Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1910-12-16
Potatoes and Forests.

In the course of the debate on the OF
taquechee bill in the House last week a
member discussing that phase which
related to the method of cutting timber
in accordance with modern conservation
ideas expressed the belief, in substance.
that the State had no more right to IN
terfere by specifying the size of the trees
that might be cut, than to tell the farm
er how many hills of potatoes he should
plant. Doubtless this view is held by a
good many excellent people, and it is
one that must be met as the State, from
time to time, finds it necessary to extend
the scope of its conservation policy re-
lating to forests.
The principle that the rights of the in
dividual cease when they conflict with
the rights of the public is embodied in
laws on almost every page of our statute
books. odern society cannot exist
along any other lines. The law says to
the parent that he may not infict cruel
punishment upon his children. 1t inter-
terferes further in the government of
the family by insisting that children
shall attend school certain number of
weeks every year until a certain age
limit is reached. Many parents have
considered this law an understandable
interference in domestic affairs.
The most autocratic powers existing
in Vermont probably are vested in the
State Board of Health. A mans per-
sonal liberty to go and come as hechoos-
es is one of the fundamental rights of
every American, and yet the Board of
Health may contine man within his
own home on account of the prevalence
of contagious disease in his family.
The Board of Health may condemn
school buildings that are unsanitary and
compel the erection of new structures, a
fact not without significance to the peo-
pie of our own city. They may forbid
city or village from using polluted water
and may compel the installation of new
and costly system. All these, and many
other drastic provisions are laid down
for the protection of the general public.
Turn what way we will. we are pledged
about with restrictions that abridge in
dividual freedom.
AS an illustration of the relations of
the forestry problem to the rights of
the public the cutting of the forests
about the headwaters of the Connecticut
River may be cited. theoretically the
individual or the corporate ton purchasing
timber lands in that region have right
to strip such an area, of every green
thing. Actually they ought not to have
such a right. To denude the region
around the headwaters of this river
means additional freshets in the spring
and lowering of the flow of water dur
ing the remainder of the year. Large
cities and prosperous villages may be
found all along this river dependent
upon the water power of that stream.
Hundreds of thousands of laborers and
millions of dollars of capital are depend
ent upon an adequate and reasonable
stable flow of water in the Connecticut.
If the supply of water is lessened, or if
floods are made more probable, the
damage resulting to labor and capital to
farms and to cities will be almost meal
culable In view of this fact is it true
that measures regulating the cutting of
timber, which would prevent such pros
pective damage, is to be placed on a
level with the regulating of the size of
farmers potato patch?
In the course of the debate referred
to it was stated that the volume of
water in this same Ottaquechee River.
was not more than eighth or tenth of
what it was forty or fifty years age A
proper and wise interference" in the
cutting of the forests would have pre-
vented this serious damage. When we
consider the grave dangers that threat
en- our State and Nation if unrestricted
numbering methods continue the need
for regulation becomes apparent.
The forest owner high up on the
mountains ought not to be permitted a
freedom which will endanger every
farmer and mill owner on the lower
reaches of the stream fed by the mount
ain brooks. The value of the industries
along our rivers is enormous and the
value of intervale farms is very large.
Ii is rot iuSt To rarrnit tho t;x,aka,.