Evening star., 1935-07-28
CUFFEY BILL RAISES ISSUE
RULED ON BY HIGH COURT
Result of Capper's 1921 Attempt to Con
troll Industry Applicable to Coal
Measure, Says Expert.
BY W. Du B. BROOKINGS.
Manager, National Resources Production
Department, United States Chamber
of Commerce.

department, united states Cnamper
of Commerce
Y EGISLATION similar to the
Guffey-Snyder coal bill was in
troduced in Congress Is years
A-< ago. 1t did not deal with BIZ
luminous coal, however, but with an
other important natural resource
The forests. The story of this proposed
legislation, introduced in 1921 by Sen
ator Capper, affords valuable lessons
to those interested in the Gutfey-Sny-
der bill
Like the Guffey-Snyder BILL the
"Capper BILL the proposed forestry
legislation was called. involved both
ersome constitutional question.
The Guffey-Snyder bill is intended
to give the Federal Government au-
thority to regulate production, prices
and labor conditions of the bituminous
coal industry. The Capper bill was
intended to give the Federal Gov
eminent control over the forest and
logging operations on all timberlands.
Repeated efforts were made to find
constitutional means by which this
could be done.
The Capper legislation was advo-
Gated by a group of conservationiSts
led by Clifford Pinchot. As early as
1906, Mr.. Pinchot stated that the
country would face a timber famine
within II years Undoubtedly he was
sincere in this belief, and in 1920, fol-
lowing the war, when prices of lumber
rose to unprecedented heights, the
time seemed opportune to emphasize
the need of vigorous measures to as
sure a plentiful supply of forest prod
ucts.
Problem Is Complicated.
Just as the widely dispersed owner
ships of coal lands among several hun
dred thousand individuals in % States,
and the several thousand operating
mines, make uniform regulation diffi-
cult in the coal fields, so the hundreds
of thousands of owners of timberlandS
and some 30-odd thousand saw mills
complicate the problem in the lumber
Industry. General compliance with
regulations providing that trees shall
be left to seed the ground, that certain
species shall be cut, that brush and
debris be burned to prevent uncon-
trolled fires, and that proper methods
of logging be used, costs money-and
compliance gives a competitive
advantage.
To enlist the Federal Government
in the task seemed to the forest con-
servationist the simplest method. The
first proposal was introduced in May,
1920, by Senator Capper of Kansas
IS. 4424), whose State has no forests,
but buys much lumber. 1t provided
for Federal Forest Commission" on
which the Secretaries of Agriculture
and Labor and the chairman of the
Federal Trade Commission were to
serve with the United States forester
as executive officer. This commission
was to promulgate the general princi-
pies to prevent forest devastation, and
regulations to govern the harvesting
of forest products so that forest crops
everywhere shall be harvested in
manner suited to the peculiarities Of
forest crops" Cutting or removing for
est products in violation of these reg
ulations was to be a misdemeanor
punishable by fine or imprisonment,
and the annual net income derived
from forest products cut in violation
of the regulations and shipped in
commerce was to be taxed 10 per cent.
1t was so apparent that this legis-
lation was direct assumption by the
Federal Government of authority
properly belonging to the States that
q new method of approach was pre-
Sented in second Capper bill
IS. 1435), introduced May g 1921. 1t
proposed to divide the United States
into forest regions, and authorized the
Secretary of Agriculture to make reg
ulations for each forest region cover
ing such reasonable standards for
the harvest of forest crops as he should
deem necessary to secure in such re-
gion continuous succession of forest
crops of reasonable quantity and quail
ity." To assure compliance. every
lumber operator was to be taxed at the
rate of cents per thousand board
feet on all lumber manufactured in
accordance with these standards, and
IS per thousand on all lumber manu-
factured otherwise.
Lenr0ot Thinks 1t Impractical.
Senator Lenroot was prominent
conservationist and the question of
the constitutionality and practicable
ity of this type of legislation was
submitted to him. His opinion was
that the legislation would be consti-
tutional provided the Supreme Court
sustains our existing child labor law"
He referred to the child labor act of
February, 1919, then being tested in
the courts. On the question Of the
practicability he said:
IT feel that the administration of
such a law would be a colossal task
requiring an army of inspectors,
which would be very serious objec-
tion. I congratulate you upon the
making of plan that will, in my
judgment, stand the constitutional
test if our child labor law is found
constitutional, and am sorry that
I cannot believe that the admins
tration of such a law would be prac-
tical.''
On May IS, 1922, the Supreme
Court declared the child labor act
of 1919 to be unconstitutional.
There had also been some maneuver-
ing to find legal means by which
the Federal Government might regu-
late child labor. In September, 1915,
Congress had passed a law which
attempted to abolish child labor by
excluding from interstate commerce
products in whose manufacture child
labor had been used. The Supreme
Court declared this Act unconstitu-
tional in June, 1918, on the ground
that it was an unwarranted attempt
to use the Federal power over inter-
state commerce to control matters
properly belonging to the States.
Congress next attempted to solve
the problem by imposing tax of 10
per cent upon the annual net profits
of establishments employing child
labor. It was this legislation that
was declared unconstitutional May Is,