"After the final forests (called forest reserves) were created under the law of March 3, 1891, it began to appear that a few rich men were getting hold of vast areas of public timber lands often by methods which I will not stop to describe. These men saw not only that there was going to be a great shortage of timber, but also that when the shortage came it would be enormously profitable for them to control what timber there was left. Their reasoning was good, and they went vigorously to carry it into effect. But President Roosevelt was awakened to the situation. He saw that it would be vastly better to have some of the timber in the Government's hands for the benefit of all the people, rather than have it all in the hands of a few great owners strictly for their own benefit. Action was needed. He acted, and created many million acres of National forests.
"In view of this action of the President, taken to prevent monopoly and consequent excessive price of lumber, it is curious to find some good men honestly convinced that the creation of National forests is a bad thing, because, they say, it is raising the price of lumber to the consumer. It is the general scarcity of timber, not the National forests, that is raising the price of lumber to the consumer, and this is proved by the fact that prices have risen far more rapidly in the East, where there are no National forests, than in the West, where there are many.
"Another very powerful reason stands behind our forest policy. It is needed to protect the watersheds of streams used for irrigation, for domestic water and manufacturing supply and for transportation.
"It has often been asserted that the Government is trying to make money out of the National forests. This is a profound mistake. The forest service is not in business in the ordinary sense of the word. What it is trying to do, and trying hard, is to make the National forests pay expenses by handling theme in a business-like way.
"The returns from the sale of timber will in the end be very large. We can and do give away large amounts of timber to the small man who is making his home, but there is only one safe and clean way to dispose of timber to men who use considerable quantities of it in their business and that is by auction to the highest bidder; then there can be no question of favoritism or graft.
"The case of the range in the National forests is wholly different. The charge for range amounts to but a small fraction of its actual market value. The range, however, is not a transportable commodity like timber. It must be used by the people who live reasonably nearby and it has been in use by them.
"The effect of range protection in the national forests is already strikingly evident. In many localities it has been possible to increase the number of stock carried because of marked improvements of the range under more reasonable use. Very much of the range in the National forests was badly overgrazed. It is recovering, on the whole, with most gratifying rapidity.
"The protection of the forest and the protection of the range by wise use are two divisions of a problem vastly larger and more important than either. This is the problem of the conservatism of all our National resources. This is the basic problem, and it is a very practical and definite one. If we conserve our natural resources we shall prosper. If we destroy them, no amount of success in any other direction will keep us prosperous. It is the question both of the present and the future."
Discussing this feature of the situation, the Portland Oregonian, in an editorial published June 21, 1907, under the caption of "The People and the Forests," and evidently written by some person in full touch with the facts, had this to say:
Control and disposition of the public lands is one of the most important problems now before the American Government, for we have reached a period in our development when control of natural products vitally affects the personal and business interests of all the people. That the public land should be given free to the people has long been one of our most cherished principles. This principle was based upon the theory that free land meant cheap homes and consequently many homebuilders. To the extent that free land, or even cheap land, increases the number of home-owners who get their living from the land they have thus acquired, the policy of giving away the public domain is a wise one and has never been seriously questioned or attacked. But there are different kinds of public land and different purposes for which ownership is desired. The public land policy was framed at a time when the Great West meant the prairie region east of the Rocky Mountains, where the settler could build his cabin, plow the sod, sow the grain and raise a crop the second season, if not the first, after settlement. The expression "public land" conveyed a mental picture of land that could be tilled or that was suitable for home-building. While it was then known in a general way that much of the public domain was timbered or contained deposits of coal, the ultimate value of these natural products was not appreciated. Heavily timbered laud was scarcely considered in forming the policy which contemplated the giving away of the public domain to home-builders.
In recent years, however, we have come to realize the value of timber and coal lands, und understand that purchasers of either do not seek the land with a view to building
Page 463
