The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1922-01-28

WASHINGTON, d. c., Jan. IS
toothpick TO a bungalow, costs more
in this country than it used to cost,
and lumber prices are rising every
year. The reason for this is simple.
The people of the United States are
consuming their timber supply four
times as fast as il is growing.
This threatening situation is the
cause of the attention which congress
is now giving to the problem of the
national timber supply. Several meas
ures have been drafted. and the house
committee on agriculture has been
holding hearings on one of them,
known as the Smell bill.
/ This bill has the support of most of
/ the lumber companies, and therefore
/ has an excellent chance to be enacted
! into law. It has a number of provi-
! sions for enlarging the national for
ests. reforesting devastated forest
areas and the like. But the important
/ part of the problem is the protection
| of forests in private ownership from
! forest fires. and the regulation of cut
| ting on these forests in such way
that the forest will not be destroyed
iDut VIII reproduce ltSelI.
The Smell bill seeks to accomplish
! this by appropriating large sums of
money to be spent by the federal gov
eminent in cooperation with the state
+ governments and the owners of tim
Der lands, in the protection of private
/ forests from fire. This is to be done
on the time-honored system by which
the federal government will not spend
more in one state than is appropriated
I in that state locally.
This measure does not meet with
THE undivided approval of conserva-
: tionists. It does not give the federal
power, represented by the secretary
of agriculture working through the
forest service, any direct authority to
enforce rules of fire protection or to
regulate methods of cutting so that
forests shall not be destroyed. The
federal government merely appropiates
money, and makes" experiments and
suggestions. The making and enforc-
/ ing of regulations is left to the state
+, governments. In the opinion of those
who hold that states rights are all i'm
portant, and that the tendency of the
federal government gradually to rob
the state governments of their power
anu independence UluSI bt SiltNhCh;
this is at it should be.
! Is Federal Conservation Necessary?
The argument on the other side is
that in practice, when matters OF con-
servation are left to the state govern
ments, they are not adequately attend
ed to. One state, for instance, may
pass an excellent forest law, and in
another state, where forces interested
in rapid exploitation dominate the leg
islature. practically nothing may be
done to protect a natural resource
which is of the utmost importance to
all the people of the nation. During
Roosevelt's administration the prin-
cipal was established and acted upon
that the protection of natural re-
sources, which are of national extent
and importance, should be a duty of
the national government. The national
forests We're created on this principle
in the face of considerable opposition,
and the wisdom of this measure has
since been generally conceded. 1t is
argued that it is only a logical extern
sion of the same principle to protect
forests in private ownership by federal
authority, now that their protection
has become necessary. TO leave the
t
state governments would be the same
in principle as leaving to the states
the creation of forest reservations. The
states failed in the latter duty and
most of them have done nothing ade-
quate to protect private timber lands.
The principle of cooperation be
tween state and federal governments
in this matter is obviously a comprO-
mise, and one which has been made
before. Since, however, it leaves all
real power in the state government. it
is not a very effeCtual compromise,
the conservationists urge. 1t is mere
Iy an opportunity for he federal pow
er to make suggestions and for the
taxpayer to contribute a little money
to the protection of forests in private
ownership, without any assurance as
to what he will get for his money. II
may be argued very plausibly that the
) federal government should have au'
thority in proportion to the amount OF
. money it spends in any given case. Il
the protection of the forests is a func
ton of the state governments, which
they are capable of performing, the1
there should be no need for federal ap
preparations to help them do it.