The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1909-05-10

the desired land from any sort of ap-
preparation or use by private interests,
even from demonstrating under the act
of June II. 1905. When he wanted to
create a station outside of existing re-
serves he had land Withdrawn from en-
try and set apart for the use of his men.
Secretary Garfield always made these
Withdrawals upon demand. and in doing
so. OVERRIDE the commissioner of the
general land offices. who in most in
stances advised against the course rec
commended by Mr. PinchOt He held II
was not necessary to withdraw lands
already in a forest reserve. as these
lands are already under the jurisdic-
ton of the secretary of agriculture, and
can only be utilized with his permis-
sion. unless il be that some one desires
to make mineral exploitation, in which
event he held that such exploitation
and development was specifically pro-
vided for by law.
Barred by Fulton Act.
As to lands not in forest reserves,
the commissioner held that Withdrawals
for ranger stations could not be made
in the states of oregon, Washington,
Idaho. Montana, Colorado and Wyom-
ing, for the act of June, 1907, commonly
known as the Fulton act, prohibits the
/ creation of forest reserves, or the en-
Iargement Of existing reserves in the
six states named. without specific au-
thority or congress. That law was in
tended to prevent the further extension
of the forest reserve area in those
states. and the commissioner held that
! the creation Of ranger stations outside
l of reserves was a practical enlargement
/ of the forest reserve area, and con-
/ sequently contrary to law.
As stated. Secretary Garfield over
ruled the commissioner, and created
ranger stations in some Of the states
named. but the first time Secretary
/ BalIinger had occasion TO act on Pin
chot's recommendations I'm cases arts
! ing in Oregon and Idaho, he reversed
/ the ruling of his predecessor and sus-
tanned the commissioner of the land Of
flee
! Contentious of Forester.
Mr.. Pinchot contends that the crea-
ft,7n of ranger stations is not a viola
ton of the Fulton act, and does not
increase the forest reserve area in any
state. He maintains that ranger sta
. tions are not forest reserves. His arg
|ument is the direct reverse of that OF
the land commissioner and the secre-
tarv of the interior. and eventually
some one must Qfclle WHICH lA4Atl ~
+ tation is correct In the main. western
/ senator's who are lawyers sustain tht
/ BaTIinger Interpretation
Aside from the law Of the case. &C
I cording to the interior department view
il is held that there is no excuse fol
creating ranger stations outside the
! forest reserves There is ample room
within the reserve boundaries to provide
\ quarters and accommodations of rang
n ers whose entire time is supposed to b'
\ spent within the reserves, and 70 seq
i rpgate tracts here and there, outside the
/ reserves. for the exclusive use Of fOres
\ rangers is held to be without Justifics
ton
Alleged Necessity
In answer TO this the forestry Of
ficials contend that IL is not Away
convenient TO have their stations cen
trsUv located I'm the reserves. and i
is necessary. in order 20 procure con
veufcnu headquarters. TO so outside tn
reserves. but near their boundaries. 7
is ofteutimes considered essential L
be near some line OF communication
! with the outside world.
Until the attorney general renders al
opinion on the disputed question Mr.
PiucEot VIII get no more lands with
drawn for ranger stations in the 81,
states named I'm the Fulton law. ant
then only I'm the event the attOrne
general holds a view different fror
. that entertained~by Secretary Bsllingei
the land commissioner and the assist
| ant attorney general for the interlo