Perth Amboy evening news., 1922-01-28
SAVE THE WOODLAND
MR.. HASKIN SAYS
Daily Letter by Frederic J. Haskin

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25.-Every-
thing made of WOOD, from a tooth
pick to t. bungalow. costs more in
this country than it used to cost,
and lumber prices are rising every
year. The aso for this is simple.
the people If the United States are
consuming their timber supply four
tirseS as fas. as L. is growing.
This threatening situation is the
cause of the attention which Con-
gress is no~ going to the problem
of the national timber supply. Sew
eral measures have been drafted,
! and the House committee on agri-
culture has been holding hearings
! on one of tnem. known as the Smell
| bill.
Tnis bill has the support of most
Of the lumber companies. and there
' fore has an excellent chance to be
| enacted int law 1t a a number
of provisions for charging the ma
tional forests, lrefM esting devastated
| forest areas and the like. But the
important part of the problem Is the
protection Uf forests in private own
ership from forest fires, and the reg
ulatiCn of cutting on these forests in
such a wa" that the forest will not
be destroyed but will reproduce it.
self.
The Smell bill seeks to accomplish
this by appropriatiug large SUMS of
money to be spent by the federal
, government in cooperation with the
state governments and the owners
of tiinbeI lanos. in the protection OF
private forests from fire. This is to
be done on The ti~ms-honored system
by which the FEDERAL government
will, not spend o in any one state
than is appropriated in that state
locally.
This measure does not meet with
the undivided approval of conserva-
%tioniSts. 1t doe. not give the fed
eral power. represented by the sec
retary OF agriculture working
through the Forest Service, any di-
rect authoc,ty to enforce rules OF
fire protection or to regulate meth
DDS of cutting so that forests shall
not be destroyed. The federal gov
eminent merely a~rpropriates money,
and makes experiments and sugges-
tons. The making and enforcing of
regulations is left to the state gov
ernments. In the opinion of those
who hold that states rights are all
important and thai the tendency of
the federal government gradually to
rob the state governments of their
power ard independence must be
checked, tins is as IT, should be-.
Is Federal Conservation Necessary?
The argument on the other side is
that in practice, when matters or
conservation are left to the state
governments. they are not adequate
ly attended to- One state, for in
stance. nay pass an excellent for
est law, ans in another state, where
forces interesteu in rapid eXploita-
ton dominate the legislature, prac-
tical.y nothing may be done to pro-
| tect a natural which Is OF
the utmost Importance to all the peo-
pie of the nation During Roose-
velt's administration the principle
was established and acted upon that
| the protection of natural
| which are OIL national extent and i'm
por,ance, should be a duty of the
national government. The national
| forests were created on this principle
in the face of considerable opposi-
tior. and the wisdom of this mea-
| sure ka since beln generally onced
ed. It is argued that it is only a
logical extension of the same prin-
| cipis to protect forests in private
ownership by Fe ,terai authority, now
that their protection mas become
necessary. To leave the protection
OF private forests to the state gov
ernraents would be the same in prin-
| cipla as leaving to the states the
creation OF forest reservations. The
states failed in the latter duty n
most of them have done nothing
adequate to protect private timber
lands.
The principle of cooperation be-
tween state and federal govern
ments in thi~ matter is obviousiyNa
compromise and one which has been
made before. Since, however. II
leaves all real power in the state
government. it is not a very eHectu-
81 Use, the conservationists
urge. 1t IS merely an opportnnity
for the federal power to make sug-
sestion. and for the tax aye 10
Contribute y little money to the pro-
lection of forests in private owner
shin without any assurance as 70
what he will get for his money. IL
may be argued very plausibly tnat
the federal government should have
author y IN proportion TO the
amount of money it spends in any
given case. If tho protection of the
forests is = funct ZOE of the state
governments, which they are cap