the Committee. I beg the members of this Convention to stand by the report of the Committee.

Mr. J. G. Saxe- Mr. President.

The President - Mr. Saxe.

Mr. J. G. Saxe I want to concur absolutely in what Mr. Austin has said. Now, the Committee sat for three months on this bill and we had one strong advocate of camp sites in all their vigor, and that was Commissioner Whipple, and a number of roll calls were taken, and that subject was finally beaten. Then, at the last moment, the Conservation Commission itself came before us with maps and explained this Racquette lake situation to us. I wish I had those maps here to show the members of the Convention the exact situation which we are trying to take care of in what I claim to be an absolutely constitutional method. Racquette lake is the scene of the greater part of the virgin forests of the State which particularly must be kept free from fire. Because of this community which has been there since 1848 those virgin forests have been free from fire. It is a large lake with four or five promontories running into it, and each of those promontories, or nearly every one of them, is not State land but private land, and on that private land are hotels and private residences, and through that lake run two steamboat lines, there are two churches and a schoolhouse, and the proposition here is that because in 1909 the State finally got title to the poor people's land up there, we should now throw all those poor people into the lake and turn Racquette lake over to the rich people who own their private property on private land in Racquette lake.

Mr. Wickersham - Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. J. G. Saxe- I hate to, General, I have only five minutes, and I could talk twenty on this.

Mr. Wickersham - All right.

Mr. J. G. Saxe-Now, that is the exact situation at Racquette Lake. Now, what are we doing? I want to speak one moment on the constitutional rights of this matter. Under the Constitution, the laws of this State, the State has absolute right to sell its land or to lease its land, but by this one constitutional provision, we say no, because of the conditions in the forest preserve, the need of preserving the forest, the forest preserve, we will not extend that general power of the State, but because of the peculiar conditions, we will place a restriction on that. Now, what is the restriction? When we come to that we find that there is this one situation which has existed since 1848, where people have built, and borne children and borne grandchildren upon this lake, and they are all living there as a community, where the restrictions ought not to extend, and so in putting a restriction in our Constitution, due to conditions in the forest preserve we do not extend that condition, that restriction, to this one class at Racquette Lake. Bear in mind the people live, seventy families, 500 of them, throughout the year it is not a case at all where people live there just in summer and not in winter Where they live there throughout the year and we are not giving them any rights whatever, we are not making the conservation provision do any one act whatever. We are merely saying to this new commission, "You may, in your discretion, if you deem it advisable, issue licenses." What kind of licenses? A revocable license? Yes, not transferable licenses. And whom

are you going to issue them to? Just such of those 70 families at Racquette and one or two other localities who have actually improved their property and did so before 1909 and who live there throughout the year. Now, that is absolutely all there is to this proposition, the proposition that we ought to give our commission discretion to take care of, and it is a matter which, as Mr. Austin pointed out, the committee felt the great grievance there would be there if we could not do something to take care of that big situation if we should place broad restriction as to our forest preserves without limiting the restriction to this one locality. And that is absolutely all there is to this proposition.

Mr. Wickersham - Mr. President, the explanation of the gentleman who has just taken his seat does not fit with the measure that is before this Convention.

Mr. J. G. Saxe- I will yield to a question now, General, on your time, if I can help you at all.

Mr. Wickersham-No. I am speaking now from the measure before. The gentleman would have us consider this as authority to issue a revocable license to some few 70 people living on Racquette Lake in the locality which he has described. The provision before us has no such limitation. It reads that "the department may issue to any occupant of and continuous resident throughout each year upon State lands within the forest preserve" anywhere within the forest preserve, Racquette Lake or any other lake, or any other field, or any other mountain, any place, so long as a man was there on the 1st of December, 1909, and has put up a permanent structure, a log house, he can have a license to occupy ten acres of the State land. And what is the excuse for giving this extraordinary provision in a Constitutional amendment? Why, sir, we are solemnly told by the delegate to this Convention that these poor people whom we are invoked to pity and for whom we are asked to make this extraordinary provision will burn up the forest preserve if we don't provide this license. Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. President, I submit that no more extraordinary proposition has been advanced in this body than that. The idea that delegates to a Convention of the Great State of New York shall put in their fundamental law a reward to successful trespassers who have violated the existing Constitution, because if we don't give it to them, they will burn up the forest preserve! The mere statement of the proposition is enough to condemn it.

While I am on my feet, Mr. President, I want to make one other observation.

Mr. Meigs Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Wickersham - I have only a short time, and therefore I cannot. I want to make one further observation, and that is with respect to the road which is authorized in Section 2. It does not seem to me, Mr. President, that this proviso is necessary, and it certainly does not seem to me to be expedient. The section is broad enough as I read it to authorize whatever road is necessary to be made in the proper development of the forest preserve, but why we should put in this Constitution that nothing herein contained shall prevent the State from constructing a State highway from a barn to a white birch, and from a white birch to a yellow poplar, and from a yellow poplar to a fir tree, I fail to see. I think it is a perfectly ridiculous provision, and I shall move to strike out

Mr. J. G. Saxe- That was put in the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Wickersham-I know it was. Not by my vote. I voted against it, and I don't believe in it. I don't believe in putting it in that way. I shall vote against it here, and I am going to move to recommit the bill to the Committee of the Whole, to strike out the paragraph at the end of Section 2, and to strike out all of Section 6.

Mr. Bunce-Mr. President.

Mr. Blauvelt - Mr. President.

The President - The Chair recognizes Mr. Bunce.

Mr. Bunce - Mr. President, I desire to support the amendment of the delegate from Cattaraugus to strike out Section 6. The news was given out only yesterday that the Appellate Division of the Third Department had rendered a decision ousting certain squatters from valuable virgin forest lands in Hamilton county wilderness. The defendants were Henry La Prairie and others. I believe we should not write into the Constitution a provision that will nullify the decision of the court.

us.

Mr. Marshall Mr. President.

The President - Mr. Marshall.

Mr. Marshall-I don't understand why the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee should have manifested so much opposition on this bill. It is a very simple proposition. The Section 6 was added at the suggestion of the State Conservation Commissioner and his staff. They appeared before the Committee on Conservation after the Committee had completed its draft of the bill and was about to report. They brought to the attention of the Committee a state of facts which has been described by Mr. Austin. We had laid down the general rule that the lands of the State were to be kept forever as wild forest lands; not to be sold. We found a situation which was a serious one. All of the vituperations that may be addressed to this provision cannot wipe out the fact that you are dealing with a class of people who are not to be judged by the same standards by which men are judged in a Constitutional Convention. And there was a real terror which confronted Moreover, these people had certain rights, not, perhaps, strict legal rights, but certain equitable rights. Many of them had gone into possession of the lands with the consent of the then owners. The title to these lands was questionable. Until December, 1909, the State had no real title, no title which could be maintained in court, and these people had acquired rights, at least possession of these lands prior to that time. Now, there is nothing that is given to them, there is no ownership given them, there is nothing granted to them. They are merely permitted, where they are occupants of have been, prior to 1909, occupants of these lands, and are continuous residents thereon throughout each year, that they may have, in the discretion of this board, a revocable non-transferable license for the continuance of that occupancy. That is all. It is merely the dictate of prudence, together with a sense of justice, which has occasioned the adoption of this provision, and it does not give anybody lands which he can sell or dispose of, and it does not cover the case of any people who have not an actual equity behind them.

Now, with regard to this road which has been described with so much sarcasm. This road was not proposed by the Committee, but on this floor. Senator Blauvelt and a number of other gentlemen, including President

Schurman and Mr. Whipple, proposed this change in this provision. They thought it was necessary, and Mr. Schurman made a very strong argument in favor of it. It was opposed to giving roads in general. They know what that meant; they know what "improvement in roads" means, and all those phrases. They know it means an attempt to make a checkerboard of roads through the Adirondack forest. They opposed it. By concession of the Committee of the Whole, they voted this in after two days' discussion of this provision with these amendments, the action of the Committee was approved.

Now, so far as the suggestions of Mr. Smith are concerned, Mr. Smith does not seem to recognize what the purpose of this first provision is. It is not to lay down a legislative enactment, which is to control every step that is to be taken by these commissioners. These commissioners are to organize what is really a laboratory to study the situation of the forests and waters, and to deal with the question of fish and game, and they are not to go into the business of developing water powers, or into the business of dealing with the power. The subject of limitation in the Constitution contained the department was to be charged with the development and protection of the natural resources of the State; the encouragement of forestry and the suppression of forest fires throughout the State; the exclusive care, maintenance and administration of the forest preserves; the conservation, prevention of pollution, and regulation of the waters of the State; the protection and propagation of fish, and so forth. Now, that is all that was done. But these attempts are now made of adding to this provision new clauses which may have lodging with them the potency of much mischief, which may result in our saying here that the State shall embark upon an enterprise of power development, which none of us have ever considered in Committee, which has not been considered in this Convention even, and to inject it into this measure at the eleventh hour, when we are about to vote at third reading, is absolutely unthinkable and is improper. We prevent the Legislature from amending a provision on third reading. A measure must be on the desks of the members for three days before putting in new matter. Now an attempt is made to put new matter into this provision. This measure is a measure which will make it proper for the resources of the State to be developed for their preservation, for their conservation, and anything more than that would be a wrong and a mischief.

Mr. A. E. Smith - Mr. Chairman, since I offered my second amendment, taking the title of Chapter 569, I have arrived at the conclusion, inasmuch as that statute stands on the statute books, I will be satisfied with this amendment. And to this, there should be no objection, and this can put no mischief into it, but will help to temper a little the mischief of the present measure. After the word "State" on line 12, so that it will read this way: "The conservation".

Mr. A. E. Smith-Page 2. "The conservation, prevention of pollution and regulation of the waters of the State and with the enforcement of the general laws of the State in respect thereof". Now, that leaves the question open at any time for the Legislature to change its policy as laid down

by Chapter 569. But without that, without that there is where the mischief is. You so form the policy adopted by the State, and that Hughes bill of 1907, and you are narrowing them down to just the protection of the natural resources, not to devising of land for their development.

Mr. Marshall The Committee is ignorant of what are the general laws of the State. They don't know what laws are referred to. They don't know what might be lodged in those phrases. We do provide that the department shall be charged with protection so far as the waters of the State are concerned, prevention of pollution and their regulation. That is sufficiently broad to cover everything legitimate and permissible. Beyond that I don't know what is intelligent. And also, "such additional powers". "The department shall exercise such additional powers as from time to time may be conferred by law," if thereafter the Legislature in its wisdom decides that it shall commit to this body the enforcement of law which may be hereafter adopted and which we may know the meaning of, which will be sufficient; but to say now at this time, at this vital moment, that we shall accept language such as is now proposed, is something that I cannot approve of. I would rather leave the entire measure alone.

Mr. Parsons

-

Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Marshall - Yes.

Mr. Parsons-Isn't the advantage of this amendment that it makes it clear that it is for the Legislature to declare the policy of the State as to development of water powers?

Mr. Marshall — That appears in lines 20 and 21. “The department shall exercise such additional powers as from time to time may be conferred by law", which will deal with the whole subject.

Mr. A. E. Smith - At the time I spoke of the bill, I spoke of the language on lines 20 and 21. What I am afraid of is that you will never be able to get another bill through here like Chapter 569. It required a forceful, vigorous man like Governor Hughes to put it through. I, for one, am never going to allow it to be destroyed.

This simply amends let us see what it would do. It would say this conservation commission is to be charged with the conservation, prevention of pollution and regulation of the waters of the State, and the enforcement of any general law with respect thereto, any general law with respect to the conservation of water. Isn't that the duty of the conservation commission?

Mr. Marshall-I don't know what "any general law" may be. be forty different things that I have never seen.

It may

Mr. A. E. Smith - What difference does that make? If it is a law for the enforcement, for the conservation of water, for the prevention of pollution, and regulation of waters of the State, and it is a general law, who should enforce it? Only the conservation commission.

Mr. A. E. Smith - Permit me to say, Mr. President, that this is my second amendment in place of the other I sent up. I withdraw the other one, if I may have the permission, Mr. President.

Mr. Cobb― Mr. President, although the time has expired, may I offer this amendment?