
reasons why the right Of the public
to control and limit the use of pri.
vate property is peculiarly appli-
cable to property in land: First,
such property is not the result of
productive labor, but is derived
solely from the state itself, the orig
inal owner; second, the amount OF
land being incapable of crease, if
owners of large tracts can waste
them at will without state restric-
ton, the state and it's people may
become hopelessly impoverished
and one great purpose government
defeated. = We do not think
the proposed legislation would OPP
crate to take private prop 4rty
within the inhibition OF the consti.
tuition. While it might restrict
the owner of wild and uncultivated
lands in his use of them, might de-
lay his taking some of the product,
might delay his anticipated profits
and even thereby might cause him
some loss of profit, it would, never.
theless leave him his lands, their
product and increase untouched,
and without diminution of title, es-
tate or quantity. He would still
have large measure OF control and
large opportunity to Talize values.
He might suffer delay but not
deprivation. The pro
posed legislation = n would
be within the legislative power
and would not operate as taking
of private property for which COM
pensation must be made"
The court of errors and appeals Of
New Jersey has adopted a similar view
which has recently been sustained by
the supreme court of the United States
In delivering of the opinion of the
court on April 6, 1908, MIR. Justice
Holmes said: "The state, as q uasi-sov'
| 6TclSA duu representative Vi thO aubOI
ests of the public has standing in the
court to protect the atmosphere, the
water and the forests within its terri.
tory, irrespective of the assent or dis
sent of the private owners of the land
most Immediately concerned.
1t seems tous that few public interests
are more obvious, indisputable and in
dependent of particular theory than
interests of the public of state tc
maintain the rivers that are wholly
within it substantially undiminished
except by such draf s upon them as
the guardian of the public welfare may
permit for the purpose of turning them
to a more perfect use. This public in
terest is omnipresent wherever there is
a state, and grows more pressing as
population grows. We are OF
opinion, further, that the constitution.
al power of the state to insist that its
natural advantages shall remain I'M
impaired by its citizens is not depend.
ent upon any nice estimate of the ex-
tent of present use or speculation as to
its future needs. The legal conception
of the necessary is apt to be confined
to somewhat rudimentary wants, and
there are benefits from great river
that might escape a lawyers view.
But the state Is not required to submit
even aesthetic analysis. Any analysis
may be inadequate. 1t finds itself in