Fourth: Forests are invaluable as recreation grounds. Fifth Without preservation of the forests under state ownership, the supply of timber for the future will be greatly endangered. Now, gentlemen, this proposition is of particular interest to us at the present time,-to you particularly, because you own one-fifth of the entire acreage within the confines of the Forest Preserve. There are three reasons why this problem is of great importance at present: First: The people of the state have just appropriated $10,000,000 for the additional purchase of lands within the Forest Preserve. $2,500,000 of this is for purchase of lands in the Catskills; the other $7,500,000 is for the acquisition of lands in the Adirondack Preserve. Years ago, $1.50 to $2.00 per acre, would buy forest lands. I don't know what you will have to pay for them now, but probably $15 to $25 an acre for a good deal of it. It's a big proposition to supervise the expenditure of that vast sum of money. That is one reason why it is of great importance to have a well defined policy in regard to the 1,830,000 acres now owned by the state in the Forest Preserve and the 400,000 or 500,000 additional acres that this $10,000,000 appropriation will undoubtedly buy. Second: The question of efficiency is before the people more than ever before. It is emphasized somewhat by the European War. It has been brought to the minds of the people of this country that in order to compete with European countries we have got to be more efficient in this matter, and I think we are so more than we were two or three years ago. We have a right to demand that the state shall be efficient. We must develop our natural possibilities. The state must do this, just the same as a private citizen must. I say we have a right to ask the people of the state if they think the present policy of the State of New York in regard to the Forest Preserve is efficient. (Applause.) In other words, are the people of the State of New York getting all they possibly can out of that great natural resource of the state, comprising the head waters of practically all the rivers of any importance in the state, comprising the possibilities of water storage of all the rivers of the state, comprising the great natural recreation ground? In addition to that, gentlemen, my third argument is this: That the people of the State of New York to-day are looking around for sources of revenue. The cost of government is going up all the time, together with the cost of living. The difficulty is not to find opportunities to spend money, but to find the sources of revenue to meet the constantly growing demands of the people of the State of New York. Our budgets are increasing, mounting higher and higher, year after year, in the municipalities of the state, and the cost of goverment is going higher and higher. Now, the question is, are the people of the State of N.Y. getting all the revenue they can from the State Forest Preserve without injuring it? We have a right to demand that we shall. (Applause.) The question involves another big proposition and that is the question of return, of direct return to the state, and the method of return, in the way of revenue, from scientific forestry and reforestation-indirectly by storage of water and the conservation of the head waters of our rivers. This involves the question of direct return to the state for the water used, and also the indirect question of increase in taxable values. We hear a great deal said to the effect that the state itself ought to develop our great natural possibilities; that they should not be given up to private enterprise, but that the state itself should do it. You all know what happened down on the St. Lawrence. I am simply bringing this up as an illustration of what I mean. An act was passed by the Legislature giving a certain right to develop power on the St. Lawrence, and they were to pay the state a certain amount a year. Well, that act was repealed, and the Court of Appeals has held that the repeal was entirely proper. Now, we might ask this question: What would the people of the State of New York have gotten out of that if it had been developed by a private concern? We have a right to compare the question of taxable values and the question of income with the development of that power by the State of New York; and we have a right to ask whether the State of New York will ever develop that power on the St. Lawrence River. Do the people of the State of New York, when they take under consideration this question about what we have got in the Adirondacks,-do they ever take into account the taxable value and the taxes that are paid by the mills 'way down on the river? Do the people take into account the mills on the Black River and the Racquette River and other rivers. I happen to be interested in a company which invested $4,000,000 on the Racquette River. Our tax roll was about $12,000 every year, with about 1,200 men in our employ. Isn't that doing something for the State of New York? Isn't that a proper and fair way to look at this proposition? If they don't get back a return of so much every year, paid over the tax counter to the state, don't they get it back in local taxation and in other ways in which these great corporations benefit the people of the state? I say that is a proper argument: the different kinds of revenue that can be obtained by the State of New York through an efficient development of the Adirondack Preserve. (Applause.) Now, gentlemen, in order to be practical, I am going to make a few suggestions. My first one is that there ought to be an educational campaign started pointing out the effect of the constitutional provision I have referred to, which forbids the cutting of trees and provides for the throwing open of forest lands for recreation. The original constitution was amended two or three years ago, and that amendment was adopted after an educational campaign inspired by the Chamber of Commerce, relatively small, in the City of Watertown, acting in co-operation with the New York City Board of Trade and Transportation, and the result was that the Constitution was amended so that permission was given to use not more than three per cent of the Adirondacks for the purpose of creating adequate storage reservoirs. We have, up there, along the Black River-as well as the Racquette, a thousand evidences very day of what an efficient storage of water would mean. We see the river running away during the spring freshets, a flood of water going to waste, and so much that it causes shut-downs in the mills; and then four or five months in the summer and fall, we see the river almost dry, with not sufficient water to turn the wheels, causing enormous loss to the mill owners and the workmen employed in the mills. During the period of low water in the summer we are able to walk across any river in Northern New York and not get our feet wet. Now, we felt that that was not efficient, and that it could be remedied by storing up the water in flood times and then letting it out slowly during the periods of naturally low water, so that we could have a practically uniform flow of water the year 'round, amply sufficient for all water power purposes. We went down to New York City and put the cards on top of the table with the New York Board of Trade and Transportation. We said that what benefited Northern New York benefited New York City, and that there should be no antagonism whatever between the great metropolis and Northern New York, and we convinced them and secured their cooperation, and the result was that, through these efforts, the people of the State of N.Y. voted, after an educational campaign, by a majority of over 200,000, permission to use not more than three per cent of the Adirondack Preserve for the purpose of creating adequate water storage reservoirs. Now, that shows the great value of an educational campaign. We have not derived much practical benefit out of that as yet, but we are surely going to. Our friend here, Mr. Ostrander, and others, are creating a water storage system above Glens Falls. That is a great thing. We are talking about it on the Black River and also on the Racquette River. It is encouraging to find that the people of the State of N.Y. are willing that we make the Forest Preserve revenue producing without in any way injuring its aesthetic value or its use as a recreation playground. (Applause.) This was discussed before the Constitutional Convention a year or so ago, and I enjoyed reading, a few days ago, the debates of the Constitutional Convention. In reading these debates you could see immediately the two opposing views that were taken on the subject. There were those who argued it was bad public policy to interfere in any way with the present provision of our Constitution; and then some were more liberal, and the liberal idea was summed up in the amendment that was offered by the friend of our friend here, Delegate Angell, from Glens Falls; and I will weary you just a minute by reading what that was. It sums up just what the new proposition is in regard to the Adirondacks: "Section 2. The lands of the State, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the Forest Preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed. But the Conservation Department shall provide for survey and classification of all the lands in the Forest Preserve into the following areas: First: The lands upon the mountain tops, and the lands in and contiguous to the lakes and major Second: All the lands of the state within the This classification shall be made after such public advertisement and hearing as the department may prescribe, and it may, after like notice and hearing, transfer lands from the second into the first area. The department may provide for the sale and removal of timber, or any part thereof, that is mature or detrimental to forest growth upon the lands, or any part thereof, in the second area, under such conditions as it shall prescribe in accordance with the principles of scientific forestry; but such lands shall remain as forest lands and the forest cover thereon shall be maintained and perpetuated. "Section 2 (a) The department may authorize, in its discretion, the use of lands belonging to the state in the Forest Preserve for highway purposes. "Section 2 (b) The department may lease camp sites of limited area for limited periods, on restricted portions of the second area of the Forest Preserve, upon conditions to be determined by it. "Section 2 (c) The department may sell lands outside the limits of the Adirondack and Catskill parks as now established by law, except lands contiguous thereto, and the islands in and lands adjacent to Lake George. The proceeds of such sales shall be kept in a separate fund to be used only for the purchase of lands within the limits of said Adirondack and Catskill parks." Now, gentlemen, that was a clean-cut, practical suggestion, put up before the Constitutional Convention. It was defeated by a viva voce vote. As I said before, I am not here with any defined plan in regard to this matter. If there is any merit in my talk here to-night it is to the end that you men will take hold of it and think it out. There was a clean-cut proposition put up before that body of 168 men from all over the state, radicals on one side and reactionaries on the other; but the Con |