SD 
 
 '; *- to 
 
Glass_HlAik_ 
 Book >A<^-k 
 
i 0- 35"^3 
 
 61sT Congress, ) SENATE. ( Document 
 
 M Sessio7i. S ] No. 650. 
 
 i FOREST RESERVATIONS. 
 
 IVIr. Hughes presented the following 
 
 ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE JOINT SESSION OF THE COLO- 
 RADO LEGISLATURE, MARCH, 1909, BY HON. E. M. AMMONS, 
 RELATIVE TO THE RIGHTS IN AND USES OF FOREST RESER- 
 VATIONS. 
 
 June 25, 1910 — Ordered to be printed. 
 
 JVIr. Ammons. All*. President, members of the general assembly, and 
 ladies and gentlemen, on the matter of the preservation of the forests 
 there is no dispute between the Forest Service and myself. There is 
 no dispute between any two good citizens of this country. The 
 question as to whether or not the system of control that has been put 
 over these reserves is a wise way in which to administer the forest 
 lands of this country is where the difference of opinion arises. 
 
 All-. Pinchot is m favor of the present policy. He has helped to 
 build it. Long before he came into possession of it, according to his 
 reports, about ten years ago, I find that he was working out the plans, 
 the working plans for the control of these forest reserves. So that 
 we may naturally suppose in addition to what he says that he is in 
 favor of that system of control. I am opposed to it for a good many 
 reasons, and I will try to explain some of them to you. You will 
 notice from what he has said to you to-night that he talks of this 
 system of government as being permanent. In other words, as we 
 have been told from the beginning this policy has come to stay. 
 
 He tells you that he will listen to complaints; that he wants to 
 hear them, and that when they come to him he will give them the 
 most carefid attention and consideration; that he will try to adjust 
 them, and that he will do this with justice. I believe that is true. 
 But he does not give the question as to whether these complaints are 
 caused by a faulty system or not, any consideration whatever; he 
 believes his system is correct. Now, my friends, this is where the 
 issue lies, and it reminds me of the sheriff, who, having read the 
 death warrant to the prisoner, added with much deference: "I will 
 try to make the details as comfortable as possible." 
 
 In what I shall have to say to-night, I mean nothing personal 
 against anyone. I want that understood. But I am going to 
 criticise this service, not because of the men who are out here in the 
 West trying to put it into effect, but because of the principle under- 
 lying it, and because it is a system under which I firmly believe 
 Mr. Pinchot could not give good administration however hard he 
 
'^^ 
 
 2 FOREST EESERVATIONS. 
 
 might try. I am going to give a few illustrations during my talk 
 to-night/ not as isolated cases, not for the importance of the in- 
 stances themselves, but because they illustrate what is happening 
 under this system. As many of you know, I am not able to read 
 myself, being a Democrat perhaps; so that I will have to ask Mr. 
 Eddy here, when I want a passage read, to read it for me. 
 
 l^ow, my friends, I am going to take up a few matters that have 
 been referred to by Mr. Pinchot. He says that they — he and his 
 followers — want homesteaders here on these reserves; that they 
 want the home builder and the home seeker; that they are encour- 
 aging them. Let us see about that. Let us see how practical the 
 effect of his system is in this matter. They have a law, he says, that 
 makes settlement possible. The Congressmen and Senators down 
 in Washington from some of the Eastern States say homesteaders 
 are free to come into the reserves. I have been reading the speeches 
 made the last three or four weeks in support of appropriations, and 
 they claim that homesteaders can go into the reserves and stay 
 without hindrance. A like assertion is made in the documents 
 sent out. 
 
 I want to call your attention to what the law is. It has been 
 advertised in our own press and the press all over the country, and 
 I will ask Mr. Eddy to read just those material portions relating to 
 settlement. 
 
 Under the act of June 11, 1906— 
 
 The Secretary of Agriculture may, in his discretion, and he is hereby, authorized 
 upon application or otherwise, to examine and ascertain as to the location and to the 
 extent of the lands within the permanent or temporary forest reserves which are 
 chiefly valuable for agriculture and which, in his opinion, may be occupied for agri- 
 cultiu-al purposes without injury to the Forest Service and which are not needed 
 for public purposes. * * * That nothing herein contained shall be held to 
 authorize any future settlement of any lands within the forest reserves until such lands 
 have been opened to settlement as provided in this act. 
 
 Now, ladies and gentlemen, just notice the reading of that act. 
 Can you find in it — and that is the material portion of it — one single 
 right for any man to make settlement on a homestead, except at the 
 pleasure of the service ? Now, you have it. There is the plain 
 reading of the law. No man can deny it, and yet that is the law 
 advertised all over this country as the one under which homesteaders 
 ma}^ locate unhindered in the reservations. Notice the reading of it. 
 ^'The Secretary of Agriculture," meaning for all practical purposes 
 the Forest Service, may in his discretion do as he pleases; do these 
 things for John Smith or anybody else; allow him to go into the 
 reserves and locate. But John Smith may go there only at the 
 pleasure of the service. Section 5 doesn't say "may" or "in his 
 discretion," but it says that "no future settlement of these lands shall 
 be made except under the provisions of this act." There is the plain 
 law of it. Did you get that impression from what you have been told ? 
 Did you get it from what Mr. Pinchot has said here to-night ? Here 
 you have the law itself, and everybody in this State ought to read it. 
 The Secretary of the Interior has no discretion in the matter. After 
 these lands are listed, if the Secretary of the Interior is requested to 
 open them, then he has no discretion and must do it; but he can't do 
 it without this request. Now, my friends, that is something that you 
 can not get away from. 
 
 .-. :tL 7 \910 
 
 i 
 
FOREST RESERVATIONS. 3 
 
 What is the actual operation ? There is a case I want to mention. 
 Perhaps you have read it. I am using this as a practical illustration 
 of the workings of this system. Over near the town of Newcastle a 
 man named Porter applied for a homestead September 10, 1906. It 
 was February, 1908, before he got a reply as to whether he could 
 take that land, and then what did they say ? They said it was 
 chiefl}" valuable for grazing; insisted it was very high, being at an 
 altitude of about 8,000 feet; and wasn't, in the opinion of the service, 
 fit for cultivation. They turned him down ; wouldn't let him have the 
 land. He had waited there over sixteen months to find out whether 
 he could take that land or not. That is one instance. Here is an- 
 other: Mr. Pinchot says, "We want home builders." Over there 
 on the western slope is a recent case which illustrates the system that 
 has grown up under this service. 
 
 Before the establishment of the reservation a man by the name of 
 Mitchell took up a desert claim; put water on it; made a home there 
 for his wife and his children; proved up on it; and something over two 
 years ago got his final certificate. Then the Forest Service came in, 
 protested that claim, refused to permit a patent on that land, and 
 to-day it is held as headquarters for some of those rangers. What 
 do you think of that ? They said the settler could not make a living 
 there, but he was making one. Anyhow, is that a good reason for 
 denying him the land so long as he was honestly endeavoring to 
 improve it? He had made his home there. And this is not all 
 they did. He had a crop growing when he got this decision. They 
 permitted him to remain to get his crop, but they rented the place 
 to him — his own buildings, his own crop, his own ]:>roperty — until 
 he could get that crop off and then compelled him to move off the 
 land. Is that the way to encourage home seekers ? And I want to 
 say right here and now that I am willing to contribute my share of 
 the funds, if it is necessary, to carry that case to the Supreme Court 
 of the United States and find out whether this Forest Service has a 
 right to do such things as this. 
 
 A similar case to this I brought to the attention of one of the 
 leading constitutional lawyers of the State, and he said, "They can't 
 do that. We can got that patent." And I said, "Who is going to 
 pay for it ? That fellow liasn't any money. He is just as helpless as 
 a babe. He has got to take what is handed to him." My friends, 
 do you believe that is encouraging settlement ? 
 
 Let me call your attention to something else. There have been 
 numerous cases where men have applied for homesteads and been 
 turned down on the ground of what I call "ranger-steads." Last 
 year some three hundred and fifty homesteads were allowed on these 
 reserves. At the same time there were more than 1,600 ranger- 
 steads allowed. I am going to take their own figures — 1 .675 of these 
 ranger headquarters were withdrawn. The homesteaders were lim- 
 ited to ] 60 acres each. Will anybody tell me how many acres are 
 contained in these ranger-steads ? I hope Mr. Pinchot will explain 
 that, because I would like to have this information myself. Four 
 times as many headquarters set aside for these rangers as there were 
 homesteads granted! Is that encouraging people to come and make 
 homes ? And there has been homestead after homestead refused to 
 make w&y for these ranger headquarters, notwithstanding the fact 
 there were already several times as many headquarters as there were 
 
4 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 
 
 rangers. I could cite more instances of that kind, but have given 
 enough to ihustrate. 
 
 As to this question of mining. We are told here to-night the serv- 
 ice does not interfere with mining and prospecting, that it has noth- 
 ing whatever to do with the validity of a mining claim. You have 
 heard what Mr. Pinchot has just said. We have also Mr. Pinchot's 
 letter on this subject, and I am going to ask Mr. Eddy to read a 
 clause of that letter, published broadcast throughout this State. It 
 was written to the Denver Post and copied in many other papers. 
 
 Under date of October 24, 1908, in a letter signed by Mr. Pinchot, 
 occurs this extract: 
 
 The rules and regulations of the Forest Service do not interfere with the right to 
 prospect, locate, and develop mineral claims. The fact is, the regulations of the 
 Forest Service have nothing whatever to do with the validity of a mining claim. 
 
 Ladies and gentlemen, notice the reading of that extract. What 
 inference do you get from it? It says definitely that there is no 
 interference with the validity of a mining claim. I will ask Mr. 
 Eddy to read a notice of protest from the land office. 
 
 Leadville, August 11, 1908. 
 M. R. Slitka, Breckenridge, Colo. 
 
 By authority of the General Land Office, August 6, 1908. You are hereby notified 
 that a forest oiEcer has filed the following charge against the validity of your mining 
 
 location for the Victor No. 2 lode, Pollock district, , on the following charges, to 
 
 wit. * * * You are notified that if you fail to file in this office within thu'ty days from 
 date, a written or printed answer under oath, denying each of said charges, or showing 
 the state of facts rendering said charges material, and applying for a hearing to deter- 
 mine the truth of said charges, or if you fail to appear at the hearing applied for, said 
 above entry will be rejected and void and entry will be canceled. 
 
 George A. Custer. 
 
 There is an official letter from the land office, showing that the 
 Forest Service brought charges against the validity of that claim. 
 I am not going into that case, however, but I want to call your atten- 
 tion to one thing in the rules, and that is this : That the forest officer 
 who makes the charges against the validity of that claim does not 
 swear to it. He does not have to make an affidavit, but the poor, 
 devil who has to defend it must make an affidavit. And let me call 
 your attention to another thing in connection with this very claim. 
 The forest officers had sold a large part of the dead timber off that 
 claim. They made the sale under the rules of the department which 
 provides that if a man stayed right on the property and watched it, 
 all right, but if he went away they would take the timber and sell it. 
 That is in there ; and you know, every one of you who knows anything 
 about mining, that those prospectors, most of them, haven't much 
 means. During large portions of the year they are compelled to go 
 away and work somewhere for a ''grubstake." That is exactly the 
 case of this man, and had it not been for friends putting up the 
 money to pay expenses, Slitka would have lost the claim within 
 thirty days, because he had not the means to comply with the 
 requirements of the notice from the land office. If a man stays and 
 watches his claim contijiuously, the officers are instructed not to 
 touch the timber. The forest officers are instructed, when they find 
 a claim unoccupied, to sell the dead timber from it, and it is so pro- 
 vided in their rules. Is that encouraging mining and prospecting ? 
 
 Another case : Down in the land office at Del Norte, m the San 
 Luis Valley, a company filed on some placer land, 60 or 80 acres, and 
 
FOREST RESERVATIONS, 
 
 when the clamiants went to prove up on it they found a protest made 
 by the forest oflicers. A hearing was had. Who were the witnesses ? 
 Two rangers, as witnesses, and the supervisor conducted the examina- 
 tion. Wlien the attorneys for the company attempted to cross- 
 examine those witnesses the supervisor instructed that they could 
 refuse to answer the questions, and the rangers refused to be cross- 
 examined. After the hearing was over the land office decided in 
 favor of the claimant. Then the papers went to Washington for 
 patent. And what do you suppose happened? At the time that 
 land was located as a placer claim there was no reservation there. 
 If those people had wanted that land for timber or stone they could 
 have taken it up without any trouble under the timber and stone act, 
 and paid for it at $2.50 an acre. But they wanted it for mineral. In 
 Washington the Forest Service again interfered and presented 
 enough influence to the Commissioner of the Land Ofhce to cause 
 the patent to be refused. That is what happened. Those claimants 
 had to hire an attorney; had to go to Washington and ask for a 
 rehearing. They finally got it, the decision was reversed, and they 
 got title to their land. 
 
 But, my friends, there is another side to this. These proceedings 
 cost them over $7,000. Is that encouraging mining in Colorado? I 
 could tell you of a case in Gunnison that cost $350, and a case in 
 Gilpin County called to my attention, among others, but I am not 
 going to give any more instances. 
 
 I want to call your attention a little further to what this system 
 provides for. Away back when this Forest Service was transferred 
 from the Interior Department to the Agricultural Department there 
 was, at the request of the President, I believe, according to public 
 reports, a "treaty agreed upon" between these departments as to 
 the handling of these public lands. It was, in fact, a treaty. There 
 were three things in that treaty that I will have read to you. I want 
 you to recall all the time what Mr. Pinchot said here to-night, and 
 what he said in that letter he signed, read by Mr. Eddy. I will now 
 ask that three articles in that treaty be read. 
 
 First. The refusal by the General Land Office to issue final certificate or allow final 
 entry for any land claim within the forest reservations against which a forest officer 
 has protested* until a full hearing before the local land office. 
 
 Second. Definite notice to be given by the General Land Office and by the Forest 
 Service of complainants' intention to make final proof. 
 
 Third. The acceptance of the Forest Service finding of facts concerning the land 
 claimed within the forest reserA^ation. 
 
 My friends, that means all kinds of claims. It is plain enough. 
 Whenever any person makes application to prove up on his mining 
 claim or his homestead or desert entry, what happens ? The Forest 
 Service makes an examination, and if it likes files a protest. Then a 
 hearing must be had. The claimant must go to that hearing and 
 present his case. At that hearing the General Land Office must 
 accept the finding of fact presented by the forest officers. The 
 claimant is put to an enormous expense and is at the mercy of the 
 Forest Service. Is that not interfering with prospecting ? Can any 
 reasonable person imagine that you could discourage it more ? Every 
 mining man in Denver knows that the service sends out a ranger to 
 examine mining locations. They pretend to tell you whether it will 
 pay or not, whether there is mineral or not. What mining expert 
 is there who can sav certainlv what is beneath that ground ? How 
 
6 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 
 
 many districts of Colorado have been dug over and over again in 
 which years afterwards somebody comes along and finds the treasure 
 which others thought was there, but were not able to find for them- 
 selves ? How many localities have there been passed upon by the 
 wisest experts we have out here, and passed upon adversely, upon 
 which afterwards paying mineral has been found ? There are not 
 always well-defined veins in sight, and you know a great deal of this 
 prospecting is done because they can not locate the vein. They know 
 from the float that it is there and they run drifts, but no prospector 
 can know exactly where it is. What happens under this administra- 
 tion in a case of this kind ? The claimants are turned down because 
 they can show no well-defined vein. 
 
 I want to call attention to just one more thing, and that is that by 
 the terms of this treaty the Interior Department, which issues the 
 patent, accepts the finding of facts as reported by the Forest Service, 
 whether it is by an expert or not. They accept it and agree to it. 
 They have a sort of treaty between them, and this treaty, this agree- 
 ment, was made, I believe at the request of the President of the 
 United States, and it stands as a fact to-day, and the rules are in 
 accordance with it. I intended to read some of these rules, but I shall 
 not take the time, because they are in absolute accord and the prac- 
 tice is in accord with both the treaty and the rules. 
 
 I now want to take up just for a moment another question; that 
 is as to timber sales. How is the timber sold ? We are told by some 
 of these books that the timber is going to be sold to the people at a 
 reasonable price. As a matter of fact, how is it sold? ^^Tiy, to the 
 highest bitlder. No one can deny that statement, because that is 
 the practice in this State at least. They ask for bids, and it is sole 
 to the highest bidder where there is any considerable quantity of it. 
 Now, my friends, suppose, while we are trying to keep down monop 
 oly, a certain tract of timber is to be sold, and the lumi3er trust, if you 
 
 f)lease, wants it because it may come into competition with its own 
 umber. W^hat does it do ? Bids for it high enough and gets it, and 
 adds the price to the consumer, and you know that is practically a 
 fact. A good deal is made out of the plea that the little fellow, thes^ 
 homeseekers, get all of the timber they want. I took some figure . 
 from Mr. Pinchot's report and last year they averaged to these people 
 $5.49 worth apiece. Yet, my friends, the service insists that we wiE 
 have to make a further limit on this distribution. Before these reser- 
 vations were established the people were permitted to have whatever 
 they needed; they were permitted without let or hindrance. Don't 
 forget that. 
 
 Now, about rights of way for ditches. I may not be able to read 
 the English language correctly, but I have studied these rules pretty 
 carefully, and I find that if some of you gentlemen combine, go over 
 on the western slope, and build a ditch that you are held as specu- 
 lators, and must, under one pretext or another, pay for the right of 
 way. Getting water out of these canyons is exceedingly dillicult. 
 The price charged for right of way must be added to the cost of the 
 water used by the homeseeker who wants to make a home. What 
 is the difi"erence whether the homesteader builds that ditch himself 
 or whether there shall be a union of effort ? I want to tell 3^ou the 
 very reason the reclamation fund has been established is because in 
 
FOREST RESERVATIONS. 7 
 
 SO many instances the settlers could not come together and raise the 
 money to build ditches. 
 
 I want to call your attention to a little red book sent all over this 
 country. It is called "The Use of the National Forests." It reminds 
 us how many ways there are in wdiich the public land may be located 
 before it gets into the forest reserves. It is an oilicial document 
 sent out by this Forest Service. You have been told by Mr. Pinchot 
 to-night that what they want to do is to encourage the settlement 
 of this country. 
 
 Referring to the public lands this book says: "Under whatever law 
 it is taken up, it passes with all of its resources out of the hands of 
 the people forever." Does that look as though they wanted this land 
 to come into the hands of the homesteader 'I What is the best way to 
 get these lands into the hands of the people ( How about the land 
 upon which this building stands ? How about these buildings sur- 
 rounding it ^ How about the magnificent city l These lands have 
 all been taken up under some sort of a law. When you get on the 
 east side of Broadway I believe it was taken up under the homestead 
 or preemption law and was not at that time considered very valuable 
 even for farming or pasturage. According to Mr. Pinchot's book, 
 these lands right here on Sherman avenue, when they passed out of 
 the ownershi]) of the Government, w^ent out of the hands of the peo])le 
 forever. Do you believe that ? Go out into the farming districts 
 where beautiful homes have been built and ditches constructed. 
 :,; Have the lands gone out of the hands of the people or gone into the 
 ^j hands of the people? Tell me that. Which would you rather have, 
 % the landlord system over these lands around the city or have them in 
 j the hands of the owners, the owners living upon them and making 
 1^ them their homes ? 
 
 In this same book, and you heard it reiterated to-night, the Forester 
 says they make no charge for water. Indeed, in the book they go a 
 little further. They say they do not charge for water, but they charge 
 for the conservation of the water. Now, I look over in this same 
 little book and I find the definition of that word "conservation." It's 
 Mr. Pinchot's definition and therefore somewhat official. What do 
 *|you suppose it is? It says it is "the wise use of." Now, therefore, 
 Si my friends, they don't charge for the water; they charge for the wise 
 ^use of it. And I have quoted exactly from that book. 
 ■ Let us note another matter. When they charge for the conserva- 
 tion of water for power purposes, how do they measure that conser- 
 vation ? Easy. By the total amount of water used. These rivers 
 and creeks have been flowing down these hills longer than Mr. Pinchot 
 and I have been alive. I have been looking at them for thirty-five 
 years. I defy any human being to say whether there has been any 
 permanent difference in the amount of the flow in that time. But 
 they are not content with making "a conservation" charge for the 
 whole amount of water used. Mr. Pinchot also w^ants to make us pay 
 for the "fall furnished." Furnished by whom? God Almighty set 
 these mountains on edge so the water would run down hill and furnish 
 power. 
 
8 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 
 
 They say they don't charge for irrigation water; they charge for 
 its conservation. I will ask Mr. Eddy to read something to show 
 they intend to charge for the water itself: 
 
 First. That the forest reserves are for the use of the people and no privileges will be 
 denied unless they exercise a material interference with the reserve interests, or 
 threaten harm to the public. 
 
 Second. That a reasonable charge may be made for all such uses whenever the per- 
 mit involves the withdrawal of the particular resources of the land from the use by 
 the people in general. The charge, however, may probably be remitted in the follow- 
 ing cases: When the use granted will result in direct benefit to the forest reserves or its 
 administration, as for telephone lines, wagon roads, trails, etc. When the use is by 
 any other branch of the Government, district. State, county, municipality, or by 
 
 {)rivate individuals or associations of persons, for the use of water to develop their own 
 and. 
 
 You see that the charge "may probably" be remitted in certain 
 instances. "May probably" is a good expression, and I will tell you 
 that we have had this "may probably" put in these rules ever since 
 the very first one was promulgated. That "may probably" be 
 changed to-morrow, to-day, next week, or any other time, and then it 
 may be stricken out. But the fact remains they intend to charge 
 for water for irrigation wherever an excuse can be found. 
 
 A few days ago one distinguished Senator of the United States, in 
 supporting this Forest Service, capitalized these great resources 
 which the Government might get something out of. The supporters 
 of this service had been preparing these figures to use in an endeavor 
 to increase the appropriation for the Forest Service, and they promise 
 an income from water for power purposes alone of $.30,000,000 a year. 
 That would be a magnificent income, but who is to pay it ? The con- 
 sumer. It will have to be settled for by the people who use light and 
 heat and power, and is therefore an unwarranted, unjustifiable burden 
 upon every home and industry in the State. How can we build very 
 fast under that retarding influence ? 
 
 My friends, they are capitalizing the value of the water for irriga- 
 tion. According to these same figures, those of you who are using 
 irrigating water would be paying to the Gerenal Government an 
 annual rental of $8,300,000. Is that encouraging irrigation of these 
 arid lands ? 
 
 Let me mention sometliing else. We need rights of way. These 
 reserves are scattered over this State, covering sometliing Hke 25 
 per cent of it according to the figures of the Forest Bureau. A large 
 proportion of irrigating ditches, power plants, and railroads must 
 cross some portion of the reserves. Wlien we want a right of way for 
 an irrigating ditch wliich touches one of these reserves, we are en- 
 tirely at the mercy of the Forest Service. Some time ago a certain 
 corporation asked for a right of way for a railroad. This right of way 
 would require about 8 acres of a forest reservation. Land of the 
 same character in that locality was recently sold at 47 cents an acre. 
 There was not much timber and not a very great crop of grass growing 
 on the land. The company finally succeeded in getting a special 
 permit to allow it to go over that reservation at an annual rental of 
 $3 an acre and the service charged for 15 acres. Do you think such a 
 course is helping tilings along ? Then, after thousands of dollars had 
 been spent to build this road, the permit only ran for one year, and if 
 at the end of the year the company had not completed the work it 
 was hable to have to abandon the enterprise. This is the kind of 
 
FOREST RESERVATIONS. 9 
 
 right of way given by this Forest Service whicli is so overanxious to 
 develop the country. 
 
 And there is something else. They have another agreement in 
 this so-called treaty, whereby no right of way can be granted by the 
 Interior Department until a bond is given that satisfies this Forest 
 Service. The treaty does not say it shall be a reasonable bond. If 
 private lands were involved only a reasonable bond could be required. 
 Otherwise, tlie courts would make the terms equitable. If a bond 
 applies to a right of way in the dominion of the Forest Service, you 
 can not protect yourself, but must do whatever is required of you. 
 
 How is this Forest Service organized, anyhow ? We have in this 
 country a system of government composed of three coordinate 
 branches. We, the people, are supposed to control it. We elect 
 our legislators. They come here or go to Congress and announce 
 our policies. Nobody else has a right to announce a policy for us. 
 The law is our policy, and we make it througli these people we elect. 
 If there is a question about the meaning of this policy, we choose 
 courts to inter]:)ret it, and then as announced and interpreted we 
 elect ministerial agents, an executive department, if you please, to 
 carry it into eflect. That principle runs through all of our institu- 
 tions, and everybody knows it. How about this service? This 
 forest-reserve territory is not a small experiment station. It is not 
 a little cattle ranch. I heard Mr. Pinchot say one time he thought 
 it was a pretty big cattle ranch. He realizes it is; he appreciates it; 
 he is trying to make the most of it. It is not a mere cattle ranch. 
 It is a vast territory, bigger than Germany, bigger than France, 
 once and a half times as large as Italy, equal in size to twelve and a 
 half States of this Union, and in Colorado alone there is sufficient to 
 cover four and one-half of the original States. 
 
 . They tell us themselves in the estimates they pul^lish that it has 
 boundless resources not yet developed and capable of supporting mil- 
 lions of people. Therefore, the control of this territory is govern- 
 mental in its functions ; any plan of government that is put over the 
 people within it should be in accord with the other institutions of 
 this Union, and I challenge anyone to deny that principle. The 
 system of government placed over the forest reserves is in direct 
 opposition to this principle. 
 
 Mr. Pinchot makes his own laws, construes them, and executes 
 them. He is the legislature, the judiciar}^, and the executive. Mr. 
 Pinchot claims to have statutory permission for his system. The 
 claim is farfetched. But whether Mr. Pinchot has statutory law 
 for what he does or not, the system is wrong and contrary to our 
 fundamental law, and I believe will so be proven when tested in the 
 Supreme Court. The question is whether the system is right. If 
 not, it should be changed. If he thinks Congress would approve 
 laws such as these rules and regulations I want to ask him right now 
 whether he is willing to go to Congress and ask to have his rules 
 made into law before he enforces them. What the people want is 
 law affecting all alike and not rules and regulations made and enforced 
 at the discretion of one man, whosoever he may be or howsoever good 
 he may be. 
 
 This system has been organized under several laws, and the prin- 
 cipal one of them is this: That the Secretary of Agriculture— which 
 means the Forest Service — shall make the rules and regulations for 
 
10 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 
 
 the use and occupancy of these reserves. That is a broad statement 
 and there is no (k)ubt that he can ^o a long way in that "use and occu- 
 pancy of these reserves." He is hampered by just a few things. 
 The law says we can have mining claims, and he makes us a lot of 
 difhcidty in getting them. Possibly with the consent of the Secretary 
 of Agriculture, somebody can get a homestead, but outside of this I 
 know of no limitation. He has prepared several acts that have been 
 passed, among which is the power to arrest people for violation of 
 these rules and regulations. At first I did not think there could be 
 such a law, but I find there is. It provides that persons permitting 
 their cattle to trespass in violation of the rules shall be subject to 
 arrest, fine, and imprisonment. Mr. Pinchot claims to have entire 
 jurisdiction over this reserve territory. He has taken this claim to 
 the court of appeals in the Shannon case, and has obtained a decision 
 that declares the jurisdiction of the State ceases at the border of the 
 government land. Therefore he has absolute control over these 
 reserves. He is in fact a very sovereign. He can say who goes there 
 and who stays out. He can say whether my cattle can be grazed there 
 or wliether they can not. He can say whether I can do business there 
 or whether I can not. I want to tell you you can not help yourself. 
 These are the powers he has, and he makes the laws for the regulation 
 of these reserves. Do you tliink these things are in accordance with 
 the institutions of this Ameiican country? 
 
 In case of a dispute coming up, as to these rules and regulations, 
 who is the court that tletermines and interprets them ? This depart- 
 ment itself. It is the legislator, the court, and the executive. It 
 has all these three powers in its hands. What is the practical effect 
 of this ? Let us look at it a little bit. I have taken the advice of 
 some very good attorneys. If the forester's contention is correct, 
 that the jurisdiction of Colorado, for instance, ceases at the border 
 of the government land, what becomes of your legislative power over 
 these reserves? Indeed, the service denies your right to pass laws 
 covering this territory contrary to its own rules and regulations. 
 
 The people of the Forest Service say they want to encourage the 
 homeseeker. You heard IVIi'. Pinchot say that to-night. How are 
 they doing it? The only thing they have left the settler is a very 
 limited homestead right and even that is granted only at the pleasure 
 of the service. There is much land included in these reserves that 
 should be opened to entry under the desert-land law, but the benefits 
 of this act are wholly denied within the boundaries of the reservations. 
 Even grazing lands can be located as other agricultural lands outside 
 the reserves. They can not be homes teaded inside the reservations. 
 In fact everything, except the limited homestead and even more 
 limited mineral entry, must be conducted under a system of govern- 
 mental landlordism. A man can go into almost any kind of business 
 if he pays the price, but when he does becomes a tenant. He does 
 not and can not own his own home. Suppose you want to start in 
 business there and get a special permit and build a building. Sup- 
 pose you want to start a power plant. The Forest Service advertises 
 among others some forty-one different lines of business that you can 
 go into in these reserves under a special permit, but the title to the 
 land remains in the Government. 
 
 Under the decision in the Shannon case, the State's jurisdiction 
 does not extend over these reserve lands. Granted for the sake of 
 
FOREST RESERVATIONS. 11 
 
 argument that this position is correct, that the jurisdiction of the 
 State does not go further than the boundaries of the government land, 
 you have got a system of tenantry there. Is that the way to build 
 American homes, under a system of landlortlism, governmental land- 
 lordism at that ? These tenants living on reserve lands can not even 
 vote, because they are outside the jurisdiction of the State. I have 
 had decision after decision hunted down to prove that. 
 
 Suppose improvements are made on these reserve lands. Do they 
 pay taxes ? Not on your hfe. Not a dollar to the State or counties 
 in which they lie; because it is outside of the jurisdiction of this State. 
 Has the State any interest in this policy ? Look at it a moment and 
 see how it is going to affect you. You have no control over it what- 
 ever. They say they return 25 per cent of what they collect. By 
 what right do they fix the amount of taxes in Colorado '. Will you 
 tell me ? They may have a legal right, but by what moral right do 
 they hmit what they return to us? They say for tw^o special pur- 
 poses; schools and roads. They knew these things w^ould catch the 
 people. These are popular. Why, my friend Mr. Pinchot can appre- 
 ciate that. He has had that in mind these many years. Why didn't 
 they favor general taxation ? There is something else these counties 
 have to do besides building roads and supporting schools. They have 
 to provide for protection of life; they have to furnish protection to 
 the rangers and other forest officers. They must provide protection 
 of property, and there is the foundation of all taxes. But they don't 
 help in that they don't contribute a penny toward protection; but 
 pick out these two things that are catchy. 
 
 In the return of this "conscience" fund they limit the amount 
 given to 40 per cent of the tax collected by the county. Suppose 60 
 per cent of any particular county is in the reserve — and I know of a 
 county not far from here of which more than 60 per cent is in the 
 reserve — wdiy should not they put the same amount in that county? 
 They should ; but they don't do it. I might go into this and point out 
 a great many other things in this direction. 
 
 Let us see how this system works as to individuals. In any forest 
 reserveyou may please the people who are living there — doing business 
 there — are depending upon government property. A man may own 
 his homestead, but he can not live there alone. In most mountainous 
 districts he must depend upon the pastures outside. In order to get 
 pasturage he must look to the Forest Service. If there is a dispute 
 as to that pasturage, how does he settle it ? Mr. Pinchot says come 
 to him and get a settlement. If I am doing business in the reserves, 
 I know the friendship of the local officers is necessary to my well-being. 
 I certainly have to have that, because he has the power to recommend 
 against me or for me. I know in many w^ays he could do me little 
 favors, or he could do me an injustice. I therefore must toady to 
 him. This is human nature. That is something that A\'ill exist, 
 whether Mr. Pinchot wants it or not. It is controlled by a law as old 
 as the human race. That man is at the mercy of these fellows, and 
 he does not dare get into a* dispute. How^ can his cattle be taken 
 care of? He must keep them there at the recommendation of these 
 men even if he must drive them from one creek to another until their 
 feet wear off. I know" something about this; I have spent most of 
 my fife at it. I don't believe very many men gather their cattle for 
 
12 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 
 
 counting very often. They are held in a bunch and counted out 
 when sold. It costs a dollar a head to gather them and count them. 
 Now suppose, as has happened, some ranger does not Uke some one 
 and orders his cattle to be gathered and counted in March. Suppose 
 it were this March, with cattle in bad condition. The loss would be 
 not less than 25 per cent. It might break the owner and cost him 
 the savings of a Hfetime. These are the conditions that exist. 
 
 Suppose the stockman does take Mr. Pinchot at his word and 
 appeals to him. If he can get some influential friend to intercede for 
 him, he would probably get that fixed up. What happens ? He has 
 incurred the everlasting enmity of the ranger, and there are thousands 
 of ways in which that fellow can follow him to his ruin. I am not 
 citing an isolated case. I want to tell you that there has grown up in 
 the business out on these little ranges a most vicious system of con- 
 trol, and most of the small stock owners to-day are living in terrorism. 
 Their souls are not their own; their American manhood is subdued; 
 there is ringing in their very souls a hatred of this Government. 
 
 Why, my friends, they say that these grazing lands belong to all the 
 people of this Government. Since the first settler came upon the 
 Atlantic coast there has been this frontier, and it has been opened up 
 by the hardy pioneer who went out a little distance at a time, each one 
 a little bit farther, to graze his cattle. The sister States back East, 
 Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, all of these other States have had 
 their privilege. It never cost them anything. It was an inducement 
 held out by the Government for the settler to come out AVest and 
 occupy these lands and build him a home. He did not find a home 
 there. He did not find afence. He went where, asl havehad personal 
 experience, there was no acre plowed, no foundation laid for a house, 
 where the cabins had to be built, and the land had to be plowed and 
 broken, and the crops had to be fenced and raised, and the only induce- 
 ment offered him was this little pittance of free range for the few head 
 of stock he had. These States have all enjoyed this privilege. The 
 fact that they have ought to appeal to them. Some of these people 
 are before Congress appealing for more funds for this service, and now 
 these same people are coming out here, where the agricultural diffi- 
 culties are much greater than back East, where we must dig canals 
 and build reservoirs to irrigate the land, and say to us, "You must 
 pay for this privilege which we had for nothing." And you will pay 
 tor it forever if this Forest Service has its way. 
 
 They say they are going to take this land and hold it permanently 
 to be handed down to some unknown generation. I want to say to 
 you, my friends, that there is no justice in that policy whether they 
 have permission of law or not. They say they charge a sum only 
 sufficient for administration of the grazing lands. I want to tell you 
 there is not enough grass in any one neighborhood, if you took every 
 dollar of the profits, to pay the salary of one supervisor, and I will 
 stand by the truth of this statement. 
 
 Let us see how this effects the State. I have called your attention 
 to the fact that they have withdrawn the lands and resources from 
 taxation. In Colorado taxation is based mainly upon land. Under 
 the decision in the Shannon case the Government has the jurisdiction. 
 Why? Because it owns the land. Let us see where that will lead 
 us, my friends. They have now between 23 and 24 per cent of Colo- 
 rado in the forest reserves; therefore our jurisdiction is gone from 
 
FOREST RESERVATIONS. 13 
 
 that portion. Another 25 per cent of the area is composed of govern- 
 ment lands which they are trying to get under the same control by 
 the terms of the Curtis-Scott bill. This makes 50 per cent that is 
 taken from the dominion of the State. Suppose the Government 
 buys 25 per cent more. Then our jurisdiction is reduced to 25 per 
 cent. Then suppose they step in and buy the other 25 per cent. 
 What, then, becomes of the legislature and the state government? 
 If the argument is any good in one case, it is good in the other. I 
 deny that it is good law. I want to say that if there ever was a mis- 
 taken decision handed down by an}^ court in America, it was the 
 decision in the Shannon case. Yet the district courts do not want to 
 reverse it; they do not want to go into it. They refuse to go into it; 
 they will not attempt to reverse the higher courts. The greatest duty 
 you gentlemen of the legislature have to perform is to take this matter 
 to the Supreme Court of the United States and find out what your 
 rights as a State are. 
 
 Let me call your attention to something that is exceedingly im- 
 portant. Suppose some fellow commits a trespass. That is, sup- 
 pose his cattle wander on some unfenced reserve. The forest officer 
 puts in a claim for damages, say, $4.50. The stockman disputes 
 the justice of the claim and refuses to pay it. AVliat does the Forest 
 Service do ? Brings suit. For how much ? I don't know how 
 much. In one case they brought suit for $1,000 on a claim of $4.50. 
 Can the ranchman fight the Government ? What will it cost him ? 
 Well, I don't know what it might cost him. I^et me tell you some- 
 thing. I went over to Glenwood Springs and heard the testimony 
 taken for the defense in the Light case. It cost $350 to the stock- 
 men taking testimony one day. The Government then put in its 
 testimony here, and a good many of those interested had to come to 
 Denver. This $4.50 suit was brought against a pretty w^ell-to-do 
 stockman, and yet he was not financially able to fight it. The ex- 
 pense would be so great that even if he should finally wdn it it would 
 cost him all he had. He was, therefore, compelled to settle it on 
 terms dictated by the service. Now, let me tell you that that thing 
 will happen right along until the people of the country understand. 
 Do you believe that is according to American institutions ? How 
 does that conserve the forests of this great State — that sort of 
 terrorism ? 
 
 Suppose the ranger has an enemy. Suppose he has a friend. 
 Suppose the interests of these two people conflict. The ranger is not 
 going to do that friend an injustice, that is one thing sure, and the 
 enemy knows it. If there are any favors to bestow, who will get 
 them, the enemy or the friend ? The man who boosts for the service 
 is taken care of and the one who does not is made to feel the iron hand. 
 Then there is trouble and heartache and bitterness, with no power 
 to command justice. 
 
 Trouble has grown up under this system. Nothing could prevent 
 it. There always has been favoritism and terrorism where this 
 system of arbitrary discretionary power was in control and over- 
 riding the law. Mr. Pinchot can not help that condition, no matter 
 how hard he may try. It is inherent in the system. What does he 
 do if a complaint is made ? He refers it to his force, and they report 
 to him. These rangers are loyal to him, and he has told you here 
 to-night that he is loyal to the men in the service. Wlio has the 
 
14 FOREST RESERVATIONS. 
 
 advantage, therefore, the citizen who comphiins or the loyal ranger? 
 Why, my friends, this ranger down at Del Norte was promoted to be 
 supervisor because possibly he refused to be cross-examined in that 
 mining case. The men in the service have the ear of the department 
 all the time, and the poor devil over on the western slope can not even 
 come to Denver, for ordinarily he can not afford the expense. When 
 he does come here he doesn't know anybody, and perhaps the other 
 fellow has more friends here and more influence. Do you suppose 
 such a system is going to insure good government ? After all is said 
 and done, by wha"t system of moral right should we turn over to any 
 human being or to any bureau of this Government, discretionary, 
 arbitrary power over our territory or any of its people ? 
 
 Tell me something else. Why is it necessary to go into all these 
 lines of business in order to protect the forests ? Wliy is it necessary 
 to include in the reserves the land above timber line, where no timber 
 can ever be made to grow, except for the purposes of the revenue 
 that they are going to get out of it ? Why should they permit the 
 people as tenants on this land to go into the 41 lines of business that 
 they mention, except that the men in the service may get the revenue ? 
 Are these forests not valuable enough to repay the Government for 
 their administration? If not, let it turn them over to the State of 
 Colorado to-morrow, and I will guarantee that they will be admin- 
 istered as well as now, and protected as well from iire, and no other 
 line of business will be taxed in order to support them. 
 
 They say they want a grazing tax to help out these forests. 
 
 ^\liy should they compel the cattlemen to pay tribute to this 
 proposition any more than the banker, the grocer, or any other 
 human being in this State? Tell me that. I want a good reason 
 for it. Their cattle have done no harm to these forests. I want to 
 tell you that these are pipe dreams that they have been sending out 
 through the magazines of this country. I have had more experience 
 in this timbered country than any man in the service that I know 
 anything about. I have yet to see the first pine or spruce tree ruined 
 by cattle. The more the ground is tramped the more the trees are 
 likely to grow. If Mr. Pinchot will go with me on the old road 
 between here and Floyd Hill, where that road went when I was a 
 boy, and where it has been changed now from one place to another, 
 I will show him where the old roadbed has grown thick with pines 
 with not a bush a foot beyond the wagon tracks on either side. As 
 a matter of fact, the people in the Forest Service do not know, and 
 no one knows, under what conditions timber will grow best in these 
 mountains. I have studied this subject from a practical standpoint; 
 Mr. Pinchot has observed it from a theoretical standpoint. I don't 
 claim to know, and I know of no one else that does know, what is 
 the best way to grow timber in this State. \ATiy is it necessary to 
 bring un-American institutions into this country to protect and grow 
 forests ? Can't we grow trees under our own form of government ? 
 
 Mr. Pinchot says he is going to prevent monopoly. How ? By 
 charging a royalty on every resource we have ? What has a royalty 
 charge to do with monopoly, anyhow ? Why hasn't it occurred to 
 this wonderfully wise Forest Service to find some way of preventing 
 monopoly without increasing the price of everything we use to the 
 consumer? As a matter of fact. Mr. Pinchot proposes that the Gov- 
 ernment change its time-honored policy and go into business for 
 
FOREST RESERVATIONS. 15 
 
 revenue, not only in timber growinjj; and lumberini;, but in every 
 possible line, includino; farming and pleasure resorts, capable of being 
 carried on in the forest reserves, and that, too, on untaxed property in 
 competition with our citizens, who must bear the brunt of taxation 
 to build and support our growing and needed institutions. Suppose 
 you own land, upon which you have built improvements, adjacent 
 to a forest reserve. The land has cost you something; you had to 
 build barns and fences and other improvements. You must pay 
 taxes on both your land and what you have put upon it. Just across 
 the line in the reserve the Government, directly or as a landlord, is 
 doing business in competition with you; but it pays no taxes, and 
 even compels you to fence your cattle from off its land. 
 
 My friends, they are putting permanent improvements on this land 
 as fast as they can. In one reserve I know of they built a beautiful 
 cabin last summer and built a big bridge to get to it, so that they 
 would have a scenic spot of ground. They are doing all of these 
 things. They have })ut $5,000,000 worth of sucli improvements on 
 these reservations, and what they pay for it all nuist come out of the 
 resources and the industries of the West. 
 
 They admit many things are wrong, and Mr. Pinchot tells us he is 
 here to fix them up. He says he has come to right wrongs. Bv what 
 right does he come to Colorado to right wrongs? Who gave him 
 authority to fix these laws so that you and I can not go into the courts 
 of the land and defend ourselves against oppression ? 
 
 I have just been looking over the report of the Forester. I find 
 that 78 per cent of the cost of maintenance is for the employees in 
 carrying on business enterprises in the reservations. Therefore only 
 22 per cent is for the protection of the forests. And this business is 
 going to increase just as fast as they can get means to carry it on. 
 Why should they not confine their efforts to forest protection ( They 
 say they haven't time; that they haven't men enough. Let me call 
 your attention to something they are doing in this country. They 
 send out people under pay to lecture on the Forest Service. They lec- 
 ture to women's clubs, for instance. I see one man turned in a bill 
 for $10.25 for a lecture; another for $10. Why wasn't that amount 
 paid for patrolling the forests instead of paying for lectures ? 
 
 I went out to California to the cattlemen's convention, and went 
 with the Colorado delegation before the resolutions committee. A 
 large number of gentlemen, very wealthy gentlemen, in the cattle 
 business, were there. I was informed there were two or three men 
 representing the Forest Service in consultation with the resolutions 
 committee. One of them I knew. He is one of Mr. Pinchot's chief 
 lieutenants. He referred to the Light case. He was explaining to 
 that committee that the reason that this case w^as postponed and was 
 not brought up as it ought to have been was that Mr. Light had got 
 cold feet. Now, my friends, I had to call upon Mr. McGrillis, whose 
 son tried the case, and who was familiar with it, to prove to the com- 
 mittee that the reason that case was held up was an attempt by the 
 Forest Service to make the defense agree to the statement of facts 
 whicli would have put us out of court to begin with. It was a long 
 time before we could get a modification, and in the end the Forest 
 Service did not keep its agreement, but insisted upon a form of 
 complaint which did not state the truth and which cost us a lot of 
 useless expenditure. After the convention this same distinguished 
 
16 FOEEST EESERVATIONS. 
 
 lieutenant of the Forest Service, who was out at the city of Los 
 Angeles protecting the forests from fires and other depredations, 
 wrote an article belittling everybody who had anything to say to 
 thwart their plans regarding the public lands. I believe this is the 
 same gentleman wdio had some time before written another article 
 to a leading periodical in which he lauded himself as a disinterested 
 party who had started out in opposition to the service, but had 
 changed his mind. He had now come to believe it was a great thing. 
 I looked him up and found that, curiously enough, his conversion had 
 come at the very time at which he went on the pay roll of the Forest 
 Service. 
 
 Indeed, a large portion of this force of foresters is used in conduct- 
 ing a press agency. They are publishing articles all over the country, 
 telling what a great work they are doing here and encouraging it. 
 They became so enthusiastic over it that they forgot wdiat the facts 
 really were, and to those of us who have lived in these reserves and 
 have seen some of these remarkable results they are talking about, it 
 becomes very funny indeed. 
 
 They talk about improvement of the ranges. Right in sight of this 
 capitol, and within 20 miles of this capitol, there is one of the oldest 
 reservations in the State. An3^one who has known this range before 
 and since the reserve was established will tell you it is worse to-day 
 than it was before the Forest Service assumed control. They talk 
 about cattle being heavier in the reserves. In one way that is true, 
 for they have gobbled up all the best cattle ranges I know anything 
 about. As to whether or not they have improved live-stock con- 
 ditions we need not go far to find out. Look at this reservation right 
 here in sight of us. I think I have weighed nearly as many cattle 
 from that reservation as has an}^ man who has lived within it. The 
 3-year-old steers from this range before the reserve was established 
 weighed 1,100 pounds on the average, and the dry cows sold for beef 
 went from 1,050 to 1,100 pounds. Of course some years they would 
 go a little higher. jVnd now these cattle are coming to the same 
 market and the 3-year-old steers are averaging 850 pounds and the 
 dry cows 825 to 850 pounds. And I can call to my witness in this 
 very audience a number of as good citizens as are in this State to 
 substantiate that fact. Mr. Pinchot's press agents are publishing 
 laudatory statements which are not true, and they are doing so on 
 the authority of people out here who want special privileges and who 
 are toadying to this bureau, helping them to establish themselves here 
 in the hope of "standing in" and getting advantages. 
 
 What can we do to head off this sentiment ? In their figures they 
 give a monthly circulation of 9,800,000 copies of publications on 
 which this stuff is being printed. Down in Congress they call us 
 "looters" now; they say that every man who took up timber, who 
 built a miner's cabin, who built his homestead house — even he who 
 took up the homestead itself — is a looter of public property. I never 
 was so aggrieved in ni}^ life as at some remarks made in Congress. 
 Is that the way to preserve these forests ? 
 
 Let me suggest a way to preserve them. Let me tell Mr. Pinchot 
 how to have a forest system that will remove every particle of opposi- 
 tion in this country to his administration. Let him confine his 
 efforts and the efforts of his Forestry Bureau to forestry. Let him 
 get it out of his mind that all good is centered in him, that he is a 
 
FOREST RESERVATIONS. ■ 17 
 
 sovereign of every natural resource in the West, and of every industry 
 of our people. If he will take what is necessary of his force of 
 employees and go into the protection of the forests and the growth of 
 the forests, we will all be with him, and he will have the cooperation 
 of this State, and there will be no opposition. If he is going to grow 
 forests, let him grow them where they will grow. Let us have a 
 system of forestry in this country that will extend all over it. He has 
 no right to milk the West for the benefit of the East. 
 
 Do you know that the other day, down in the House of Repre- 
 sentatives at Washington, a bill passed 157 to 147, by which $2,000,000 
 a year are to be taken out of the proceeds in these reservations? 
 What for ? To buy forest reserves in the East. Did you know that ? 
 Is that fair? They propose something els?. The friends of this 
 service down there ])roposed an amendment to the agricultural bill 
 for this purpose. The amendment provided that owners of private 
 lands in the reservations might exchange, mind you, might exchange 
 the lands to the Government for stumpage. In otiier words, that the 
 Government was going to trade this timber for land in order to get 
 jurisdiction over more territory. Fortunately, it was knocked out on 
 a point of order. The same people who supported this amendment 
 were the ones who supported the general policy of tlie Forest Service. 
 Thev were goins: to preserve the timber by trading it for land. You 
 see that this State has a great interest in this. It wants to raise trees. 
 
 The Government ought to conduct an experiment station up here at 
 the agricultural college. I will assure the gentleman the State will 
 cooperate with him. I am on the board of control, and we will find 
 out what are the best trees in Colorado so the citizens can grow them 
 at a profit and for the benefit of the people. The State will join us. 
 
 Now, then, my friends, this Forest Service has not to exceed one- 
 fifth of the timber in the country ; the balance is in private holdings. 
 Up here in our own State no valuable timber grows on the head- 
 waters of these streams. It takes from two to five Inmdred years to 
 grow a tree of any value. Have you ever known of any hard wood, 
 anything that would polish, and finishing wood, to grow at this 
 altitude? In California, I saw a tree just 5 years and 4 months old 
 81 feet high. It was 10-J inches in diameter at the butt. They told 
 me that that sort of timber, eucalyptus, had grown as high as 43,000 
 feet of lumber to the acre in ten years. There are places where you 
 can grow more timber on an acre there than you can grow on a town- 
 ship in the mountains here in the same time. AVliy not find tre_es in 
 other similar climates that will do better here than any of the natives ? 
 When the Forest Service shall engage in that sort of work, it will be 
 acting within its legitimate function and we will join in the work. 
 But whenever the Forest Service attempts to establish a tenantry 
 system and a system of governmental landlordism, when it tells us 
 the Government will keep these lands permanently, withdrawing 
 them from taxation, then the State must continue to fight it in the 
 courts. 
 
 My objections to the rule of the Forest Service are fundamental. 
 Its system of government is wrong. Pretending to have the sanction 
 of law, it violates the most vital constitutional principles upon which 
 our institutions are founded. It makes its own laws, changes them 
 at will, construes them to suit its own pleasure, and enforces them or 
 S. Doc. 650—61-2 2 
 
18 FOEEST RESERVATIONS. 
 
 not as the exigencies of self interest may demand. Under it friends 
 may be favored or enemies punished, servihty rewarded or independ- 
 ent manhood discouraged. It assumes to itself a righteousness of 
 purpose which the trend of its performance does not prove. Its rules 
 are special laws and its continued existence must be purchased at the 
 cost of unpardonable favoritism. Its attempts to reestablish a sys- 
 tem of government by individuals and not by law. It denies the 
 Erinciple of equahty before the law. Through an influenced press 
 ureau its mam energies are spent in praise of acts it does not per- 
 form. Authorized by Congress to grow and protect forests, it has 
 taken millions of acres of mineral and agricultural lands into its 
 dominions, and has gone into every conceivable line of business under 
 a most objectionable system of governmental landlordism. It has 
 been a willing tool in the hands of the Lumber trust by which the 
 price of lumber has been more than doubled to the consumer. Pro- 
 fessing to favor the saving of coal it obstructs the building of hydraulic 
 plants for generating cheaper power and light. It seeks to withhold 
 large portions of our territory from taxation by the State and to 
 impose burdens from royalties upon the development of our resources. 
 Its blighting influence has interfered unreasonably with prospecting 
 and seriously checked the growth of the mining industry. It has 
 locked the doors against settlement and driven the home seeker to 
 other countries. By preventing the construction of power plants it 
 denies us proffered reductions in the price of heat, light, and power. 
 It feeds upon our industries, thwarts our development, and hinders 
 our growth. It is an unnecessary, unprofitable burden. It is an 
 unwelcome importation, and makes a miserable misfit amongst our 
 free American institutions. 
 
 o 
 
mm 
 
'-^"s^^asaasSteaKaBf?. ; 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 00DQTa35ifl7