A History of Forest Conservation in the Pacific Northwest, 1891-1913

I. Background

The spirit of adventure, of building to the measure of the opportunity, which the Western movement carried into spacious and varied provinces beyond the Mississippi, has changed as the surges of migration have passed over these regions. It has been modified by a growing reliance on association instead of competition. [1]

The story of state and private work in forest conservation during the period 1905-13 is considerably more difficult to evaluate than Federal efforts during the same period. The documents available on Federal activity are more plentiful, and more revealing, than those of the states or of private individuals. Lumber companies are only beginning to open their files to historians; and such company histories as have been written in the past are largely thin in substance and eulogistic in tone. [2] Not one of the studies of state politics in the period has shown clearly the relation of state timber owners or other resource users to state politics, nor clearly related conservation to the progressive movement in the states concerned. [3] In sketching this period, then, the broad outlines rather than minute details will be dealt with.

A second difficulty has been that fundamental work in forest conservation has been overshadowed by events on the national scene. This was the era of magnificant indignation; of muckraking attacks against "timber barons" and their henchmen in Congress; of attacks on Federal forest policy by various groups who felt that it was holding up development of the country; of the Pinchot-Ballinger dispute, and of Woodrow Wilson's promise to give the states a larger share in developing their own resources. Their views, important not only for the nation but for the states in the Pacific Northwest; but the national political fireworks tend to obscure the fundamental work done on the state and regional level in forest conservation.

The background to the period 1905-13 is complex. Under the Roosevelt administration, the conservation movement gathered momentum and was extended to other fields than forests, such as coal lands and water power. Conservation was a field in which Roosevelt was thoroughly at home. He had become interested in the movement early, probably originally through his work as a field naturalist, and his desire to protect vanishing species of game; and also through realization of the effect of the wilderness on the human spirit, in fostering the manly virtues and the democratic spirit. In his writings and in his actions, he displayed a knowledge of land management and resource use unequalled by any other president. He had a wide practical knowledge, through travel in the wilderness and work as a rancher; read widely in the field, and surrounded himself with associates, such as Pinchot, W. G. McGee, and James Garfield, who helped inform him.

In no other field does Roosevelt show to better advantage as a reformer than in this. He showed here none of his habitual inclination to accept half a loaf, but hewed to the line even at the risk of alienating members of his own party, and brought all the weight of public opinion and of his own prestige to bear on the issues at stake. His letters to western senators hostile to the movement, such as Heyburn of Idaho and Fulton of Oregon; his actions in checking land fraud in Oregon, New Mexico, California, and Wyoming; and his backing of Pinchot in creating a better forest administration than had formerly existed, reveal Roosevelt the reformer at his best. He dramatized the movement by a series of conservation conferences; and on his recommendation state commissions were formed to aid the movement. In this, as in other movements, he was aided by writers. Muckrakers and publicists, like Harry Brown, S. A. D. Puter, Stewart Edward White, and Charles Shinn, gathered material to praise the role of workers in the movement or lambaste its enemies. A few novelists began to find in the activities of foresters a new incarnation of Leatherstocking. [4]

Nevertheless, as Roosevelt's second term drew to a close, there were storm clouds ahead. Roosevelt's party was prodominantly a conservative one; he had managed, with remarkable political skill, to get positive action, but in doing so antagonized the conservative wing of his party. Protests by the vented interests arose against the program, taking the form of public land conferences and moves to curtail the President's power to create more national forests. There was also some slipping in sentiment on the part of the lumber interests, partly due to a slump in the lumber market, partly to the Bureau of Corporation's investigation of the industry, partly by the equivocal stand both Roosevelt and Pinchot took on the lumber tariff. [5] The Forest Service had also steered close to the fringes of legality in many of its actions. Many administrative sites were withdrawn, ostensibly for ranger stations, but many of them to save power sites from private exploitation. [6] Further, it maintained a publicity bureau in the department; got free college training for its staff, by means of the ranger short course; and planted resolutions at meetings of groups concerned with forest uses. [7] These policies aroused some opposition not only among members of the public, but also among some members of the Service. The hostility engendered was by no means a wave of resentment; it was sporadic rather than steady, localized rather than universal, and influenced by the work of local interests and pressure groups as well as by national policies.

Roosevelt's view as to wilderness values are found in many places; the prefaces to The Wilderness Hunter and to African Game Trails contain typical statements. Arthur Carhart, Timber in Your Life (New York, 1954), 54, has analyzed this feeling. A critical appraisal of Roosevelt's conservation policies, that pictures them as the root of his other reform policies, is in Whitney R. Gross, "Ideas in Politics: Conservation Policies of the Two Roosevelts," Journal of the History of Ideas, XIV:3 (June, 1953), 421-38. Stewart Edward White's "The Fight for the Forests," in American Magazine, LXV:3 (January, 1908), 252-261, is a good account of the muckraker's work on looters of the forests and their tie-up with politics. His book, The Cabin, gives an appreciation of the work of the service, and especially of Charles Shinn, ranger in the Sierra (North). His novel, The Rules of the Game, is probably the best on the subject; as in all his books, characters are wooden, but background and action is good.

With the Taft administration, a new phase came to the movement. Taft, both through temperament and through political ineptitude, became identified with the conservative wing of the party. His dismissal of James Garfield, and appointment of Richard Achilles Ballinger to succeed him as Secretary of the Interior, aroused the suspicion of many. Ballinger's appointment was a piece of senatorial courtesy to Senator Piles, a man closely allied to the Gugenheim and other speculative interests in Washington. [8] Ballinger's record, while commissioner of the Land Office, while marked by improved clerical methods so far as expediting business was concerned, was characterized by a lax policy toward the public land. [9] The Pinchot-Ballinger dispute revealed Ballinger as violating the spirit if not the letter of Roosevelt's policies, and Taft himself as weak and intellectually dishonest. The matter had much to do with the discrediting of the Taft administration, and the election of Wilson. [10]

II. The Timber Industry

A. Its Structure

Lumbermen faced two problems during this period: one was the economic problem of operating at a profit; the other was the technical problem of managing their forests. Their business was in an unhealthy state; their own efficiency as speculators and logging engineers had operated against them. The difficulty lay in the fact that there was no precedent for the situation in which the industry found itself shortly after the turn of the century. Lumbering in the United States had for two centuries been the story of converting raw materials. In the Mississippi Valley and the Lake states the supply was so readily available and the demand so great that not only manufacturing costs were assured, but the stumpage was out before the carrying charges became prohibitive. The vast supply in the west had been expected to follow suit. There was no way to use the timber without getting title; so speculators and locators got the timber by hook or crook, and turned it over to the mill men. The large purchase of Weyerhauser from the Northern Pacific increased the price; national forests were remote and limited, and legitimate operators could only get a supply of timber by bidding against, or buying from, the speculators. In a period of fifteen years, from 1890 to 1910, the lumber industry loaded itself with a fifty year supply of raw material, much of it on borrowed money.

After 1906 taxes on timberland rose. People reacted adversely to the profits popularly attributed to the timber barons, which were, in many instances, from speculative rather than manufacturing activities. They desired to recover the unearned increment in stumpage values, and also believed that higher taxes would force cutting of timber, which in turn would increase employment and make for good times. On the other hand, the cost of stumpage remained as high as ever; a new and more vigilant public land policy prevented the operator from manipulating the land laws, as he had formerly done; and the price of manufactured timber did not increase. Carrying costs and fire protection were judged to be private functions, paid solely by the owner, without public assistance. As time went on, the curve of the carrying charge approached that of sales value.

A few figures will serve to illustrate this. In 1913 there were in the Northwest 500 billion feet of timber privately owned. At a cost of one dollar per thousand stumpage, the investment was five hundred million dollars. At six percent cost of investment, this amounted to thirty million per year. In 1913 the owners paid six million dollars in taxes and protection, making a total carrying charge of thirty-six million. The total lumber production for the year was five and one half billion board feet, which at thirteen dollars per thousand was worth $72,150,000. Cost of production in wages, supplies and the like amounted to 85% of the sum, leaving $10,822,000 to cover raw material and profit, or about one-third enough to meet the carrying charge. Even in 1906, when manufacturing costs and carrying charges were lower, the industry did not pay its way. [11]

Nor was the situation likely to get better as time went on. The raw material could not be used up, in many cases, until the carrying charge exceeded the cost of the timber's value as a commodity. Private stumpage, bought at a dollar per thousand, held for forty years, would have to be worth over sixteen dollars for the operator to break even.

There were other factors which operated as well. The lumbermen were not particularly skillful business men. They made little attempt to advertise their product to make it more attractive, or to make refinements in their product to meet modern needs. Nor did they experiment in economical distribution of their goods, aside from price fixing agreements and lobbying for a tariff. Neither did they cultivate public opinion. The public had no knowledge of forest economies; they had been so impressed with the speculative side of the business that they had lost all sight of its value. The scandals in Oregon had created something of a "timber baron complex" in that state, so that many looked on the timber owner with much the same abhorrence that John Muir looked on a sheep. There was also, in regard to Federal forest policy, some lack of harmony between the administrative and the legislative branches of the government. Congress, by refusing to create a national forest policy, made it difficult to have any long range forest planning. The pressure to sell national forest timber was a case in point; it came,

...not from anyone wanting timber, but from Congress which insists it return revenue to the treasury and from western states which collect re-embursement through their percent of receipts, for less of taxes. [11a]

In regard to conservation, there were several areas of agreement between the industry and the conservationists. Pinchot, and others in the Forest Service, recognized the need of prosperity for the industry. Operators will not practice conservation unless it pays them to do so. From the standpoint of logging operations, there was need of it; if the price of lumber was low, logs sawing out to a poorer grade than No. 2 common would be left in the woods; if hemlock was unmarketable, such logs would be left to rot. Pinchot realized the need of revision of the tax structure for forest land.

There were other areas of agreement also. Silviculturally, the type of cutting lumbermen used on the west side—block clearcuts—was the best type to insure reproduction of Douglas fir. In making sales on National Forest lands, the main adjustments the operator would have to make to Federal standards would be in fire precautions and utilization of top and butt logs. [12] The more substantial owners realized that the days of speculative profits were over, and that they would have to pay some attention to reforestation and conservation. The Bureau of Forestry, with its working plans, and the research work of the Forest Service, met with hearty cooperation from the far-sighted operators, such as Weyerhauser, St. Paul & Tacoma, and the Northern Pacific. Such plans would not necessarily be put into effect until such time as they could be done so with profit, but meantime the material was useful.

On fire, also, there was a community of interest. Fire yearly devastated the timber holdings, private, Federal and state, of the Northwest. As time went on, the Forest Service developed its own protective organization, and the larger companies did likewise; but many holders did not. The checkerboard pattern of timber ownership made such protection desirable; it included a network of Federal land, in and out of Federal forests; the O. & C. lands; state lands, and private holders. Fire is no respector of boundaries; and the system of protection developed by one owner was nullified if at any time fire might creep over the boundary line.

B. Conservation Work

Until 1902, conservation work on the state level was carried on largely by groups other than lumbermen. In Oregon, the Oregon Alpine Club reorganized and changed its name to the Mazamas. This club had a large and vigorous membership, with mass trips to Mt. Hood or the Lake Chelan country of over a hundred members, and attracting guests from as far away as Washington, D.C. Their members were of importance in arousing public sentiment against raids on the Cascade Range reserve, in creating an administration for Crater Lake National Park, and in starting the municipal park movement in Portland. Its leader, William Gladstone Steel, also organized the Oregon Forestry Association, which numbered in its membership such men as John B. Waldo, A. J. Johnson and Col. L. L. Hawkins. This group was primarily concerned with spreading knowledge of forestry in the state. [13]

In Oregon, the conservation group was somewhat more various in nature. Its members included Edmond Meany of the University of Washington, who had started a forestry course of sorts there in 1894; [14] Elias Payn of Olympia, who worked at getting a bill for state acquisition of tax delinquent cut-over land through the legislature; Addison G. Foster of the St. Paul and Minnesota Lumber Company, and Judge Thomas Burke. All these men were active members of the American Forestry Association. They, like the Oregonians formed a state Forestry Association, to promote knowledge of forestry. [15]

In 1902 an event occurred that spurred the timber owners to action to protect the forests. That year was a disastrous one from the standpoint of fire, in both states. In Oregon, 2,124,000,000 feet of timber burned, in a series of fires in Marion, Clackamas and Tillamook counties; the loss, in timber burned and incomes, mills, barns and saved timber destroyed was estimated at $3,910,000. In Washington the fire was even more disastrous. The Yacolt Burn, which covered much of Skamania and Clark Counties, cost sixteen lives, destroyed 5,026,800,000 feet of timber, and cost a property loss of $8,857,000. In Oregon, the loss was largely to small private owners, as the large companies had not yet begun to operate in the area; in Washington Weyerhauser and the Northern Pacific had extensive losses. [16]

This fire awakened owners to the fact that fire can run in green timber, and to the need for protection. They set to work on two levels; first, in trying to get better state laws to protect their timber, and second in forming organizations of private owners to cooperate in preventing and fighting fire.

Both states had fire laws. It is common law doctrine that fire trespass shall be punished and both states early wrote fire laws in their state laws. In addition, Oregon in 1893, in its first desire to protect its forest reserves, passed a law making sheriffs and deputy sheriffs ex-officio game, fish and fire wardens to enforce all statutes of the state against fire. To encourage vigilance by, the citizens, the informer would get half of any fine levied, the other half to go to the county in which the crime was committed. Washington, in the same year, passed a comprehensive fire law. This law made the State Land Commissioner ex officio state fire warden, and the county commissioners of each county were boards of deputy fire wardens. State timber cruisers were made special patrolmen, with power to enforce the laws and make arrests without warrant. It was the duty of the state fire warden to enforce all laws for protection of forests within the state, and to investigate origins of all fires. The deputies could fix the closed season for burning, in each county. [17]

Lumbermen in both Oregon and Washington tried to get new and better fire laws in 1903, especially to get a state force of firefighters to protect the timber. Largely through the efforts of the Weyerhauser interests, they had some success in Washington. The old law was amended, permitting the boards of county commissioners, as deputy fire wardens, to issue burning permits and hire men to fight fire. Actually, the boards failed to do so, since the counties would have been under the obligation to pay expenses and per diem for the work. As for the slash-burning permits, there was no time limit in their use, and no examination of the area by those who issued the permits. County commissioners, as a whole, were not much interested in this aspect of their work. [18]

The year 1904 was also a bad fire year, and new legislation was sought. At the 1905 meeting of the Washington legislature, lumbermen again under the leadership of the Weyerhauser interests, sought repeal of the former law. It was replaced by the Forest Protection law of 1905, which set up for the first time a body primarily concerned in forest protection. A State Board of Forest Commissioners was set up, with the State Commissioner of Public Lands as ex-officio member. These men were to serve without compensation. They could appoint state fire wardens and deputy fire wardens for the timbered country, and pay them wages and per diem for their work. The legislature appropriated $7,500 for the biennium.

As often happens, however, the state legislature had been niggardly; less than $500 was left by the end of 1905. The State Board of Forest Commissioners appealed to the forest owners for donations of money to keep them going during the second year of the biennium; from an appeal to 800 corporations and persons, only twenty-seven answered, and they sent in only $157. Finally, E. W. Ross, the Land Commissioner, offered to allocate an appropriation of $2000 set aside for state timber lands if the Board could raise enough more for protection. An appeal to George S. Long, the local manager for the Weyerhauser interests, netted $4000, and a second appeal to the lumbermen raised the fund to $10,000. By early 1907 this, too, had been spent, but a third appeal to the lumbermen got enough money to balance the books. [19]

In Oregon, the case was somewhat different. Here, too, the lumber interests worked in 1903 to get a law through to provide protection, and a protective force for the timber lands in the state. The legislature finally approved a law which set up a state forest commission, consisting of five men from five different districts in the states. County fire wardens, and county ranger system, was set up; the wardens to be paid by the state, the rangers by the county. The law also provided for a closed season on burning, and recognized the duty of the state to enforce any forest law, state or Federal, within its boundaries.

The law, however, was vetoed by Governor Chamberlain, then in the middle of his struggle with the lieu land men who did not feel any too friendly to lumbermen as a group. He vetoed it on the grounds that the bill might well be a burden on the taxpayer, since no definite appropriation had been made for the biennium; and that it would help protect the private owner at state expense. The state itself, with no more than 50,000 acres of land left, would pay the bill and get few of the benefits. [20]

Two years later the Oregon State Legislature passed a bill which put the cost of enforcement on the timber owners. By this law, county courts could hire wardens, who would be paid by the timber owners of the county. Permits for slash burning would be issued by the county clerks. Protests rose against this law, due to the fact that permits for burning could be obtained only at the county seat, and were good only for a limited time; a provision which was hard on people in remote parts of a county. In 1907 there was a move to repeal the law. The Forest Service intervened, sending Smith C. Bartrum, Supervisor of the Umpqua Forest down to advise the legislature; and a new measure, set up a state board of Forestry; classified the punative portions of the fire laws; and set up a state controlled warden force with authority to make arrests and to issue burning permits. However, only $500 was allocated to run the Board through the biennium. [21]

Private owners not only worked to get state legislation through, but began work on the guild basis. This activity started in the Weyerhauser subsidiaries of Idaho. There, in 1906, four associations were founded, made up of all the timberland owners in northern Idaho, who cooperated in protecting their property from fire. In 1907 the state aided them, cooperating with them in protecting state land interlocked with the private land, and having costs accessed on an acreage basis. The associations spread to Washington by the spring of 1908, under the name of the Washington Forest Fire Association, with a membership of fifty. They, too, were accessed for protection according to acreage. A similar organization, the Oregon Forestry Association was started in Oregon. It was headed by J. N. Teal, son of a pioneer steamboat builder in Oregon, and attorney for the Oregon and Washington Lumber Manufacturers Association. In Oregon, however, protection was on the county basis, including in each protective group the owners of a given county. [22]

After 1907 the relations of Federal, state and private conservation agencies became more complex. Like the Blue Mountain reserve story, there was activity on two levels. Conservation policies became an issue in partisan state and national politics, and this must be examined. Second, we should examine the relations between private, state and Federal groups in the practical work of forest conservation.

III. Political Currents

The situation in 1907 may be briefly recapitulated. Both Oregon and Washington had passed fire laws; in both the appropriation for the law was insufficient, but in Washington the lumbermen came to the rescue, and future appropriations were adequate. In both states associations of private owners had been organized, to cooperate with one another in fire fighting and patrol work. The Forest Service during this time was also working on the fire problem.

However, there were political differences between the two states, and conservation was a political problem. In Oregon the state administration came under strong governors during this time. Both George Chamberlain and Oswald West were friendly to the federal conservation movement. Both worked closely with the administration in clearing up the Oregon land frauds; both worked closely with the Forest Service in conservation matters; and both were interested in clearing up such land problems as school land management and the management of the O. & C. lands. On the whole, the state had a responsible press. Both the larger Portland papers, the Oregonian and the Journal had fought to expose the Oregon land frauds; and though by 1909 the Oregonian had become more conservative in its editorials than before, the Journal still stood for the Pinchot conservation policies. Furthermore, the State Board of Forestry was a non-political board; besides the Governor, the Secretary of State and the State Forest Fish and Game Warden, it consisted of the member of the Oregon Agricultural College in charge of forestry work, and three men from the state, appointed by the Governor on recommendation of the Lumber Manufacturers Association of Oregon, the Oregon Forestry Association, and the Forest Service. [23]

In Washington there was a different set of circumstances. Control was in the hands of a conservative group of Republicans, both in the state government and in Congress; a group "impervious to attacks from without, and insensitive to attacks from within." [24] Members of Congress and of the state legislatures, and administrative officers, had close ties with speculative interests operating in the state and in Alaska. [25] The larger papers, except for those on the east side, were highly conservative in their viewpoints, and had close ties with the speculative interests and the conservative political machine. The Board of Forestry was a political group, the chairman politically elected and the members chosen by the Governor. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Board, State Land Commissioner Ross, had an implacable hatred of the Forest Service.

Edward W. Ross was one of the stalwarts of the Republican Party. First manager of the Ankeny Senatorial campaign, and later manager of John Wilson's campaign, in 1906, he was elected Land Commissioner. Ross' dislike for the Forest Service was ostensibly on the grounds that the national forests had within their boundaries 500,000 acres of state land, mostly Sections 16 and 36, which were unobtainable for sale. Doubtless there were other reasons for his enmity; the role played by political conservatism, and possibly the fact that there were ties between the speculators and the State Land Office, must also be considered. His views came close to setting the tone of state politics and policy. Moreover, he hindered the cooperation on forest matters between state and federal government, such as had developed in Oregon. Due to his influence, J. R. Welty, the State Forester, refused to answer communications addressed to him by the Forest Service or the Washington Forestry Association. [26]

The differing attitudes of the two states showed up clearly in a conference of 1907. A public lands conference was called at Denver, mainly a protest by grazers who desired to do away with federal control of grazing and turn the grazing land on the public domain over to the states. The meeting was dominated by the stock raising states of the Rocky Mountain West; Colorado had five times as many delegates as any other single state, and Wyoming more than all the remaining western states combined. To the Oregonian, aware of the ties of Senator Mondell of Wyoming with the Union Pacific and with coal interests, it seemed an eastern plot to destroy Roosevelt's conservation policies. The paper's Washington dispatch read,

It has occurred to some Eastern interests that the best way to break down Mr. Roosevelt is to undermine him in the West. An effort inspired in the East will be made in the West against the President to arouse antagonistic sentiment among Western men on account of public land and forest reserve policies. [27]

The Oregon administration took steps to give aid to the administration. Malcolm Moody informed Oswald West, the State Land Agent, that Pinchot would like a strong pro-conservation group at the meeting. West informed the Governor, who told West to select a group that would vote for the Roosevelt-Pinchot ideas. West "scoured the state for ten hard-boiled conservationists who were willing to attend and pay their own way," and sent a group of articulate spokesmen for federal policies. [28] The Washington delegation, on the other hand, was headed by Ross, who was placed on the Resolutions Committee, a logical place for him since the conference had been organized to frame hostile resolutions. At least one hostile resolution, to reduce the size of the national forests, was sponsored by the Washington delegation, and was probably written by Ross. The convention failed to achieve its purposes. The attempt to pack the meeting was so flagrant that the move lost public sympathy; and Roosevelt wielded the "big stick" by publicly condemning the meeting as an attempt on the part of the interests to loot the public domain. [29]

In 1908 an event occurred that was of importance for both states. In that year Roosevelt held a series of meetings with the governors of western states in Washington and at Memphis. The meetings were focused on the program of conservation. Roosevelt asked that conservation commissions be formed in each state, to deal with the problems peculiar to that state, and to work with the National Conservation Commission.

The work of the conferences, in helping to create an awareness of the conservation problem and broaden its scope beyond that of timber and water to include water power, minerals and soil, is well known. [30] Its regional effects have not been studied. Acting on the resident's recommendation, the Governor of Oregon appointed a seven-man Conservation Commission. It was headed by J. N. Teal, head of the Oregon Forestry Association. Teal had a great deal of vigor and organizing ability, and thoroughly believed in conservation. In the first report of the Commission, he recommended a new state water law; interstate cooperation in regulating water use and fisheries; and state action in reforestation, management of cut-over lands, and revision of taxes on timber land. Pointing out that Oregon lagged behind other states in fire protection, he urged that a larger sum than the present $250 per year be appropriated. Such a sum, the Commission reported, amounted to one-half cent per square mile; the Forest Service was spending $11.25. The State Board of Forestry, they reported, was active, but needed more financial backing. [31] The Commission was, until 1913, the most effective single force for conservation in the state.

In Washington, the situation was somewhat different. Earlier in the year, before the Washington meeting, the State Republican Convention had met and reflected in their resolutions the Ross views on state control of lands within the states. The stock stories were told of home owners and stockmen, left in the reserves, without roads, deprived of their land and desolate. [32] Success in the elections of that year seemed to indicate a continuation of the conservative regime. Nevertheless, there were signs of dissent by many from this point of view, though the conservative Republicans were oblivious to the restlessness of the rank and file. [33] The refusal of the State Land Board to cooperate on conservation with the other forestry agencies antagonized many people. O. E. Westfall, Chief Forester of the Washington Forestry Association, spoke for many when he demanded that the state take more definite action to protect its forest wealth, and particularly on the need to "appoint a fire warden who will at least take the trouble to answer letters. As the matter now stands, the fire warden not only refuses to answer civil inquiries but also shows no result from his work." [34] Evidence of dishonesty in the Land Office was publicized by a series of articles in the Spokesman-Review on the Brewster Flat sales. [35]

In November, the Washington Forestry Association met to discuss the President's directive. The meeting opened with an attack by E. W. Ross on the Presidential conference. He had, he said, gone to the conference to talk over matters of school land with the President; but the President had suppressed all news of that. He echoed the ideas recently stated by Elihu Root, that the states have more responsibility and ridiculed statements by Carnegie on mineral conservation. [36] E. T. Allen answered him the next day, denying that the President had suppressed any news at the conference, and defending the government's land policy. The government, Allen said, had control of the remote areas, in the reserves, which were not readily accessible. The state at present was not prepared to take over the timber land, having no system of administration; they could do so, when it could be done on a business-like basis. Meantime, he said, the land was cared for without cost to the state, and the state got one fourth of the proceeds of federal management. [37]

The meeting did have some tangible results, however. The matter of the Conservation Commission was discussed, and the Washington Forestry Association organized the Washington Conservation Association. This Association, in turn, met and made plans to organize a Conservation Congress to be held in 1909, in connection with the Alaska-Yukon Exposition in Seattle. Governor Meade was asked to appoint a commission to take care of the matter. He appointed a Conservation Commission, well loaded with conservative Republicans, including J. J. Donovan, the author of "Whatcom Excitement" and a delegate to the State Republican Convention which had endorsed states rights; John L. Wilson, the former Senator; S. A. Perkins, owner of a string of conservative Puget Sound newspapers; E. W. Ross; and J. R. Welty, the reticent State Forester; Frank Lamb, the timberman of Hoquiam and a host of others. [38]

The Congress was held in Seattle August 26-28, 1909. As usual, proponents of both points of view tried to pack the meeting. The speeches show strong support for the federal program by members of the Oregon delegation, such as J. N. Teal, H. D. Langille, and E. T. Allen. On the other hand, a speech favoring increased state control of resources was given by Governor M. E. Kay. There was a behind-the-scenes fight on the part of the resolutions committee, in which the states-righters, led by Federal Judge C. H. Hanford, fought against any endorsement of federal control of timber and water power, but were finally defeated. Probably the most important decision of the conference was to make it an annual affair. [39]

The period between the Seattle conference of 1909 and the St. Paul conference of 1910 was marked by events of importance to the conservation movement. On the national scene, the states-rights group in Washington was aided by statements of the new Secretary of the Interior, Richard Achilles Ballinger, favoring state, rather than federal control of natural resources. The following statement is typical:

It seems to me that we should not try to impose the whole burden of conservation on the general government, but leave it to the states and to the municipalities to work it out, except insofar as national interference is necessary to protect national interests, and I want to be understood as opposed to the theory that because the state has not exercised to the full its power in the matter of reform, ipso facto the national government must exercise them. [40]

The divergence between the points of view of Pinchot and of Ballinger widened as the year went on, and by early in 1910 Pinchot was dismissed. [41] Further, at the time there were test cases pending before the Supreme Court, the decisions of which would affect the whole framework of the conservation movement. [42]

Most of the State officials, and members of Congress, favored the Ballinger viewpoint, either because of political conservatism or because of close relations of politicians with speculative interests States rights, then as now, offered a convenient cloak for obtaining private benefits at public expense. Some of the more articulate spokesmen of this group have been mentioned. They include E. W. Ross, the State Land Commissioner; J. J. Donovan, who had at one time been an investor in the Cunningham coal claims, in addition to his other speculative activities; [43] Cornelius Hanford, a Federal district judge famous for his liberal interpretation of the land laws, and a close business associate of Ballinger and Ross; [44] Sidney Perkins, owner of a string of Puget Sound newspapers, the one-time private secretary of Mark Hanna, who desired to turn the clock back to Hanna's day; and A. P. Sawyer, a water power speculator, who also owned stock in the Seattle Post Intelligencer. [45]

However, there were other groups, possibly lees noisy but just as powerful, within the state. Miles Poindexter swung to the insurgent side, in defending the Pinchot policies, as early as December, 1909. [46] Lumbermen and conservation associations backed the Pinchot views, as did the Grange. [47] Furthermore, there came changes in state politics which greatly aided the conservationists and did much to discredit the speculative group. Governor Cosgrove died in office and was succeeded by M. E. Hay, a conservative states-rights Republican who had the saving grace of being honest.

In June, 1909, E. T. Allen wrote to Pinchot,

The official situation in the state of Washington is very interesting. As you know, the old State administration, which practically controls the Seattle papers, has always been very hostile to us. Ross dominates this faction. It is to his influence that I ascribe the fact that the Stats Fire Warden will not answer any communication from me or from the Supervisors. The new governor, Hay, is carrying on a fight with all the rest of the State officials. He has put one in jail, forced another to resign, and called a special session of the State legislature to impeach the rest of them. He and Ross are supposed to be bitter enemies.

Allen went on to say that there might be a chance with the new regime for cooperation in fire work, school lands, and classification of state lands. [48]

Hay, in cleaning house, forced the resignation of his Secretary of State, and found his Insurance Commissioner guilty of malfeasance in office. He appointed an investigating committee to look into speculation in school lands; there was strong opposition to this, but by threatening to hold the Legislature in session indefinitely until it had done its duty, he got such a committee. By April, 1910, the committee had reached the conclusion that there had been much laxity in State Land Office operations.

The method of operations of the state land ring would require some explanation. The state laws governing sale of timber were sound ones. Lands, by law, were to be sold by bid or auction, rather than at a definite price, in tracts of not over 160 acres; and on lands with over one million feet of timber to the quarter section, the timber was to be sold separately from the land. On the face of it, the policy was constructive, but speculators found a loophole. State cruisers, in partnership with speculators, would cruise the area and report much less than the real volume of timber. The appraisal would be low, and the timber sold at a low price. [49]

By April, 1910 the report of the committee was complete, and the Spokesman-Review began a series of feature stories and editorials, pointing out that the State Land Commissioner knew what he was doing when he opposed formation of the investigation committee. Eighty acres of land in Cowlitz County, cruised at 100,000 feet, had produced 3,100,000 feet of timber and still had 110,000 feet left. In another area, a section was sold at exactly its appraised value, $5,652.60, in 1901; two years later it was sold to the Silver Lake Railroad and Lumber Company (in which Ross had an interest) for $59,972. A half section, sold as brush land, had on it timber worth twelve to fifteen thousand dollars; another, sold at 3,200, at that time was worth $32,480. In 1908 a half section had been given a state cruise of 100,000 feet, though a county cruise had given it 2,800,000 a year before, and the present cruise gave it 3,210,000 feet. The Spokesman-Review called for a Heney to fight the fraud. [50]

As the time for the Conservation Congress approached, tempers ran high. There was fear in many states that the St. Paul Conference would be a sounding board for the progressive element of the Republican Party; a fear that was justifiable, as Pinchot, in St. Paul, had attempted to get the state party leaders to endorse the progressive stand on conservation. [51] Because of this, Governor Hay called a meeting of western governors to meet at Salt Lake City before the St. Paul Conference, that the West might present a united front against "Pinchotism." The meeting drew up resolutions in favor of state control of resources, and demanded that these views be heard at the conference. [52]

With this background, the Second Conservation Congress met in St. Paul, September 5 through 8, 1910. The meeting promised fireworks on several grounds. The Pinchot-Ballinger dispute was fresh in everyone's minds, and partisans of both sides were there. The organizers of the convention faced the difficult problems of asking votes of confidence for both Pinchot, Roosevelt and Taft, a seeming attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable. Moreover, partisans of both the disposal and the conservationist points of view desired to have the convention endorse their views on withholding or exploitation of forest, water, or mineral resources.

The delegates from the Northwest were a mixed lot. From Washington, M. E. Hay and E. W. Ross, representing the states-rights group, was there; but at least two of the delegates whom Hay had appointed had other views. The Oregon delegation was, during the convention, one of the strongest backers of the federal program, but had become so by a bit of political maneuvering. The delegates in Oregon were selected in two groups; Governor Bowerman picking state delegates, and the lumber associations the conservation delegates. The Bowerman delegates were of the conservative, or states-rights, group. The lumber associations, on the other hand, had chosen a strong group who endorsed the Roosevelt-Pinchot policies, including Malcolm Moody; F. W. Mulkey, chairman of the Progressive Republicans in Oregon; E. T. Allen and J. N. Teal. On arrival in St. Paul, the conservation group met in a rump session in a hotel room, organized the delegation, naming T. N. Strong chairman and M. A. Moody head of the resolutions committee, and passed a resolution favoring federal conservation control. The states-rights group wrote a manifesto, full of "whereases" and righteous indignation, stating that they had not had a hearing and that they believed Oregon should develop her own resources. [53] This group was not in evidence at the convention, however, and it is probable that they went home in a huff. On the other hand, J. N. Teal was placed on the executive committee, and E. T. Allen on the forestry committee.

On the whole, the convention went off fairly peacefully. Governor Norris of Montana condemned the federal conservation policies, but was answered by such men as Governor Pardee of California; J. J. Hill attacked the Reclamation Service, but James Wilson, the Secretary of Agriculture, answered his strictures with home-spun humor. The resolutions passed were, on the whole, favorable to the federal program. it remained for the Washington delegation to provide the most entertainment.

Governor Hay, in his speech, spoke for state control of lands within the state. He remarked on the school land situation, the fact that reserves bottled up the resources of the state, and the need for reforestation. His speech, moderate and reasonable, was from all indications well received. [54] However, later on delegate Christopher G. Herr stated that Hay spoke only for himself, and not for all the people in the state. The 50,000 members of the Grange, he said, repudiated the idea of states-rights. [55] The real clashes came later, however, between E. W. Ross and delegate William Douglas Johns.

Ross at various times interrupted the proceedings on points of order, claiming that the delegates were ignoring vital business and hamstringing expressions of opinion. On one of these occasions Johns exclaimed, "I am from the State of Washington and glory in it, but I do not glory in some of the men that the Governor appointed." Later Johns brought up a series of charges against Ross and Hay. Stating that the administration of the state had been careless with the resources, he accused Ross of letting water power sites worth millions go for the sum of $10,000. As he stated, "The waters of the Chelan River in the Cascades James J. Hill secured (125,000 horse power) by paying filing fees to the state. No wonder he favored state control." [56] He brought up the Olympic land frauds, where "they sold out from $600 to $800 per quarter; a few holding out until within the last few years, and the result is it has passed into the hands of speculators." And of Ross' forest management:

If the National Forests of the State of Washington were turned over by the United States Government to the State of Washington and its officials, and the tender mercies of Land Commissioner Ross, they probably would go just exactly as the Olympic Forest went — into the hands of speculators. . . .

Then came the open clash:

Ross: (claiming privilege) The Gentlemen, so far as the Delegation from the State of Washington is concerned, speaks for himself, and for no one else. Mr. Jones: Thank God, I do not speak for you! Ross: The Gentleman who has just spoken sounded the only discordant note in a meeting of 500 citizens of Seattle where, to a man, they endorsed Richard Ballinger (Hisses from the house).

Ross then launched into a speech, rambling almost to the point of incoherency condemning the conservationists and upholding his administration of the state lands. [57]

The convention struggle was watched with interest by people within the state. J. J. Donovan, erstwhile author of the Whatcom Excitement wrote in the Bellingham Sun-Herald attacking the action of the convention in again setting Pinchot and his policies on a pedestal. The effects of the forest policy, he wrote, were:

An area greater than the 13 old colonies . . . is administered at an annual deficit of $2,000,000 and with a waste by rot of more timber than is cut annually.

And in a letter to Senator Wesley L. Jones, he wrote:

I am somewhat curious to watch the development of the existing convention struggle, especially as it affects the rights of the state and nation, but Mr. Roosevelt's ideas, according to their logical conclusion, mean the nation will go into the development of water power, opening of mines, and sawing of timber. It may be that we may yet compete with Russia in the working of mines by convicts. [58]

The period 1910-12 was comparatively quiet so far as conservation as a political issue was concerned. In 1910 Miles Poindexter, representing the Pinchot views of strong governmental action on conservation, won the primary nomination over Judge Thomas Burke, who backed the Ballinger states-rights views. The victory of Poindexter is commonly regarded as the result of weakness and division in the Republican Party; but it is reasonable to suppose that the exposure of state land frauds, in which members of the conservative wing of the party were concerned, alienated many voters and awakened the public to the fact that the cry of states-rights was being used as a mask for stealing public property. [59] In 1911, the cases Light vs. United States and United States vs. Grimaud clearly settled the question of the right of the United States to manage her public lands, and knocked another prop from under the states-rights position, [60] The fires of 1910 tested and demonstrated the strength of the Forest Service as a working organization, and made for a more favorable point of view toward that organization. Finally Hay, himself, who was by no means opposed to conservation, began some constructive work in regard to conservation. He appointed a commission to examine the question of timber taxation and to recommend a set of laws for reforestation of logged off lands and sale of state lands. J. J. Donovan was named as chairman of the commission; but its membership included many who were more friendly to the federal conservation group than Donovan. Frank G. Miller, of the Forestry Department, and two other professors from the University were included; and several lumbermen, including Frank H. Lamb and George S. Long, were on the committee. The commission worked closely with the Forest Service, and came up with a program of tax revision, classification of lands, and a non-political State Forestry Board, chosen like that of Oregon. [61] The State Legislature also appropriated a sum of $10,000 to the State Geological Survey, for soil and land classification in the cut-over area. [62]

In 1913, however, new crises loomed up. Wilson's position, that the states should play a more active part in conservation, seemed made to order for the states-rights group. A new public lands conference was called for 1913 in Salt Lake City. In Washington, old remonstrances were dusted off, and new ones written. From Skamania County came a memorial asking that 114,000 acres of allegedly arable land in the Wind River watershed be eliminated from the National Forest. From Lewis County came a petition castigating the Forest Service for its administration of the June 11 act, and asking that all land below 3,500 feet in elevation (including administrative sites) be set aside as agricultural land. [63] In Congress, Representative Lafferty of Oregon revived his bill to transfer the National Forests to the states, and Representative Humphrey of Washington introduced a resolution calling for an investigation of the Forest Service. [64]

Those concerned with conservation gathered material for a counter offensive. On the suggestion of C. J. Buck, an album of photographs, showing fraudulent timber claims in Lewis County, was gathered and sent to Henry Graves to use at the Salt Lake City Conference. The report of the Washington legislative investigating committee was also forwarded, to illustrate Ross' management of state lands. [65] Charles Flory, in a long letter to The Forester reported that there were comparatively few requests for eliminating lands from the forest, and most of these came from stockmen and commercial clubs who were interested in more settlement or in fees for locating settlers. In Washington, he reported, the main protests came from the Bellingham papers, both the Herald and the American Reveille. In these, the heaviest stock-holders were J. J. Donovan, vice-president of the Larson Lumber Company, a chronic troublemaker; E. B. Deming of Pacific American Fisheries; E. W. Purdy, owner of the First National Bank of Bellingham; G. H. Hyatt, Mayor of Bellingham; the Bellingham Bay Improvement Company; and S. A. Perkins, owner of the Tacoma Herald, and a power in the local conservative wing of the Republican Party. All were interested in exploiting land, fish, lumber, and other resources. Another interested party was W. T. Beck of Republic, attorney for Canadian Pacific interests. Flory reported, "His attitude is believed to be the result of an attempt of his company to secure certain rights of way along the San Poil River in opposition to the Great Northern Railway Company, and having been delayed in the enterprise by the requirements of the Department of the Interior." Beck believed that if the Colville National Forest had been under state control, there would have been no difficulty. [66]

Graves collected a huge dossier on land frauds, concentrating on the Big Creek and St. Joe River claims in Idaho and the Index claims in Washington. Pinchot worked up an account of the Washington claims, including information on coal land withdrawals in the Bellingham area and reports of maladministration by Ross. [67] T. T. Munger, preferring national to state control of the national forests, worked up what still remains one of the most lucid defenses of the advantages of such a management. [68] In Oregon, Governor Oswald West prepared a paper for the Salt Lake City Conference, defending federal control of rivers and forests.

The counter-offensive was successful. [69] In Washington, the memorials passed the Senate but died in committee in the House. Probably the desire of the state for more Weeks Act money, and the propaganda barrage of the Forest Service, had some influence. At Salt Lake City, the views of West, pointing out that the states were not prepared to go into the business of managing forest lands, found support from Governor Hunt of Arizona. [70] In Congress, Representative J. W. Bryan gave a lengthy, brilliant defense of the Forest Service, indicating the absurdity of the charges Humphrey had made, and Humphrey's own intellectual dishonesty in making them; and pointing out the close alliance of politics, newspapers and land looting in the Puget Sound area. Both Humphrey's resolution and Lafferty's bill failed. [71]

IV. The Triple Alliance

On the professional and associational levels, there were other important developments, which the froth and bubbles of political controversy tended to obscure. Among those interested in the realities of forest conservation, rather than creating a sounding board for partisan or private purposes, there was a wide area of agreement. In 1909, Allen wrote to Pinchot, reviewing regional matters:

The past six months have seen a really remarkable change in the attitude of practical lumber men in both Oregon and Washington. . . . The more progressive and dominant ones are converted not only to fire protection but to conservative holding of cut-over lands, and the necessary work should be directed at the public and the legislatures, rather than at the land owners themselves.

In Oregon, both the Oregon State Board of Forestry and the Oregon Conservation Association worked closely with him. The Oregon Conservation Association, an organization consisting of public spirited citizens doing work in every sort of resource management, handled the clerical and educational work for the State Board of Forestry. Lumbermen in the state, Allen reported, would accept practically anything Allen set before them. In Washington, the Washington Forest Fire Association worked closely with the Forest Service and with the Yellow Pine Associations. [72] Among all these organizations there was a community of interest in fire prevention, reforestation, and establishing forestry on a sound basis in the area. Sometime during this year, probably on a vacation in Tahiti, Allen dreamed of a new super organization, which would combine all the protective and conservation groups into a single great organization. This dream he realized before the year was out. [73]

In 1909 two meetings of the Lumbermen's protective Associations in Washington, Oregon and Idaho were held in Spokane. In the course of discussing the fire protection work of the associations, Allen suggested that a new organization be founded, an organization in which diverse interests and management need not interfere with the single aim of protecting timber from fire. Individual owners, it was proposed, could join their local organizations; and a league of assistance of the various organizations could be formed to cooperate in protecting forests. The program met with approval, as far-sighted men like George S. Long and Frank Haines Lamb had been thinking along the same lines. [74] Formed first under the name of the Pacific Northwest Protection and Conservation League, the organization changed its name by December to the Western Forestry and Conservation Association. By December, the association decided to keep on the permanent staff a combination forester and publicity man. Allen's background of experience in public relations, his competence in forestry work, and the fact that he was respected by the loggers, made him amply qualified for the job. In addition to this, he had won the confidence of George S. Long, the local manager of the Weyerhauser interests. On receiving assurances from Long that he would have a free hand, he accepted the position.

The organization had, and continues to have, a widespread effect on conservation matters in the Northwest. Initially concerned mainly with fire protection, as the major forest problem in the area, it rapidly became the clearing house for matters dealing with reforestation, tax revision, planting and other aspects of forestry. Its constitution provided for membership by federal and state forestry agencies. [75] as well as private owners. The organization rapidly expanded into the chief center or information for timber interests from the states of Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and California; the State Forest Boards of these states, as well as other conservation groups; the Forest Service of Districts 1, 5 and 6; and the Provincial Forests, private owners and associations of British Columbia and Alberta.

Its annual meetings provided a clearing house for points of view and constructive suggestions on matters of common interest to all connected with timber management. Here the organizing ability of Allen, the diplomacy of C. S. Chapman, the vision and local knowledge of H. D. Langille, and the influence of George S. Long, could all work for common ends. Yearly reviews of the fire season in each state and district; discussions of mistakes and favorable gambits in fighting fires; methods of cutting down risk on logging operations; telephone, trail and patrol systems, enforcement of laws, and considerations of desirable legislation—all these and other problems were talked over fully and frankly. The give-and-take of the meetings helped break down old animosities. J. J. Donovan, long the source of hostile resolution, remarked at one of the meetings:

Two years ago I had the misfortune in the Logging Congress in Portland to suggest in some slight detail that there might be room for improvement in the administration of the Forest Service. I immediately offended Mr. Allen, and he swore he would get even. He has gotten even with me, and incidentally, is getting even with some of you who may be good friends of him, because I have come to consider Mr. Allen about the most efficient man on that job in the United States. [76]

The chief immediate need for fire protection in the area was to get more state appropriations for Oregon. Fire damage in the state had amounted to 61,037 acres of timber burned, worth $2,485,776, in addition to damage in second growth mon-merchantable timber. The action of the state on this was next to nothing; they had appropriated $500 for the biennium, in contrast to $75,000 for fish protection, $34,000 for game protection and $13,000 for horticulture for the biennium. The reason for this was that the people felt that the owners of the timber had stolen it, and should protect it at their own expense. They ignored the role the timber industry played in wages and labor. By contrast with Oregon's frugality, Washington had appropriated $35,000 for the biennium; the Washington Forest Fire Association spent $40,000 for protection, the Oregon owners a similar sum, and the Idaho owners $51,000. The Forest Service spent $35,000 that year for protection. in addition to $241,538 for improvements such as trails and telephones which could be used for fire fighting. There was need for concerted work by all these agencies. [77]

The protective program was aided by a bad fire year. The year 1910 was the worst fire year since 1902 in the Northwest. Idaho and Montana were hard hit; Washington less so, but in Oregon a series of bad lightning storms made this the worst fire year thus far recorded. In Washington, A. L. Llewelling, President of the Western Forestry and Conservation Association, persuaded President Taft to send Federal troops to fight the flames. Troops were then sent to the aid of the Forest Service in the Crater fire, in southern Oregon, where a handful of Forest Service men under C. J. Buck had to hold 26 miles of fire line. The value of the permanent improvements of the Forest Service, in the way of telephone lines and trails, was demonstrated in that fire; and people as never before became aware of the need for protecting the forest resources of the region. As one writer put it,

The success with which the affiliated private forest protective associations of the Pacific Northwest met the difficult situation thrust upon them by the menacing fires throughout the region makes a remarkable showing. Scarcely less noteworthy is the fact that this success was due, first to the example of the Forest Service, whose methods were closely followed by the associations, and second, to a liberal policy of spending money in order to get results. The private cooperators spend from one to ten times as much on fire protection alone as the government spends for the entire administration of the national forests. [78]

The lumbermen's associations, the Forest Service and others interested in conserving the forest set to work to get more protective measures. They were aided by passage of the Weeks Act, in February, 1911. The bill, to "enable any state to cooperate with any other state or states or with the United States, for protection of watersheds of navigable streams," [79] held out the bait of federal funds for protection of watersheds to those states which could qualify, which meant whether in the judgment of the Forest Service they had taken steps toward getting a protective system of their own. It was obviously to Oregon's advantage to qualify. C. S. Chapman, the District Forester, resigned from the Forest Service early in 1911 to head the Oregon Forest Fire Association, an organization separate from, but affiliated with, the Washington Forest Fire Association, and made up of owners in Oregon. He began at once to press for better fire legislation. [80] Through united efforts of that organization, the Forest Service, the Western Forestry and Conservation Association, the Oregon Conservation Commission and the Oregon Conservation Association, a bill was passed through the Oregon Legislature that materially strengthened the fire organization of the state. It provided for the appointment of a professional State Forester, to administer the state forests, and an appropriation of $60,000 for the biennium, for fire protection and investigative work. The State Forestry Board was not only a non-political board with a trained man as administrator, but had money enough to run on. In addition, the State got $5,000 Weeks Act money. [81]

The results of the program began to show by 1911. Far less fire damage occurred during that year, partly due to the fact that it was not so bad a fire year, partly to increased interest in spotting and putting out fire. More convictions were obtained against illegal burners; the Washington Forest Fire Association alone obtained thirty convictions. In Oregon, 423 men were in the field in addition to Forest Service personnel; 32 men paid by the Weeks Act, 23 county supervisor wardens, 3 selected and paid by the counties at the request of private owners, 192 private land patrolmen and 173 public spirited citizens. More patrols were organized on a county basis, in Klamath, Lake, Coos, Jackson, and Linn Counties. In Washington, 80 patrolmen of the Washington Forest Fire Association worked with 30 wardens and 33 patrolmen hired by the State under the Weeks Act, cooperating with one another in the checkerboard areas to avoid duplication of effort. [82]

The work continued along the same lines in 1912. In Oregon the county associations reached ten in number, patroling land at an average cost of one and one-half cents an acre. Again, each state received Weeks Act money, this time to the amount of $10,000. The Western Forestry and Conservation Association since its formation had carried on a campaign against fire, supplying newspapers with bulletins and news items, issuing hundreds of circulars and folders to school children, state officials, local associations, railroads, and civic groups on fire protection. The program of education of this and other conservation groups began to have results, in decrease of the number of man-caused fires. In 1909, 94 per cent of all fires in the region were caused by human agencies; this had dropped to 87 per cent in 1910, to 70 per cent by 1911, and to 61 per cent in 1912. [83]

In 1913 the system of protection was brought to completion. In that year Oregon passed the most advanced fire law to be found in any state of the Union. Associations, the Forest Service and the state protective agencies cared for most of the forest land in the state; but there remained areas, particularly in southern Oregon, belonging to absentee owners, who were not in any of the associations. The law provided that every forest owner should provide an adequate fire patrol for his timber and that, in case he should neglect this, the State Forester should provide one, at a cost of not over five cents per acre. This fee would amount to a lien on the property, to be reported to the county courts and levied and collected as a land tax, in the same way that other property taxes were collected. The law resulted in full coverage of timber land within the state. [84]

V. Conclusion

The year 1911 is commonly considered a landmark in the history of forest conservation in the United States as a whole. In that year was passed the third great legislative act, having to do with forest conservation. The Act of 1891 had established National Forests, and that of 1897 had opened them for use. The Weeks Act of 1911 established the principle of cooperation by state and federal government in protection of the forests, and foreshadowed the extension of that work in the Clarke-McNary Act of 1924.

The year 1911 is a landmark also, in that the next decade witnessed new problems, and new approaches, in forest conservation. It was a period in which leadership in the conservation movement passed to Congress, and where congressmen like Chamberlain of Oregon and La Follette of Wisconsin kept the gains made by Roosevelt against a hostile or indifferent executive branch. These progressives were greatly aided by the fact that between 1911 and 1921 a series of ten Supreme Court decisions upheld the Roosevelt conservation policies. The new generation of congressmen showed a greater interest in, and a greater grasp of, the problems of forest conservation, and passed much constructive legislation.

On the part of the Forest Service, the period marked the professionalization of the bureau. By 1920, most of the Land Office appointees with an interest in forest conservation had been replaced by men with college training in forestry. The Service was strengthened by the new and competent staff; and for that period at least, the members still retained the crusading spirit of Pinchot.

This was the period, too, in which the industry came of age. During the period 1911-24, a series of searching studies of the industry, technical and economic, were made by such bodies as the Federal Trade Commission, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the Bureau of Corporations. Problems relating to the lumber industry, such as taxation, monopoly, waste and reforestation, came under close scrutiny. The sick industry took much of the initiative in curing itself, though it was aided by state and federal studies. Not the fact of federal forest control, but the extent of federal control over private cutting, was the large question of the 20's; and in this the loudest opposition came from California, and the most constructive suggestions from the Northwest. [85]

For the Pacific Northwest, however, the year 1913 may serve as a better milestone for several reasons. The Oregon compulsory patrol law was the final touch to a protective system unequaled anywhere in the United States. [86] It involved a triple alliance of federal, state, and private owners, over a forest acreage of forty million acres. Leadership and purposes were well agreed on. E. T. Allen, who along with his Forest Service background, had an understanding of the lumbermen's point of view, was able to reconcile differences of opinion with skill and diplomacy. The industry had also a leavening of other men from the Forest Service, such as C. S. Chapman and H. D. Langille, who aided in mutual understanding. The unity was also aided by the purpose of the Western Forestry and Conservation Association in seeking no end except the general good; "equally without sympathy for the propagandist who locates all forest evils in the greed of the lumberman and seeks remedy by resent-breeding compulsion, or for the essentially individualistic lumberman who does equal harm by his own bad methods and the retribution he draws on the industry." [87]

The principle of cooperation was deep-rooted in the area, as many of the former movements were indigenous in nature. Such was Waldo's memorial of 1889, calling for a forest reserve to be administered equally by state and federal government; such was the general acceptance of the Coville plan, and the cooperation of Harvey Scott and Governor Chamberlain in halting land frauds; such was the action of E. T. Allen in forming the triple alliance, and that of J. N. Teal, of the lumber interests, in the work of the Oregon Conservation Commission. And in the twenties the most influential proponent of this point of view was another man from the area, Charles McNary.

The unity of sentiment of the three groups, and the strength of the federal administration in the region, was well expressed in 1913, at the time of the "states-rights" agitation. The fact has already been mentioned that T. T. Munger, J. W. Bryan, and Governor Oswald West all spoke strongly against the "states-rights" movement as a cloak for the predatory interests. It is also significant that there was a third strong defense of the federal administration, this time from the lumber associations.

At the fifth Conservation Congress, held in Washington, D. C., J. N. Teal, attorney for the Oregon and Washington Lumber Manufacturers Association, and head of the Oregon Conservation Commission, delivered a ringing defense of federal control of forest resources. Since, as he pointed out, federal forest control had been held constitutional by the courts (U. S. vs. Grimaud, 220 U. S. 506 and Light vs. U. S., 220 U. S. 523), he assumed that the matter could be discussed primarily in terms of public policy. The question resolved itself into whether the state or the federal government was better suited to carry out the policy. In Teal's opinion, the federal government was the better suited.

We have all read, doubtless, many resolutions and addresses issued by congresses, legislatures and publicists advocating turning over the public forests to the respective states. As yet there have appeared absolutely no concrete suggestions of a proposed State policy. Much less has there been discussion what the states have done with their public lands in the past. There run through all the arguments, appeals not only to prejudice but also to that sentiment of selfishness and personal gain implanted in us all. Conceded as it must be that the national forests are now legally the property of the nation, it would seem that those seeking to change the present status for alleged public welfare would have the burden of showing, first, that they have some plan under which they propose to control and dispose of them; second, that such a plan will produce better results than we are now securing; and third, that actual experience shows the states to have developed their superior competence to execute such a plan in the interest of the public. None of these fundamental requirements is ever discussed by the State Control advocates. We can therefore turn only to past performance to ascertain, if possible, what the test of experience shows the results of State control to be.

Pointing out that the states had been given large grants of land, he showed how they had squandered their heritage. Oregon had disposed of practically all her timber land at $1.25 per acre, and Washington, while still in possession of much state timber land, had so far done nothing in forestry work save appropriate money for protection.

Not even at this late time has a single State a well-defined policy expressed in the law and adequately supported, looking to the properly co-ordinated care, disposal, and conservation of its natural resources. There is hardly a public land State in which there have not been charges of graft and fraud in connection with the disposal of public lands. Scandals of great and small proportions have been so numerous as to be commonplace . . . When earnest, sincere men sought to remedy abuses, they were sneered at as dreamers and reformers, and where policies were sought to be established by the State they were as vacillating as the swinging pendulum. [88]