(Karasek vs. Peier (Wash.), 50 L. R. A. 345; Smith vs. Morse, 148 Mass. 407); prohibiting the wasteful burning of natural gas by the owner (Townsend vs. State (Ind.), 37 L. R. A. 294); prohibiting the use of artificial means, by the owners of gas wells, to increase the natural flow of the gas from them (Manufacturer's Gas Co. vs. Indiana Natural Gas Co., 155 Ind. 467; 50 L. R. A. 768); authorizing dams for the purpose of reclaiming swamp lands where the effect was to oblige landowners to construct and maintain dikes to protect their lands from the water raised (Manigault vs. Springs, 199 U. S. 473); prohibiting one from allowing weeds to grow on his own land (St. Louis vs. Gault, 179 Mo. 8; 63 L. R. A. 778); limiting the quantity of land any person or family may cultivate within city limits (Summerville vs. Presley, 33 S. C. 56); prohibiting the flow of water from a private artesian well except for certain specified beneficial purposes, as irrigation or domestic use (Ex parte Elam (Cal.), 91 Pac. Rep. 811). In Windsor vs. State (Md.), 64 At. Rep. 288, a statute restricted owners of private oyster beds in taking oysters from them. It was held constitutional and not a taking of private property. The court, quoting from Judge Story, said: "Property of every kind is held subject to those regulations which are necessary for the common good and general welfare. And the legislature has the power to define the mode and manner in which one may use his property." The foregoing considerations lead us to the opinion at present that the proposed legislation, for the purposes and with the limitations named in the Senate order, would be within the legislative power and would not operate as a taking of private property for which compensation must be made. March 10, 1908 Respectfully submitted, LUCILIUS A. EMERY HENRY C. PEABODY Mr. Justice Woodard, one of the justices of the court when the Senate order was passed, died before the foregoing opinion could be prepared. His successor, Mr. Justice King, was not appointed for several months after the passage of the Senate order, and holds that, therefore, the Senate has not required any opinion from him. LUCILIUS A. EMERY Note. Mr. Justice Albert R. Savage declined to give an opinion upon the question submitted, for the reason that he considered it not a solemn occasion" as required by Article VI, Section 3, of the constitution of Maine. CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK1 BY GOVERNOR CHARLES E. HUGHES The wise and patriotic summons of the President to the consideration of necessary steps for the conservation of our natural resources met with a cordial response from the people of the state of New York. The Empire State has been bountifully blessed by nature, and for a long period there has been a steady growth in the appreciation of her priceless treasures and of the importance of preserving them. Our vast stretches of forests, feeding our streams and nourishing the agricultural and industrial activities of our citizens, long remained the subject of selfish devastation in reckless disregard of the just demands of future generations, and without thought of the essential conditions of our continued prosperity. That sagacious statesman, De Witt Clinton, foresaw the results of careless waste of nature's bounty, and of the wanton sacrifice of our capital, thoughtlessly supposed to be inexhaustible, in the satisfaction of the demands of the moment. In addressing the legislature in 1822 he said: Our forests are falling rapidly before the progress of settlement, and a scarcity of wood for fuel, ship and house building, and other useful purposes, is already felt in the increasing prices of that indispensable article. No system of plantation for the production of trees, and no system of economy for their preservation, has been adopted, and probably none will be until severe privations are experienced. From time to time public-spirited citizens and farseeing statesmen called attention to the need of a system of conservation, but it is only in a recent period that measures of protection were adopted. Not only did the state fail to acquire and hold from spoliation our forest tracts, but lands which had passed into the control of the state were recklessly disposed of at nominal prices, and are now, under a new policy, the subject of reacquisition at greatly increased cost. It may be of value briefly to review the experience of the state during the past twenty-five years. Governor Cleveland in 1884 thus addressed the legislature upon this subject, speaking of the practice which had prevailed: The Hudson, Mohawk, and Black rivers are to a very large extent fed by streams and lakes in the southern slopes of the Adirondack wilderness, and the Black River may well be regarded as the principal feeder of the Erie Canal. This statement renders the importance of protecting the water in the sources of the rivers named, from serious diminution, distinctly apparent. The fact that this can only be done by the preservation of the forests bordering on the sources of water supply needs no demonstration, and was recognized by the last legislature by the passage of an act prohibiting the further sale of our northern wilderness lands. 1 From Proceedings of the Conference of Governors, 1908. The immense volume of commerce which passes through the Erie Canal and the Hudson River to the seaboard, and the low stage of water during the summer in the last-named waterway as well as the other rivers and streams of the state, have attracted the attention of the public to the necessity of arresting the further destruction of our northern forests. This is certainly a very important matter, and should receive early and serious attention. We find ourselves facing the danger which now so excites the people, because the interests of the state have not been cared for in the years that are past, and because our forest-laden lands have been recklessly disposed of at nominal prices, until, at this late day, we are awakened to the fact that the control which the state should have always maintained over that part of those lands which are important to the preservation of our streams has been to a large extent surrendered. The plan has been, it seems, quite generally adopted by the grantees from the state to refuse to pay taxes assessed upon these lands after their purchase, and to permit them to be sold for such taxes, the owner taking advantage of the time between the levying of the taxes and the sale of the land to cut off and sell such timber as he finds to his profit. In default of other bidders at such tax sale, the state becomes the purchaser. Two years is allowed the delinquent owner after the sale to redeem his land. Sales of these lands are customarily made by the comptroller once in about five years, and then they are sold for taxes that have remained due and unpaid for a period not less than five years prior to the sale; thus in 1881 forest lands were sold for taxes levied thereon between the years 1871 and 1876. It will be readily seen that this allows the grantees of these lands, who from the first day of their ownership deliberately refused payment of all taxes, from seven to twelve years within which to cut off and sell timber—thus realizing an immense return from the amount originally paid for the land. At that time a system of better control of the forest lands was suggested, and the project of having the state purchase immense tracts of these lands was opposed as involving an extravagant expenditure. In 1885 the attention of the legislature was again directed to the subject by Governor Hill, who said: The forestry problem has in late years became an important one, and through natural causes and through the operations of some industries in the northern counties of the state, it is becoming every year more important and pressing. It is claimed by those who have given the subject attention that the preservation of the forest growth, especially in those parts of the Adirondack region which are unfit for profitable tillage, is a matter of serious concern to the material prosperity of the entire state. Valuable water courses are largely dependent upon the preservation of the forest trees now standing and a restoration of a new growth to tracts which have been left waste; and this protection of rivers and streams is doubtless in this matter the chief consideration to the state at large. In addition, however, the northern counties are threatened at no distant day with a serious diminution, or even loss, not only of the profitable and rapidly growing industry of caring for the numerous persons who, from within and without the state, resort to their lakes and woods for health or pleasure, but also of the lumbering industry itself. It seems probable also that the owners of forest lands ought to be afforded ample protection against trespassers who set fire to or cut or injure trees upon such owners' lands. The matter was made the subject of investigation by commission. And it was in 1885 that a Forest Commission was established, and the lands then owned, or which might thereafter be acquired by the state within specified counties, were constituted a forest preserve. The state already had considerable holdings of forest lands, principally through tax defaults. It was further provided that lands composing the forest preserve should "forever be kept as wild forest lands," and should "not be sold or leased by any corporation, public or private." The Forest Commission, three in number, were given the care and control of the preserve and charged with the duty to protect the forests on the preserve and to promote their further growth. In 1887 provision was made for the disposition of separated small parcels in the preserve, or the timber thereon, under important restrictions. In 1890 Governor Hill brought to the attention of the legislature the advisability of a better definition of the limits within which lands were to be retained by the state for forest purposes, and of appropriate legislation with regard to the creation by the state of a forest park in the Adirondacks. In a special message he said: The portion of northern New York know as the "Adirondacks" has become a great summer and winter resort for persons seeking pleasure or health, not only from our own state but from other sections of the Union. It is rapidly becoming a nation's pleasure ground and sanitarium. The state now owns a large portion of this section, which has been placed under the control of a Forest Commission. The present statutes seem to contemplate retaining all the lands that come to the state from tax sales as part of a vast park, without reference to quality, quantity, or locality; and many parcels thus reserved are small and are not connected with the main body of state lands. It seems to me that the limits within which lands are to be retained by the state for this purpose should be settled and defined, and should include the wilder portion of this region, covering the mountains and lakes at and around the headwaters of the several rivers that rise in that locality, including the Hudson River; and that all the lands outside of these limits should be subject to sale as other state lands are sold. If practicable, these lands could be exchanged for wild and forest lands within the limits prescribed. Considerable complaint has been made that persons desiring to build summer camps or cottages upon lands belonging to the state have not been permitted to do so. I can see no reason why, under suitable restrictions, small parcels should not be leased at a moderate rental for such purposes. Such occupants would have an interest in preserving the forests in all their beauty, and would be the best of fire wardens and foresters, while the wilderness would thus afford a summer home to persons of moderate means, as well as to the wealthy. The subject is worthy of the most careful consideration. It is represented to me by those who are familiar with the situation and needs of that section, and in whose judgment I have confidence, that a state park, from fifty to seventy miles square, can be obtained by the state in that region at comparatively trifling expense, and that when obtained, if judiciously and sensibly managed, it will prove of inestimable value and benefit to the whole country. A personal inspection on my part last summer of a portion of the Adirondack region confirms, in my judgment, the desirability of some appropriate legislation upon this subject. It is believed to be the true policy of the state to encourage rather than retard visitation to this delightful region, and a broader and more enlightened policy than that which has heretofore been followed should be pursued. Several reasons are apparent why it is expedient that some independent commission should investigate this matter and originate a scheme for carrying out the suggestions herein outlined, rather than the Forest Commission, whose powers are already limited by statute and whose duties are confined to a mere preservation of the forests. I think the Adirondack forests, instead of being an expense and burden to the state, are capable, under the liberal policy here suggested, of paying all the expenses of their preservation, as well as of yielding a handsome revenue to the state. The action taken by the legislature upon this recommendation was to authorize the Forest Commission to purchase lands, located within such counties as included the forest preserve, as should be available for the purpose of a state park, at a price not to exceed $1.50 per acre; but the act appropriated only $25,000 for the purpose. In 1892 another act was passed establishing a state park to be known as the Adirondack Park, which should be "forever reserved, maintained, and cared for as ground open for the free use of all the people for their health or pleasure, and as forest lands necessary to the preservation of the headwaters of the chief rivers of the state and a future timber supply.” And the Forest Commission was authorized to purchase land in certain counties mentioned. They were, however, given power to sell any portion of the lands within specified counties the ownership of which, in their opinion, was not needed to promote the purposes in view. The theory was, apparently, that detached pieces could be sold, and that the proceeds would be sufficient to buy the desired amount within the park limits, and no adequate appropriation was made for independent acquisition on any suitable scale. This policy, however, was not a successful one, and, as Governor Flower in his annual message of 1893 said, "The results to-day, after nearly seven years' effort to establish an Adirondack Park, are disappointing." He pointed out that while the existing methods would answer" the temporary purpose of getting rid of lands useless for a forest preserve and acquiring other lands needed, so far as the proceeds of sales would permit, it would not do for a permanent and exclusive state policy." He added that if it was the desire of the people that the state should absolutely own two or three million acres of the forest preserve, the lands should be acquired at once by right of eminent domain, and the operation |