Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1915-08-27

poi IuHltS were given LOT It's purchase
by men who desire to till the soil and
thus assist, not only in making homes
for themselves and their families,
but also in developing the state along
agricultural lines to a degree not
now possible on account Of these
lands being withheld from sale.
Cites Colville Reservation.
"As an illustration of the policy of
the federal government along this
particular line, | desire to cite here
the case Of just one Indian reserva-
ton in the state of WashingtOn-the
Colville. 1t is the largest reservation
in the state, and still contains 1896
1886 acres or an area only 1858 square
miles less than the area of the whole
state of Delaware. Allotments on
the reservation were long ago COM
pleted. In 1906 congress passed an
act providing for opening the reser-
vaticn to entry. Nine years have
passed and the reservation is still
unopened. The government has a
commission at work classifying and
appraising the lands, but no date has
been fixed for opening to entry nor
has it thus far been possible to as
certain when the reservation will be
opened. Yet that reservation has
hundreds of thousands of acres of
good land that would be put to agri-
cultural production if the opportunity
was given.
, "The net area of the forest re-
serves or national forests, as they are
variously called, in the state of Wash
ington, with the area of Rainier ma
tional park and the area of the unal-
lOtted Indian lands, makes a total
area of reserved lands within the
boundaries of the state amounting to
12,4O8,91S acres. This is an area
500 square miles larger than the
combined area of the states of New
Hampshire and Vermont. In other
WOIuS, NOuAllh6 III lllC al ca vi lhC
waters of Puget Sound within the
state, % per cent of the total area of
the state of Washington is today in
government reserves and from this
I28 per cent not one dollar is collect
able for the purpose of helping main
tain the state and county govern
ments.
at might be claimed by some that
inasmuch as the federal government
assumes the responsibility for and
protection of this property, the state
has no just cause for complaint. The
truth is that it is impossible for the
federal government to retain control
of these lands without the state
being put to the cost of making i'm
provements through and across the
reserves.
Highways connecting the differ
ent parts of the state have to and
are being built through or across the
reserves, so that the people in the
different sections of the state may be
able to travel and transact business.
The cost of these highways is paid by
the state and by the counties and the
expense borne by the property own
ersAgainst whom assessments can be
levied. and yet the benefits would be
shared by those occupying the lands
now withheld, if such lands were
open for settlement.
States His Position.
II do not desire to be under
stood as advocating the imme-
date disposal of all the lands
now under federal control. But
do feel that the time has come
when the federal government
should accept and be governed
by the correct definition of the
term conservation. Conserva-
ton means preservation from
loss, decay, injury 1t does not,
however, as applied to natural
resources, properly mean with
drawal from use; it is simply
wise use with the avoidance of
waste, and also the avoidance OF
ownership monopoly. l feel that
such lands as are suitable for
agricultural purposes, ought to
be placed in the hands of actual
settlers, so that the state will be
/ assisted in it's development in
! stead of being held back as Is
the case at the present time in
/ many parts of the state of Wash
ington, under the federal policy.
"In this connection it is pertinent
to refer to one aspect of so-called
ownership monopoly Of natural re-
sources, which is not generally I'M
derstood, and for which the states
rather than the federal government
itself, are held responsible by people