The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1910-11-24
SCENIC BEAUTY DELIGHTFUL
Supreme Court Decision on Preserving
Towns Natural Attractions.

supreme Court Decision on Preserving
Towns Natural Attractions.
natural beauties of your town must
be preserved. 1t is nature that sug-
gests and We who follow. Therefore
we must keep intact any beautiful nat
ural scenes which may seem 10 GET in
the way of towns growth. but which
really have been the means of mat;np
q town what it is. Don't rob town
of its old MISUNDERSTANDING dear TO
the memories of many of the inhabit-
ants. Just this inspired the beautiful
lines:
Woodman, spare that tree!
Touch not a single bOugh
In youth il sheltered me,
And II protect it now
1t may seem foolish for person to
think of tree in this way. 1t is not.
just these trifes may be the means of
keeping many of your townspeople
who have been born and raised in
your community at home-yes, be-
cause of fond memories If land
marks are ugly get to work and make
them presentable, but preserve them.
In Colorado recently the United
States circuit court handed down a de-
cision which forbade the spelling of a
piece of natural scenery for business
purposes
The canyon and falls of stream
flowing from Pixies peak and the
luXuriant arboreal and floral growth
promoted by the moisture of the spray
from the falls constitute one of the
chief charms of the adjacent town. A
commercial company purposed to take
for it's uses the stream above the falls,
making the latter dry and transform
ing consequently the now verdurous
canyon into an arid and sterile waste.
The town brought suit to prevent this,
and won.
The town argued that, while the de-
PENDANT company had under the state
constitution 1.-The right to divert the
unapprOpriated waters of any natural
stream to beneficial uses" it could not
divert the waters of this stream be-
cause they had already been appro-
priated to beneficial uses by the town
and were therefore no longer 9mnaps
propriated waters" The questisll was
whether the use of the stream t. Raill
tain the falls, the verdure ana tAe
beautiful scenery was ''beneficiai nsei
in the intent of the constitutions 20
this happily the court answered liz 'tsle
affirmative. 1t held that 'heDeneias
use" was not necessarily aariealtarai.
Industrial or commercial use. .Eala the
judge:
Public health Is beaeI. ssse TEST
and recreation fs 4 benehct sc. ard TOR
that purpose water.is used ae-se heau-
tifu lawns. shay aver artractivef
homes ard pubic parks y AZ eletS and
streams a.Nl artificial bsauty.
Parks and Fairgrounds esass are
benefits and their uses be .sclal. aithnflgh
there is no profit derived from ghen. Tue
world delights IN scenic beauty but must
scenic beauty disappear because Il has no
appraised cash value? II Is therefore held
that the maintenance Of the vegasation
in Cascade creek by the flow and see age
and mist and spray of the str4aEg. aISi its
falls as it passes through fae agnyoA IS
beneficial use of such waters withiis the
meaning of the constitution.
Accordingly the waters of the
stream were adjudged to have been
already fully appropriated for benef-
cial uses, and an injunction was issued
agai!, t the intended diversion of them
for industrial purposes. That enlight- /
enel view of the subject is to be com
meEded as a precedent wherever a ]
spot of scenic beauty is threatened
with destruction for sordid purposes.
The United States circuit court in
Colorado has adjudged ieauty to be
useful and lovely scenery 10 be benefi-
cial and therefore to be entitled to the
full protection of the law. the same as
any other valuable asset. In that
judgment there is cause for lovers OF
the beautiful to thank God and take
courage"