Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

the JEFFERSC)M ' N A Weekly Paper Edited by THOS. E. WATSON and J. D. WATSON JX Vol. 111. No. 10. TffE FORESTRY BILL HAS A CHANCE Washington, D. C., March I.—(Special.) The friends of the Appalachian Forest Re serve bill made a most favorable showing in the presentation of the legal side of the case before the judiciary committee of the house. While it is impossible to state what the position of .the committee will be, several of the members favorable to the prospect ex press a firm belief that the committee will take the position that the government has the power to acquire land in the Southern Ap palachian Mountains and the White Moun tain range for use as national forest reserves. The hearing was upon the resolution of ' Representative Bartlett, of Georgia, inquiring into the constitutionality of the project. Mr. Bartlett spoke against the forest reserve plan. One of those who spoke in favor of the measure was Gifford Pinchot, national for ester. He treated the members to a bit of elemental physics, to show the necessity of preserving the forests on the watersheds of the mountains, in order to preserve an equa ble stream flow and to prevent disastrous and destructive floods. Using a bit of card board to represent the side of a hill, he poured a cup full of water on the board. It ran off like a mill race. Next he covered the impro vised hill side with a piece jfef blotting paper and again poured a cup (tfOwater upon the make-believe hill. The r ting paper ab sorbed the water. He erf ? the members’ at tention to the fact th/,'Jl-ides covered with verdure absorb rainfßfy like the piece of blotting paper. Bartlett Speo&s Against Bill. Judge Bartlett made a lengthy speech against the project and quoted numerous de cisions of the supreme court which'he claimed bore upon the question. He laid particular stress upon the language of the court in the Kansas vs. Colorado case, which follows: 11 The United States government can claim no pow ers which were not granted to it by the con stitution and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given or given by necessary implication.” He acid that the government had no authority under the con stitution to acquire land for forest i eserves since “each state has full jurisdiction over the lands within its borders, including the beds of streams and other rivers.” Judge Bartlett said: “It would be strange, in the absence of a definite grant of power, if the national govern ment should enter the territory of the states along the Atlantic and legislate in respect to improving by irrigation or otherwise the lands within their borders.” He said that if the government had the right to acquire land in Georgia for forest reserves to prevent silt from washing into Atlanta, Ga., Thursday, March 5, 1908. the rivers, it had the right to say to a far mer in Georgia how he should terrace his land to prevent mud from washing into the creek. Navigation Threatened. “As congress has power under the con stitution to dredge navigable rivers, it would seem to follow necessarily that it has power to take such measures: as will prevent the necessity of dredging. It is evident that the wasteful cutting of mountain slopes allows the soil to wash into the rivers; that navigation, is threatened b ythe filling up of the channels; that this can be prevented to a large extent by the reforesting of the mountain slopes. If so, then the means to be taken for this pur pose—for example, the purchase of lands on the water-shed of these rivers—will be wholly within the discretion of congress and not open to legal objection. A light-house is not an ac tive part of the government, but only an in strument which it uses under the power given it by the commerce clause of the constitu tion. The holding of forest lands for the pro tection of the water supply us navigable rivers is an instrument also under this same clause of the constitution.” Express Hope for the Bill. A poll of the house judiciary committee has been taken by one of the members to as certain how the committee stands upon the subject of the constitutionality of the Appala chian forest reserve bill. He declares that his inquiries have led him to believe the com mittee report will be favorable to the project. The opposite position was taken by Judge Bartlett, of Georgia, the author of the resolu tion of inquiry. Should the committee express confidence in the legality of the proposed measure it -will again be placed before the committee on agri culture. Here Representative Lever, of South Carolina, who is the author of one of the forest reserve bills, is urging upon his fellow members of the committee the ur gent necessity of the proposed reserves. He is hopeful, but not confident. Brantley Questions Bartlett. In response to this suggestion, Mr. Brantley, a member of the committee, made the point that many of the powers given to congress were capable of being abused, but that the supreme court had held in innumerable de cisions that because a power was subject to abuse was no reason why it should not be exercised. He thought it would require a great stretch of the imagination for congress to pass such a drastic law affecting farmers throughout the country. The gentlemen who argued in behalf of the constitutionality of the proposed legislation, showed that it was carrying out the power given congress to regulate interstate commerce. The United States congress has control of all navigable streams within its borders and it was shown that the sources of innumerable navigable streams were in the Appalachian and White Mountains. To Maintain Cotton Experts Abroad. The senate replaced in the legislative ap propriation bill the item of $40,000 for main taining experts abroad to work for the fur ther extension of our foreign cotton trade. This appropriation is usually killed in the house, but kept in by the insistence of the senate. Little Hope for Rivers and Harbors Bill. Representative Joseph E. Ransdell, of Lou isiana, chairman of the inland waterways com mission, reluctantly admitted today that he en tertained little hope for the passage of a na tional rivers and harbors bill at this session of congress. The commission has worked vig orously and actively for the success of the bill, but their interviews with thepporersw r ers that be in congress have had a depressing influence upon their spirits.—Atlanta Constitution. AGAINST EARLY PRIMARIES. Extract from Gov. Smith’s Mcßae Speech, (Nov. 17, 1907). “The main question involved in our plat form upon which we may well desire imme diate action has reference to our primaries, as I have before presented it. “There are men running now for the legis lature when the first session of the legislature under existing laws at which they expeeit to serve will not meet until the summer of 1909, year after next. I am opposed to electing leg islators for the session of 1909 until the ses sion of 1908 is over. “I advocaite legislation to fix the time of our state primaries, giving the same cer tainty which attaches to the regular elections, and making it impossible for state or county executive committees to bring them on early or late just to please men seeking the of fices. The people are entitled to know long in advance when the election will take place, and a statute of the state should make the day absolutely certain. “The Democratic state committee will natu rally meet at an early day. I trusit county committees will postpone action until the time is fixed by the state committee for action throughout the state. The legislature might be called together in January to fix the time and machinery for primaries, but if the subject can be handled through the state and county committees this would seem to be the better plan. Os course, I recognize the fact that the county committees would not be controlled by (Continued on Page Four.) Price live Cents.