Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1922-03-09

Pack SAYS Opposition to
Shifting Of Forestry Bureau
IS General.

forestry bureau from the Department
/ Of Agriculture to the Department of
the Interior are not or have not been
inspired by Secretary Wallace or the
Department of Agriculture. according
to Charles Lathrop Pack, president
or the American Forestry Associa-
ton, who today issued a statement.
The matter has been carried by the
| association to President Harding and
to Congress. Mr.. Pack says that n"
propaganda is being carried on. un-
! less the circulation of editorials of
papers denouncing the proposed
| change and the statements of promi-
nent foresters is to be called propa-
ganda.
We have yet to find an editorial
expression favoring the transfer"
J said Mr.. Pack. The public, it seems
has its mind made up on the PROPOSE
/ ton.
Important to Farmer.
LAS President Harding we'll pointed
to the farmer. The association STANDS
against transferring the forest serv-
ice, because the interests of forestry
are inseparable from those OF agri-
culture. More than SO per cent of the
forests in the long run will be In
farms or interspersed among farms.
The development of forests and agri-
culture must go hand in hand and are
interdependent
The association opposes the pro-
posed transfer because such a step
; would lead to the division of the fed
eral work of forestry among two or
more departments with a consequent
duplication of work, weakening the
leadership and lessening the effec-
nf ~ rnrG ma
| tons.
las a result of the stand taken By
the American Forestry Association.
hundreds of organizations throughout
/ test against the proposal to transfer
the forest service to the Interior De-
partment.
| Written Before Cabinet Picked.
at will be of interest to some. per-
| maps, to know that the article by col
William b. Greeley. chief of the
! United States forestry service, to
which Secretary Fail takes exception
as vicious propaganda against him.
/! was written before President Hard
ing announced the makeup of his
| cabinet.
! The American Forestry Associa-
ton. with thousands of members who
are citizens Of every state in the
| Union. represents the public and is
quite willing to rest the propaganda
4 4uCSliosk Will lHS 6ulLOrS OK the
country and with the public. 1t at no
time has consulted Secretary Wallace
as to its policies nor did he know
what ii was doing unless he saw il
IN the newspapers.
The article written by Col Greeley
tor the American Forestry Magazine.
following his return from Alaska, ana
| referred to above, follows. in part:
An effort is now being made to
create for Alaska local commission.
u: or development board. which would
take over the duties and authority OF
the various federal executives, to-
Getter with the adminStra ton of all
public resources in Alaska. working
solely under the direction Of the Sec
rotary of the Interior This proposal
may well be challenged. After ali, the
national interests in Alaska are
paramount. Alaska represents. in her
marine fisheries. her enormous agri-
cultural areas and her resources for
growing meat-producing animals, one
of the great food sources of the
United States. In her vast forests lies
a practical solution OF our paper
! NntioHaf s.o, X Built u.
The United States has painstakirs-
ly, by many years of effort, built up
national policies for the use of pub
licly owned timber. publicly owned
sources of food. coal and oil resources.
/; water power. and migratory birds
from the standpoint of public welfare
in the long run 1t has built up spe-
cialized organizations handling these
varied resources with the best tech
meal experience and skill the coun-
try affords. Should II now, by one
stroke. cut off q vast region contain
ing one-sixth of our total area from
the uniform and consistent app,ica-
ton of these public policies by the
specialized organizations creared for
the very purpose of their accomplish
ment? think not.
And from the standpoint CT Alaska
herself. in order to bring about the
, most effective development of her re-
sources, it would be unwise to cut
, her off from the direct application OF
the energies. and from the technical
) and financial resources of several
great federal organizations which are
experts in doing the very things that
Alaska needs to have done.
General American Policies.
| The development board plan for
Alaska is unnecessary because the
, same results can be accomplished by
a decentrafized administration of ma
} tional affairs in ALASKA. 1t is dan.
gerous because il means a partial
/ breaking UP of the effective and uni
form execution of vital public policies
for dealing with natural resources.
Let US rather develop Alaska in har-
meny with American policy at all
points. Make her a state as soon as
she is qualified. Give her as rapidly
as may be the local powers that go
with statehood. At the same time
handle permanent national Interests
in Alaska as they are handled else
where. both during ker territorial APP
premiership and after she becomes
state, preserving the same policies
and uniform direction. but with To-
Called administrative machinery
adapted to Alaska's isolation.
THE greatest evil il long-range ad-
ministration. There is too much cen
itralization of administrative author
tfty in Washington, too many delays