| OCR Text |
Show FOREST RESERVES ! ID JMi TAX T. J. Walsh, Eminent Attorney of Montana, Discusses Great Question. DO IilS NOT BELIEVE SYSTEM OF ADMINISTRATION RIGHT. Declares That No Officer Should Have Unlimited Power Given Chief Forester. (By a Staff Correspondent.) OGDEN, .lan. 7. T. J. Walsh of Helena, one of the most, prominont attorneys in that state, twico candidate for congress, one who has made a careful study of iho forest-service forest-service as it relates to state lands, dolivcrod an address at the convention today. Mr. Walsh discussed the elimination elim-ination of public lauds from tho pub- of forest reserves, and discussed that all-important question, always with the sheep owner the grazing tax. lr. Walsh denouncod tho system wherobv an administrative officer is given such unlimited powers as Gjfford Pinchot, the chief forester, and, in the beginning, said thai, his addreBS was more in the nature of an appeal to the powers that bo than anything else. Mr. Walsh snid, substantially: Whatever diversity of opinion may have existed In relation to the genornl policy of forest preservation, its wisdom and propriety aro now universally acknowledged. acknowl-edged. Nowhere Is It supported by a more enlightened public opinion than In the states wherein aro the national forests. for-ests. Moreover, the expediency of Including In-cluding within reserves all timbered areas of the public domain, In order to preserve them from appropriation generally, that the forest they bear may not be indiscriminately indis-criminately sacrificed, or utilized after methods seriously Imperilling the safety of adjacent tracts of like character, Is quite generally recognized. Some time since, with a view to discrediting dis-crediting Ideas advanced by me In reference refer-ence to a policy only related to that under consideration, mv picture was printed In connection with a magazine article, accompanied with some commentary appropriate ap-propriate to that purpose, while on the opposite page was that of a senator from tho state of Wisconsin, commended to the reading public as a steadfast friend of the forest service. The senator In question owed his scat to tho favor of the lumber barons of his state, who devastated devas-tated its magnificent forests, was maintained main-tained by them In place that they might despoil tho public with the least possible hindrance, and retired from the public service when the machine they established estab-lished went to pieces under the inlluenco of the moral awakening which has been a conspicuous feature of recent political Now. should wc, at the risk of accusation accusa-tion of unfriendliness to the main cause, be deterred from Inquiry Into the cost of maintaining the present system? This association 'may very properly consider tho subject, seeing that- Its members contribute con-tribute largely to the aggregate sum. Indeed. In-deed. It is not to lie conceived that the officers of the forestry service, whatever what-ever divergence of views may exist on other matters, will be averse to canvassing can-vassing with us before this meeting, or elsewhere, and In the most businesslike spirit, the propriety of the prevailing charges for grazing privileges for sheep on tho forest reserves. . In the investigation of the subject I have been embarrassed by the paucity of the information from official sources supplied by the public documents distributed dis-tributed to tho libraries. None of the libraries in our state has any report from tho -forester later than 1007. An act of that year required the secretary of agriculture to submit annually to congress con-gress a clasaliled and detailed report of receipts and expenditures of the forestry service for each llscal year, but nono of our libraries have been favored with copies of these reports submitted later than the year last mentioned, . and Inquiry In-quiry at the public library of this city discloses that It has also been overlooked, over-looked, If, indeed, such reports have been printed or circulated. . The total appropriation for the forest service for tho year 11)08 was 53.80B.200; for 1000, 34,616,200. In each Instance ?COO,000 was set apart for the making of permanent improvements on the national forests. It would bo of Interest to you to know just how much of this amount Is made up from the various sources of revenue which the forests supply; what portion of It comes from the sale of timber; how much from grazing, and of that amount how much the sheep Industry contributes and how much the raisers of cattle, and, finally, what sum other "resources," to employ the language of the "Use Book," provide I had hoped, also,' to lay before you the aggregate number of cattle and sheep grazed op the reserves, with the average charge for each class of stock, but even the report of the forester for 1907 affords no basis for computing 'the average charge per head nor tho variations varia-tions In the charges,- If any such obtain. Following that line or Inquiry, It would be Interesting to know how much more or less Is charged In Arizona t than In Montana: what differences there are In the, prices for privileges on the different reserves within any stato or territory, and finally whether uniformity Is 'observed 'ob-served among all users on tho same reserve. re-serve. The report of tho secretary of agriculture agri-culture for the year 1008 discloses, however, how-ever, that pearly Sl.OOO'.OOO were realized from grazing charges for that year. If, In the absence of dofinlto, knowlodgc, the one-half of that sum should he considered con-sidered as coming from the sheep Interestsa Inter-estsa reasonable assumption tho Importance Im-portance of the subject of the grazing tax to the Interests represented by this association Is evident. While I am thus unable to advise you as to how tho $1,000,000 which went Into the treasury In 100S from the stock Interests In-terests of the states within whose borders arft situated the national forests Is apportioned ap-portioned among them, I am, through the courtesy of P. A Sllcox, acting district dis-trict forester at Missoula, Mont., able to advise' you that the amount paid during the last llscal year on account of grazing permits on forest reserves within Montana Mon-tana was $00,385.11. This amount represents repre-sents tho Ineotnc from 160.030 cattle and horses, and S09.300 sheep and goats. He reports that a request for Information as to the amount derived from each class of stftck cannot be complied with, as. the Inquiry would roqulro moro time than can bo spared from offico work, from which I Infer that no compilation of the figures has been made, and that, presumably, there is no available .source of Information Informa-tion in relation to some of tho questions above suggested. I am not unmindful of the fact hat 2o per cent of the sum realized by the forestry service is, under the law. returned re-turned to tho states from which It comes. But it Is apparent that only about one-eighth of that, or a Uttlu. mor than 3 per cent of the whole' amount paid, comes to tho -relief of the class Qf taxpayers from whom It was exacted, thn remainder relieving, pro tanto, the groat mining corporations nnd railroad companies com-panies from the burden which they would otherwise bo required to assume. It If most humbly submitted that this showln! Is one that reflects little credit upor Continued on Page Seven. FOREST SERVICE AND GRAZING TAX Contiuued trom Pape Two. our nution or our government. One dollar dol-lar exacted for lorc-3t preservation ti every $2.8?i for tho education of youth. Not unlikely those who now utilise the forests for grazing purposes, or some of them, would pay even more than they do rather than give up the privilege. Is It a wise policy for the government to applv to this branch of the. service the principle of "all tho traffic will bear." against which most of the railroad legislation legis-lation of Eucent years so popularly up-proved up-proved has been leveled? In tho last published repot t of the secretary of agriculture ag-riculture It Is said: "Were It wire to do so, the receipts from the forests could very easily be made not only to keep pace with the expenditures, but to return to the government the entire cost of maintaining: the forest service Private owners of grazing lands in the same regions ask and recede a. very much higher return per head of stock for the use of their lands than does the forest service." Why should the government, gov-ernment, be guided in fixing a charge. If It should make one. by any rate exacted by private owners for the right to. gra5C their lands? Power Sites. Not tho least among the very substantial substan-tial services rendered by Mr. Gifford Pln-chot Pln-chot to the nation, of which richly deserved de-served mention has heretofore been made in this paper, is his clarion call to the. American people to beware of the absorption ab-sorption by a great trust or sites for the development of water power. In view of the uvershadowing Importance, industrially, indus-trially, which such sites must assume indeed, have assumed no effort that wise statesmanship can suggest should be omitted to preserve thoni from falling into the hands of a monopoly. Every measure reasonably calculated to avert such a. catastrophe deserves and should receive lhe support of patriotic and public-spirited citizens. But if the plan of .disposition of such sites on the public pub-lic dohiain shall contemplate, as lias frequently fre-quently ben advanced, the payment Into the national treasury of a perpetual royalty roy-alty for the prUilcgo of damming the stream or occupying the slli: whereon works of diversion may be constructed, tho people of the west will scarcely be prevailed upon to give, away their birthright birth-right by lending iheir approval to any such measure. It will bo difficult to convince con-vince them thai, it will be any less easy to acquire a monopoly of power sites by the imposition of a royalty to be paid out of the receipts of the operations to be carried on. oi otherwise. Every burden of that character imposed im-posed not only retards the construction of works for the development of power, but -by reducing the profits of operation restricts competition for sites to thoy'c who can construct works of great magnitude. magni-tude. The slower the profits are, the greater the advantage the trust has in the contest for sites. Tb question of monopoly .must bo solved in some other wnj. and by aome other provision than by a federal tax upon operation. But what woubj be the effect of such an Im- UUFii icmi - i lie imn-i i'uni.i ny nuun be obliged to add Just so much more, to what It would otherwise charge eonsum-eis eonsum-eis as will make up the federal tax. Sonic day we shall regula.le by commission commis-sion the charge for electrical power, as we now thus regulate railroad rales, and those of water companies and other public pub-lic service corpora tions. In that day tho commissioners will be obliged to fix the rates lust so much higher than they otherwise would, as will enable the company, in addition to paying a reasonable return on the money invested, tn meet the royally exacted by the national government. Thus lhe people, who consume the power will pay the tax. And who are they? The people peo-ple of the public land states where, in consequence of their mountainous character, char-acter, power ltes abound. Thus this project operates, bowovnr it may be designed, de-signed, to tax the people of the undeveloped unde-veloped west for lhe benefit of their bre.dircn in the older slates. Coal Lands. The same disposition is exhibited in tho proposed revision of the coal land acl--ands bearing coal arc to he made to yield a perpetual revenue to the government gov-ernment under a lease, with a royalty, reserved The acl In question should b radically re Ised. but a change such as that indlcn.led will only place new enterprises enter-prises nt a disadvantage in the compe. titlon with those operating on patented lands, thus discouraging the development of new properties but tho obvious tendency ten-dency will le to iucrea-e the price of coal to the consumer. In other words. Who must rely for their coal supply on mines opejied on tlm public lands. If the government shall commit Itself to such a change as Is proposed in the coal land act. ft will be difficult to advance any reason why the policy should not be adapted as to placer deposits, and when applied to them, quartz veins can scarcely scarce-ly be said to differ so essentially in their character as to constitute, an exception to lhe rule. Why should the secretary of agriculture agricul-ture take any credit, like t'llve. for mod-oral mod-oral Ion. In that he exacted only Jf'0.000 last year for the preservation of the forests, for-ests, 1'ioni the people of Montana who follow the sheep and cattle busbies because be-cause a Private owner of the land on which their cattle grazed would have exacted ex-acted more? What argument can possibly be brought to bear In support of a protective tariff on wool that docs not; imneach lhe wisdom wis-dom and the policy -of the federal grazing tax? While the present revenue policy is pursued, the government cannot, with I tiny regard for consistency, be controlled or materially Influenced In Us action vs I tli icapect tu sraslnje- privileges on the- -yr.if. z'V ' V.,. yWWjWWW1 national forests by anj line of conduct pitvate owners of land may pursue, with reference to like, privilege,, on their property. But without regard to the gCn-lr.V gCn-lr.V 1scHl foIlry o( the government, It has for more than half a renturv hean lc.mCd by all statesmen as a mistake lo try to exploit thfe phiie i,nds with .1 Mew to make them revenue producing. It Is but fair to My that the discussion? or former days had no reference to the problem of grazing on tho public lands, simply because, in those day.- It never entered en-tered Into tha mind' of any man. even the most pronounced stickler for a revest reve-st .E0,Jcy; and lh Pioneer might be cxpioltM along that line. At the nam, time, it Js equatlv proper o remark that it was upon Identically the same considerations of public policy that congrcs extended to all tho privilege ?.f, prnsslng the public lands. How fixed tin. policy hod oecotnc, how nnclent the custom which induced it. the supreme f.ourt ?x. tne "L'n'ted States attested bv its opinion In the. ease of Blnford vs. Hontz. derided In the year 1SP0 in the course of which It said; "We are Of oplu-ou oplu-ou that there. Is an Implied license, growing grow-ing out of the custom of nearlv a hundred hun-dred years, that tha public lands of the In I ted States, especially those n which the native grasses arc adapted to the growth and fattening of domestic animals, ani-mals, shall be free to the people who sek to use them, where they are left open and unlnclosed. and no act of the government govern-ment forbids thin use. For man-- venrs past a very large proportion of the beef which ba. been used by the people of the United State jH the "meat of cattle thus raised upon the public lands without with-out charge, without let" or hindrance or obstruction. The government of the I nlted Slates In all Its branches has known of this use and has never forbidden forbid-den It nor taken any steps to arrest It. No doubt It may bo safely stated that" this has been done with the consent of all branches of the government, and. as we shall attempt to show, with Its direct encouragement. The whole system of th control of the public lands of the United fctatcs. as It has ben conducted by the government under acts of congress, shows a liberality In regard to their use which Ii3s been uniform' and remarkable." Private Owner Comparison. Some misapprehension might. pnlblv, arise from the statement quoted from th- secretary s report to tho effect that "private "pri-vate owners of gror.lng lands.'' In the neighborhood of national Jorests, "nxU and receive a very much higher return per bead of stock for the use of their lands than does the forest service," The largest private owner of grazing "anon in tho state of Montana Is the Northern Pacific Railway company, and t asks nothing for the privilege of grazing graz-ing over its lands. The next largest owner own-er is tho state Itself, and its unoccupied lands arc open to any one. Each rents some of its lands, and the lessee mav fence, if he sees fit, and devote the Knd not only to grazing, but to any other purpose- But so long as the lends remain re-main unfenccd and unoccupied, no fee ftr grazing over them Is. or. under our law can be exacted, nor can any damage? bo awarded on accounr of their having been grazed by the stool; of am one. And all lands hold In prlvai.o owtiedshlp are subject to the same law It being the public policy of the state, considering the importance of the stock Industry that it be not harqpered by a liability to owners own-ers of unfenccd landu on account of the herbage consumed by cattle on the open range. It seems exceedingly remarkable that tho forestry service should find cause for congratulation in the fact lhat it was hold In United States vs. Shannon that the government Js not subject, like every other owner of lands within a state, to this rule, but may at least maintain injunction against owners of stock requiring re-quiring them, as the decision Is understood under-stood by the forestry officers, to see that their cattle do not- stray within the un-fenced un-fenced rescrvcu. One would naturally think that the. nation would choose willingly will-ingly to abide by the established public policy of the state In which It holds property, and if It was unfortunatelv required, re-quired, with due regard to Its own interests inter-ests and its own policy, lo Inelst upon froedom from the rule that "binds all other owners of landf. it would' find in the fact matter for regret rather than congratulation. Additional Season. An additional reason why the principle of "all tho traffic will bear" ought not to ho applied to forest reserve grazing rates is thai U would tend to give a monopoly of the privileges to the large and wealthy sheep. an cattle companies. That the grazing- rights are not awarded to the highest bidder is evidence that the-authorities recognise that considerations considera-tions other than the production of revenue reve-nue are lo have welgfit in the matter of rates. It is because of this thai I have Instituted the comparison between tho contributions made by the slock Interests Inter-ests toward forest preservation and Cor Other public purposes. TJie forest re-servo re-servo pollc.v i? a gren. na.lioual pollcj. It Is recognized as such. It has its advocates advo-cates Jn every section of this preat nation. na-tion. The magazines teem with articles commending the purpose ajid the work of the forestry service, most of which are read with. eager approval. The press gencraJly lend& its cordial encouragement. encourage-ment. Such opposition as the extension of the reserves has encountered and. generally gen-erally speaking, such criticisms of the system by which the law of their existence' exist-ence' is administered, as have been mane, have come exclusively from the .west. -U would do infinite injustice- to most of those who hae thus ardentlv supported the policy of forest preservation to soy that their enthusiasm wa.s heightened by the fact that .under lhe prevailing system the expense of ita maintenance had boen shifted to. shoulders other loan their own. None of the receipts rrom the forests are any longer available for administrative administra-tive purposes, but are turned into the , .-nil-,,.-.. , 1 a hnwui hln- AnAlwl.l Art - tlrcly upon the general appropriation. A substantial reduction in the present rates could be made without imperiling in the least the efficiency of the service or the prospect of its Indorsement in continuing continu-ing ardor by congress. It is quite sig--nltlcant of the character of the rule with which lie Is invested thai at bin word lhe stock interests of the west will pay into the federal treasury this year $2.-uOrt.OOO. $2.-uOrt.OOO. as they would If the. revenue Idea were to be masterful. Insteadof $1,100.-OOe. $1,100.-OOe. this year's contribution, or they will puv nothing. jm.t'as the people of Iowa, and Kansas and Illinois never paid anything any-thing for grazing their cattle on the. public pub-lic lands within those states. So vast are the powers locked up in the simple words of the act of 1S?7! "The secretary of lhe Interior v " may make such ru!cs and regulations and establish such, service as will Insure the objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their occupancy and use and to pres-we, the forests thereon from destruction." It is not difficult to prefer this or any petition? to Mr. I'inehof. Nature fitted blm to make a despotism tolerable. But I have learned much amiss if all political J philosophy worthy of the name docs nor civ out against a system which placej smii unllmiled and unrestrained discretion discre-tion In the .hands of any administrative officer. |
