r tj. . jin. ,f j2ft5dgafcggii mb
'&rr:..
6
VOLUME 8, NU.MBBR 19
was plonty of forest loft for tlio sons who camo
aftor him. When ho exhausted tho soil of his
farm ho folt that his son could go west and
take up another. So it was with his immediato
successors. When tho soil-wash from tho farm
er's Holds choked tho neighboring river ho
thought only of using tho railway rather than
boats for moving his produce and supplies.
Now all this is changed. On tho average
tho son of tho farmer of today must make his
living on his father's farm. There is no difil
culty in doing this if tho father will exercise
wisdom. No wlso use of a farm exhausts its
fortuity. So with tho forests. Wo are over tho
vorgo of a timber famine in this country, and
it is unpardonable for the nation or tho states
to pormit any further cutting of our timber
suvo in accordance with a system which will
provide that tho next generation shall see tho
timber increased instead of diminished. More
over, wo can add enormous tracts of the most
valuable posslblo agricultural land to tho na
tional domain by Irrigation in the arid and
seml-arld rogions and by drainage of great tracts
of swamp land In tho humid regions. Wo can
enormously increase our transportation facili
ties hy tho canalization of our rivers so as to
complete a great system of waterways on the
Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts, and in the
Mississippi valley, from the great plains to the
4i?gbAWJw and from tho northern lakes to
tho mou.'Vof tho mighty Father of Waters. But
all those. VArious uses of our natural resources
aro so closely connected that they should be co
ordinated, and should bo treated as part of one
coherent plan and not in haphazard and piece
meal fashion.
It Is largoly because of this that I appoint
ed tho waterways commission last year and that
I have sought to porpetuato its work. I wish
to take this opportunity to express In heartiest
fashion my acknowledgment to all tho members
of tho commission. At great personal sacrifice
of time and effort they have rendered a service
to tho public for which we can not bo too grate
ful. Especial credit is duo to the Initiative,
the energy, tho devotion to duty and the far
sightedness of Glfford Plnchot, to whom we owe
so much of the progress we have already made
In handling this matter of the co-ordination and
conservation of natural resources. If it had
not been for him this convention neither would
nor could have been called.
Wo are coming to recognize as never before
tho right of the nation to guard its own future
in the essential matter of natural resources. In
tho past wo have admitted tho right of tho in
dividual to injure tho future of the republic for
his own present profit. The time has come for
a change. As a people we have the right and
tho duty, second to none other but the right
and duty of obeying the moral law, of requiring
and doing justice, to protect ourselves and our
children against tho wasteful development of
our natural resources, whether that waste is
caused by the actual destruction of puch re
sources or by making them impossible of de
velopment hereafter.
Any right thinking father earnestly desires
and strives to leave his son both an untarnished
name and a reasonable equipment for tho strug
gle of life. So this nation as a whole should
earnestly desir? and strive to leave ,to the next
generation tho national honor unstained and tho
national resources unexhausted. There are signs
that both the nation and the states are waking
to a realization of this great truth. On March
10, 1908, tho supreme court of Maine rendered
an exceedingly important judicial decision. This
opinion was rendered in response to questions
as to tho tight of the legislature to restrict the
cutting of trees on private land for the preven
tion of droughts and floods, tho preservation of
the natural water supply, and the prevention of
the erosion of such lands, and the consequent
filling up of rivera, ponds and lakes. The for
ests and water power of Maine constitute the
larger part of her wealth and form the basis
of her industrial life, and the question submit
ted by the Maine senate to tho supreme court
and the answer of the supremo court alike bear
testimony to tho wisdom of tho people of Maine
and clearly define a policy of conservation of
natural resources, the adoption of which is of
vital importance not merely to Maine but to
the whole country.
Such a policy will preservo soil, forests
water power as a heritage for tho children and
the children's children of the men and women
of this generation; for any enactment that pro
vides for tho wise utilization of the forests
whether in public or private ownership, and for
the conservation of the water resources of the
The Commoner.
country, must necessarily be legislation that
will promote both private and public welfare;
for flood prevention, water power development,
preservation of tho soil, and improvement of
navigable rivers aro all promoted by such a
policy of forest conservation.
Tho opinion of tho Maine supreme bench
sots forth unequivocally tho principle that tho
property rights of tho Individual are subordinate
to tho rights of the community, and especially
that tho waste of wild timber land derived orig
inally from the state, Involving as it would the
impoverishment of the state and its people and
thereby defeating one great purpose of govern
ment, may properly be prevented by state re
strictions. The court says that there aro two reasons
why tho right of the public to control and limit
the use of private property is peculiarly appli
cable to property in land: "First, such prop
erty is not the result of productive labor, but
is derived solely from the state itself, the origi
nal owner; second, tho amount of land being
incapable of Increase, if the owners of large
tracts can waste them at will without state re
striction, the state and its people may be help
lessly impoverished and one great purpose of
government defeated. We do not think
the proposed legislation would operate to 'take'
private property within the inhibition of the
constitution. While it might restrict the owner
of wild and uncultivated lands in his use of
them, might delay his taking some of the pro
duct, might delay his anticipated profits and
oven thereby might cause him some loss of profit,
it would nevertheless leave him his lands, their
product and Increase, untouched, and without
diminution of title, estate, or quantity. Ho
would still have large measure of control and
largo opportunity to realize values. He might
suffer delay but not deprivation. Tho
proposed legislation would be within the
legislative power and would not operate as a
taking of private property for which compensa
tion must be made."
Tho court of errors and appeals of New Jer
sey has adopted a similar view, which has re
cently been sustained by. the Supreme Court of
tho United States. In delivering the opinion
of the Court on April 6, 1908, Mr. Justice
Holmes said: "Tho state as (Auasi-sovereign and
representative of the interests of the public has
a standing in court to protect the atmosphere,
the water and the forests in its territory, irre
spective of the assent or dissent of the private
owners of the land most immediately concerned.
"It appears to us that few public interests
are more obvious, indisputable and independent
of particular theory than the interest of the
public of a State to maintain the rivers that are
wholly within it substantially undiminished, ex
cept by such drafts upon them as the guardian
of tho public welfare may permit for the pur
pose of turning them to a more perfect use.
This public interest is omnipresent wherever
there is a State, and grows more pressing as
population grows.
"Wo are of opinion further, that the consti
tutional power of tho State to insist that its
natural advantages shall remain unimpaired by
its citizens is not dependent upon any nice esti
mate of the extent of present use or speculation
as to future needs. The legal conception of the
necessary is apt to be confined to somewhat ru
dimentary wants, and. there are benefits from a
great -river that might escape a lawyer's view
But tho State is not required to submit even to
an aesthetic analysis. Any analysis may be in
adequate. It finds itself in possession of what
all admit to be a great public good, and what it
has it may iceep and give to jio one a reason for
iwo Will
These decisions reach the root of tho idea
of conservation of our resources in the Interests
of our people. interests
Finally, let us remember that the conserva
tion of our natural resources, though the grav
est problem of today, is yet but part of another
and greater problem to Which this nation is not
yetwake, but to which it will awake in time
and with which it must hereafter grSpnle if i? U
to live the problem of national eflldencv thS
patriotic duty of insuring the safety and contm!
uanco of the nation. When tho nPnnin ?
United States 'oZTuXSVnht
themselves ns citizens, and tho nation ,i rS!
States in their several spheres, to ?he hishelt
S lie aOndet0r,',nt P?'Vate' S'ate- mSon-
&& ay? &: ss"
Washington Letter
it
Washington, D. C, May 18. The existence
of certain letters from the president to threo
senators bearing upon the discharge qf tho negro
soldiers of the Twenty-fifth Infantry without
honor and his action in banishing Colonel Wil
liam F. Stewart to an abandoned military post
in Arizona has become generally known and
tho letters aro likely to appear in the Congres
sional Record at no late date. The president
is said to have written to Senator Smith of
Michigan and to Senator Stewart of Vermont
letters in which he declared that if tho Foraker
bill, which provides for the reinstatement of
such members of the Twenty -fifth Infantry as
will make affidavit to their guiltlessness of any
complicity in the Brownsville outbreak, shall
bo passed he will veto it, and furthermore that
if it should be passed over his veto he will give
no attention to the directions of congress.
These letters have been seen by many members
of the senate. They furnish the principal topic
of conversation in the cloakrooms today. Their
existence can hardly be doubted. At the same
time they stand as the expression of a strong
man intolerant of legislative control and indif
ferent to the provisions of the United States
constitution. Mr. Roosevelt stands on tho prin
ciple that he is commander-in-chief of the army
and navy and that no action taken by congress
relative to the army and navy can affect his
prerogatives or determine his action. He ac
cords to congress the power to make or refuse
appropriations for the support of the army and
navy, though only recently he threatened to
veto all public building bills unless congress
appropriated $40, 00 a, 000 he wanted for the
four battleships. Of course,- if Mr. Roosevelt
can discharge three companies of soldiers and
refuse to reinlist them even at the demand of
congress, he might discharge the whole army.
If he can discharge the whole army he holds
the livelihood and the professional" career of
every man in the .army at his mercy. It sounds
very much like a modern Cromwell come" to the
White House.
And again there is the mysterious case of
Colonel Stewart. This officer was a colonel in
the coast artillery service. For some reason
not ever explained, he wag suddenly transferred
to a deserted army post in the center of Arizona,
a long way from any coast or any artillery.
There is no garrison there and he was allowed
but one enlisted man to look out for his com
fort. The post is twenty-six miles across the
desert from the nearest village. Ho w'qs 'told
that if he would allow himself to be retired his
application would be accepted, but as he has
four more years of active service he refused
to retire unless made a brigadier general as
he will be if he sticks. On a protest from his
friends he was transferred to St. Augustine,
Florida. He had not unpacked his goods there
before he was curtly ordered back to the Arizona
desert. Now the point of this incident is that
no public charge has been made against Colonel
Stewart. Any officer can be retired for cause
and 'it has been shown that threa companies
of privates can be dismissed upon mere suspi
cion of cause. If the commander-in-chief of
the army and navy in the White House has rea
son to believe that something Colonel Stewart
has done lays him open to punishment, he can
demand a court martial or a court of inquiry.
Neither has been ordered, though it is now under
stood that Senator Rayner of Maryland will de
mand that the latter course be adopted. What
Stewart's sins are no one knows. But the presi
dent insists that' as commander-in-chief he has
the Tight to inflict -discipline arbitrarily, without
investigation and without publicity upon anyone
wearing the United States uniform.
- These two incidents merit more than pass
ing consideration. Both the Brownville case
and the .Stewart case suggest that the mutual
admiration of the emperor of Germany and
Theodore Roosevelt for each other is based
upon a similar belief in their own infallibility
and their superiority to law made by the piain,
ordinary, common people.
A very distinguished journalist and student
of politics said in the press gallery a day or
two ago:
"J canx,110t understand what the dominant
factors in the house of representatives expect
to accomplish by their present methods. Prac
tically every great newspaper in the United
States and all of the smaller newspapers are
urging the repeal of the tariff on wood pulp
and print paper. But the republican machine