Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1910-01-29
CONSERVATION.

The Grand Forks Herald seems IN
clined to disagree with former at
torney general T. F. McCue WIN
reference to the conservation OF the
resources of this country. Mr.. NC
Che took the ground that conser'
walton was matter for state rather
than government supervision, ana
that the state knew better how to
deal with its resources for the pres
ent and ultimate gooi OF the people
than the general government.
Doubtless there is good reason for
calling to the attention of the states
the wisdom and propriety Of lending
their aid to right policies of conser-
walton. But the general govern
ment, of course, has ownership and
control of the public lands, which
are the principal source of our re-
sources. On them grow the forests
which are to serve us with timber,
shade, prevention L. flood and con-
servation of moisture, the mines
that supply our coal are In them
and the food that is to be raised
for this and future generations
comes from the land. 1t is incum-
bent on the general government,
therefore, to take the necessary leg
islative steps to insure the greatst
present and future benefit from the
conservation of those resources that
arise from the unoccupied area OF
the government land, or the area
whose title is yet in the government.
At the same time it would be we'll
for the states to look about them
and see in what particulars they can
prevent their resources from being
wasted. 1t has been held by the
supreme court of the state Of Maine
that the state may prevent the cut
ting Of timber on private lands, If
the cutting interferes with the
greatest good of the whole state.
Since the original title of the land
was in the state. and the owner
holds by title from the state, it has
been held that the rights of the gen.
eral public are above the right of
the individual who may hold the
title.
The general government is sover-
eign as to conservation within it's
own sphere, even as the states are
within their sphere. And it may be
and is no doubt sometimes true that
the state would be better judge
of the best policy to be carried out
within it than some distant bureau
head who has not made close an
careful study of the subject. For
example, in this state, it would we
think, be unwise to refuse to grant
title to homesteads because traces of
coal were fourd on them or under
them. There is no possibility. near
or remote, Of a monopoly of the lig-
mite coal in the western part of this
state. And if that stood in the way
of granting title to homesteads, we
should have spar sely settled state,
incapable of it's best development,
and work hardship to a great many
deserving people who need farms.
We should save our water powers
within reasonable limits. reforest
our wooded areas, and not give away
our coal deposits for nothing. At
the same time. we have a big coun-
try that needs development, and to
say that we shall not allow it to be
developed, or offer fair opportuni.
ties to those who want to develop,
would be to say that which does not
accord with common sense. The
purpose OF conservation ought to be
to prevent fraud and waste, and to
insure restoration as far as posi-
BILE to the soil of that which we take
from it.