The Glenwood post., 1912-04-27
FEDERAL CONTROL
THE ONLY SYSTEM
Sensible Article by Senator
Poindexter on Much Dis
Cussed Question
STATES RIGHTS FAILURE

From time to time we hear a lot of
tommy-rot by way of criticism against
the modern plan of federal control of
national resources and occasionally
someone, to blind the real issue, comes
forward with a suggestion of state
conservation when, as matter of fact,
the states, as rule, make but little or
no effort along the line of conservation,
even of resources upon their own lands.
One of the most sensible articles upon
the subject to be brought to the atten-
tion of the Post is the following from
United States Senator Miles Poindexter
of the state of Washington:
National public lands in the west
were acquired by the entire nation and
not by individual states. Some by sue
cessful war, in which the people of all
the states contributed men and money;
in some by treaties negotiated on the
strength of the nation s moral influence
and military power, and some by pur-
chase with the nations treasure. The
nation which has so acquired thes.
lands will not consent to abdicate its
ownership of them.
The entire nation, as well as the
states in which they are located, has an
actual interest in the public lands in
preventing a monopoly of their re-
sources, in preventing favoritism and
discrimination in their use and deval-
opment, in promoting reasonable devel-
opment and use by the present genera
tion and in preventing needless extrav-
agance and waste of that which should
be kept for future generations. This
interest lies in preserving an equal op-
portunity for those migrating from the
older states to the public land state,
and in the national consequence of the
monopoly, abuse or destruction Of
streams, forests and fuel supplies, ex-
tending through the borders of two or
more states.
The doctrine that the equitable title
of the public lands is vested in the
states in which the lands are situated
was advanced by Judah P. Benjamin
when Louisiana seeded from the union.
This contention was ably refutei by
James G. Blaine in his "Twenty Years
in Congress- and was finally disposed
of as practical question when the re
lations between the states and the fed
eral government were permanently fixed
by the result of the civil war between
the states.
The advocates of estate conerva-
tion' are not sincere, because almost
without exception they ridicule and
condemn any conservation at all. Their
object probably is to secure unrestrict-
ed private ownership of the public
lands and natural resources by elimin-
ating federal supervision so that they
will have only the state governments to
deal with which are more susceptible
to the influence seeking special privil-
eyes and concessions on the public
domain.
The nation has been extremely liberal
in its grants of lands to the states. In
most of these states the greater part Of
this vast domain, granted for the pub
lie use, as for schools and for naviga-
tion, harbors and fisheries, has been
disposed of for utterly inadequate con
sideration, much of it by fraudulent
means, without appreciable benefit to
the general public.
1t is argued by the opponents of fed
eral conservation that private owner
ship means development and that the
public is thereby benefited. Expert
ence shows that this is not necessarily
SO, as the greater part of the entire
areas of some of the counties of Wash
ington has long been in the hands of
private lumber companies and is entire
ly shut out from development; from
settlement or cultivation, and is re-
& lieved from paying just share of
taxes. So, many of the most valuable
water powers of the northwest have
long been in private hands, and 10
steps whatever have been taken for
their use or development, but they are
simply held for speculation.
In many instances, where develop
ment has taken place, it has been
where big companies have SO monopo-
lized the resources as to shut out the
small cattleman, sheepman or settler.
(Contiuusd on page four)