Interior - Ickes, Harold L., January - July 1940

PSF Interior: Harold IcKes Jan. - July 1940 PSF OF STATE LINTE RIOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON JAN January 2, 1940 THE WHITE 4 4 14 PM 40 ECEIVED HOUSE 14 I My dear Mr. President: I have been advised that about December 18, Gifford Pinchot wrote a letter to every member of the faculty in the various forestry colleges of the country with which he enclosed a suggested protest letter to be written to you opposing the transfer of Forestry from Agriculture. If he is doing this, it may be that he and others are stimulating the Forest lobby to activity in other directions. For this reason I venture to suggest that the order transferring Forestry to Interior be sent in just as soon as possible after the new session convenes. If this is done the lobbyiets will not be able to gather so much momentum. I hope that this reorganization order will be handled in the Congress in the manner in which your first two orders were handled. In this same connection I again renew my suggestion that an Acting Chief Forester be appointed at this time. The reason for this seems to be obvious. It may also be that on further consider- ation you will not want & technical forester for Chief but an able administrator. After all, technical men can always be employed. Sincerely yours, Harold 7.Febra 7.9ches Secretary of the Interior. The President, The White House. PSF-Ickes PSF Jile Personal EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. JAN 4 10 32 AM '40 January 3, 194RECEIVED MEMORANDUM FOR The President: Your suggestions concerning development of the Grand Coulee Project and the settlement of the Columbia Basin (your memorandum of December 21 to the Secretary of the Interior) were welcomed by the members of the National Resources Planning Board. We are arranging to bring them to the attention of the several agencies already at work on various aspects of the problem, as follows: 1. Land and Migration Problems. The Pacific Northwest Regional Planning Commission (financed by a $100,000 P.W.A. allotment to this Board) is pushing a cooperative study which will result in recommendations of policy on land-use and migration and a six-year program of public works in the Northwest before the end of the next fiscal year. 2. Columbia Basin. The same commission and the field office of the Board are cooperating in a major investigation by the Bureau of Reclama- tion involving prospective land-use and manufacturing development of the Columbia Basin. This study is under the general direction of Dr. Harlan H. Barrows, who has worked with this Board on the Water Resources Committee, the Northern Great Plains Committee, the Upper Rio Grande Investigation, and similar projects. For this investigation the Bureau of Reclamation has secured the cooperation of the Washington State Planning Council, the State College of Agriculture, and many other State and Federal agencies. A report is proposed in serial form beginning in May. 3. Power and Industry. Under en agreement among the Bonneville Ad- ministration, the Pacific Northwest Regional Planning Commission, and the Pacific Northwest Council, studies are now under way on opportunities for industrial employment and development. The Board will continue to correlate these studies and will report to you from time to time on their progress in the formulation of plans and policies. Respectfully submitted: Frederic A. Delang Chairman I n / I to & I / Phone I 2 MM = I 5 & to In # E 5 & I / Importer If É 2 Address I R (Am # I w BERONISCER БГУИИИС / I 5 I EXECUTIVE OLLICE Ot THE BOYE THE WHITE HOUSE Weshington Docember 21, 1939. MEMORANDUM FOR HON. FREDERIC he DELAND FOR YOUR INFORMATION F.D.R. (typed) (Initialled) F.D.R. MEMORANDOM FOR December 21, 1939. THE SECRETARY OF TED: INTERIOR In view of the fuct that the Grand Coulse Dum will be finished early in 1941, I believe it 1s time for us to plan for its use. This use divides itself into two partet (a) Surplus power over and above power needs for pumping water into the Columbia Basin. This subject should be referred to the National Power Policy Committee. It affects, of course, the tie in with Bonneville and with existing power consumer cooperatives, rural lines, etc., and it has a bearing on a possible third dam in the Columbia River, half way between Grand Coulse and Bonneville. (b) The development of the Columbia Basin itself. I feel very strongly on this subject. I understand that it is believed by Reclamation Buroou that when water is provided, 80,000 families can be put on the land. If this estimate is correct it will mean approximately 20,000 other femilies who will be engaged in services such 0.5 gasoline stations, small stores, trunsportation, local governmental operations, etc., etc. I hope the Government cen Lay down a definite policy that all lends will be open only to relief fumilies or fumilies which for many different reasons have abendoned their homes and fled to the coastal region or are now "adrift" in various parts of the country. In other words, want to give first chance to the "Grapes of Wrath" fomilies of the nation. I realize that a percentage of those funilies are shiftless and that en even larger percentage of them are 00 ignorent of farm and home economics that without help they would malco a failure on this new land. The work of the rurel rehebilitation and KPA colonization projects during the past seven years has demonstrated nevertheless that given supervision and instruction for a few years this condition of ignorance con, in most cases, be overcome. This entails in any plenning a fairly large overhead covering supervision and instruction during the first few years. It envisages also a percentage of familios who, no matter how much they are supervised end instructed, will fail to make good. Such families would, of course, have to be replaced by others who would make good. All in all this is a tremendous subject and I call your attention to the definite possibility of planning in the Columbia Basin for certain local industries to supplement agriculture - decentrelized industries which will fill purely local needs and not export their production beyond the Columbia Basin. It is obvious from the history of Oregon and "ashington apple growing, for example, that there has probably been too much apple production in that area. There is, using the sime illustration, a growing improvement in apple production in the Appalachian section with the result that proportionately fewer Pacific Coast apples are sold in local custom markets than formerly. The eastern and southern growers have at last begun to learn how to grade, pick and store their applec. In the same my there is a tendency in the Far West to grow too many onions and similar specialized crops, thus creating too great dependence on eastern markets and too little diversification of crops. The Columbia Basin project requires, therefore, & comprehensive agricultural and industrial economic survey. /The Busin can #ventually support 500,000 of our citizens, and I should like to have it so planned that opportunity for settlement will be given primarily to those fumilies which are today in need. Finally, the whole Basin should be plenned with the thought of making the Basin economically self-supporting as for as possible. There is no reason, for instance, why the Busin should not make the equivalent of its whole shoe supply because hides are available close to the site. Certain woolon goods can be manufactured and it might be possible to work out small glass and crockery factories. This part of the survey should, I think, be referred to the National Resources Committee, and I an sending a copy of this memorandum to Mr. Delano. (initialled) F.D.R. F.D.R. (typed) c 0 P Y 10 o Jan ' 1940 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, film filmel my Mail Dien Mr. President Fl belated note To TEll you to what Q danling you one To have thia. ThoughT of sinding The SECAS, service man ouT TO waTch ours our baby while we maing are Qway. Q don't know how you can V2 so ThoughTful. buT you IND one unfailinaly is so is and your QEnerosity warms The The on St Tindin pusb past eockles Wonor of own onlin, hearts. This respite from The hurry and 1 of Washington is making new people of Henold and me - and. Glisur ME, we harded a little refunlishing. As luck would have iT, we both came down with colds and The forezing north winds didg't help w To fuick recorry. Think of icq on The bird bath, in Florida !! BUT now ur are will aqain: fishing Purny day with, iT seems To me, minereulous luek, allho Hanold Quesanss me ThaT iT is Small Time sTuLt eam- pensal To what he is used TO "Lt) The DAY TorTuges or something. HE furn has The Timesity TO each me when l am handling a sed-lish with consumments skill. a am afraid The you here ruined him! Bui he is Kinda nice, anyway. u/e have Two supert limenieks for you! Our very GST - always Jane lekes Brooksville, Florida. Tenuary 10, 1940. PSF PRIVATE January 23, 1940. MEMORANDUM FOR H. L. I. I wish to goodness you would not be 80 sarcastic. As you know, I have promised to send that reorganization message up and obviously there has been no going back on what I told you. I merely asked you to go to see George Norris because we need his support and I thought it was simpler for you to talk with him right away rather than to permit him to come out with some adverse expression of @pinion when the message goes up. You will, I think, also realize the predicament your lack of faith has put me in when I tell you the following: This morning when I asked Mrs. R. what people she had asked for dinner tonight before the meeting on the Cause and Cure of War, she mentioned that the Pinchots were coming. The invitation to them was, of course, without my knowledge. However, as I was afraid that you might think that they were being invited at my behest, I decided immediately that I would dine in my room, thus avoiding seeing the Pinchots and the other guests. F. D. R. STATE OF STATE IRIOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON January 23, 1940. My dear Mr. President: I am distressed by your memorandum of this date which I have just received. I was not conscious of feeling sarcastic when I wrote you the letter referred to. I was feeling badly because I was afraid that Forestry was slipping away but that was all the feel- ing that I had. Even if I had been disposed to write in a sarcastic vein to the President, I would have refrained from doing 80. I hope that you will believe that I had no such intention and that I deeply regret that my language was 80 badly chosen as to create an impression that was not intended. I understood perfectly why you wanted me to see George Norris and I am paving the way in the hope that I may see him in circum- stances in which I will not be running against a stone wall so far as he is concerned. I also regret the situation as to the Pinchots. I believe that I know fairly accurately how you feel about them and I would not have misunderstood at all the fact that they had dined with you. I surely know enough to realize that a man in your position must often have as guests people representing all shades of opinion on all subjects. I hope that I do not have to reaffirm the faith in you that has now been my inspiration for seven years. I would rather forget all about Forestry and everything else connected with official life than to have any personal misunderstanding with a man under whom I have been delighted to serve and whom I regard, as I have told you more than once, as the outstanding statesman of the world. Sincerely yours, Horold T.Febro Secretary of the Interior. The President, The White House. 2 OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR file pus WASHINGTON January 22, 1940. Dear Missy: Once again I am taking advantage of your courtesy and imposing upon your good nature. The enclosed letter, addressed to the President, is a very important one, and I hope that you will bring it to his attention at an early date when he will read it. Sincerely yours, Secretary of the Interior. Miss Marguerite LeHand, Secretary to the President, The White House. Inc. OF THE SINTE IRIOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON January 22, 1940. My dear Mr. President: I was shocked by your suggestion after Cabinet meeting on Friday that there might be a further delay in transferring Forestry to In- terior as the result of a visit to you by Senator George W. Norris. I will, of course, discuss this matter with Senator Norris at the earliest possible moment, but it does not seem to me that the ques- tion he raised should determine the matter. I do not propose again to go over the arguments in support of this transfer, but it is necessary for me to sketch in certain of the back- ground in order to avoid the possibility, sometime in the future, of appearing to have been less than candid with you. It was in 1935 that you suggested a Department of Conservation. My counter-suggestion was to change the name of "Interior" to "Con- servation," and with your permission, a bill was sent to Congress, first, to effectuate this change, and, second, to give you power to interchange bureaus and agencies as between Agriculture and Interior. This was with your full consent. That bill passed the Senate and it could have passed the House without difficulty, if my continued pleas for help had been fruitful. Not only did I receive no help, but Agri- culture fought and lobbied against the bill openly and with all its forces. There has never been a time since this bill was introduced that it would not have been comparatively easy to create a "Department of Conservation" and transfer to it, not only Forestry, but the other con- servation activities of the Government which naturally would fall within such & Department. Then came the Reorganization fight. It may have been because of my own great personal interest, but I think it is conservative for me to say that, more than any other member of your Administration, I did everything possible to advance this legislation which you desired. After the bill had passed, I continued to importune you for a transfer of Forestry. Sometimes I thought that you had been persuaded, and sometimes I thought differently. I was sure that such an order would have gone through without any difficulty at the last session of the Congress. I was in the unsatisfactory and baffled position of meeting passive resistance without an opportunity really to thresh out the entire issue and arrive at a conclusion based upon what appeared to be the facts. I think that it can hardly now be doubted that I was right when I insisted that Forestry could have been transferred at the last session. At least Budget Director Smith now frankly admits this, although he was of the contrary opinion at the time. If I had had an opportunity before your second order was sent to Congress, I think that I could have been able to make a fairly per- suasive argument in favor of the transfer to Interior, not only of Forestry, but of other less important agencies, without which Interior can never be anything but an abortive and ineffective Department of Conservation. 2 I had no such opportunity until after the order was sent to Congress. Then I told you very frankly how I felt and you assured me that it was not only your full intent to transfer Forestry, but that you were going to make Interior a "Department of Conservation." Since that time, I have urged upon various occasions the necessity for the filing of the order just as soon as possible after the con- vening of this session of the Congress. I made the same representa- tions to the Director of the Budget, with whom, I may say, I have always been able to discuss interests affecting my Department on a friendly basis and with a feeling that I was talking to an under- standing man. I foresaw and predicted that opposition to the transfer of Forestry would develop and that it might become formidable. Neces- sarily, the longer the delay in sending up the order, the more formid- able the opposition would become. Before Jane and I went to Florida on the fourth of January, I again urged the importance of haste in this matter. I told you that Gifford Pinchot was already busying himself in opposition to any possible transfer. Apparently I made an impression upon you that day because you told me that you would discuss the matter later the same day with Mr. Smith. I had hoped -- desperately hoped -- that the order would be sent up within two or three days following our talk on January 4. One of the reasons that I came back so early from Florida was because I was worrying about this matter, as I have been worrying ever since your second Reorganization Order was promulgated. 3 Now comes George Norris in an effort to block this transfer, just as he succeeded in blocking your own proposal to have TVA clear through Interior -- a proposal that was thoroughly sound from an organization and an administrative point of view, and which would have been another step toward the creation of a genuine Department of Conservation. I admire George Norris, as I have for years, and I am not a laggard in recognizing his contribution to the Liberal cause. Unfortunately, he is a sentimentalist. Lilienthal, with what seemed to me to be an entire lack of loyalty to his Chief, the President, went to Norris' office and wept on his desk, as Lilienthal well knows how to do. Without looking into the matter or studying the purpose that you had in mind, Norris at once committed himself to Lilienthal. After I had talked with him, Norris expressed the opinion that he had prob- ably been over-hasty, but it was then too late. Who talked to Norris with respect to Forestry, I do not know, but I suspect Gifford Pinchot. And once again Norris lets his feelings run away with him, although he was reasonably well convinced a year ago that this would be a proper transfer and one in the public interest. That which is happening is what I feared and predicted would happen. Each day's delay gives the opposition a chance to build up support, and Pinchot and the Forest lobby will neglect no opportunity. To divert from the real subject of this letter: I spoke to you Friday about Pringle's biography of Taft. Toward the end of the first volume, he discusses the Ballinger-Finchot controverey, and if he is right in his facts, Ballinger was the victim of as ugly a political plot 4 as has ever appeared in American political history. As you know, I was always way over on the Pinchot side in that controversy, but if Pringle is anywhere near the truth in his presentation of the facts, I would not want to occupy Pinchot's place in history. Sometime you may want to read at least this part of what Pringle has written and you can do it in an hour. But to get back on the main track. I have never assured anyone that there might not be a controversy in Congress over the order to transfer Forestry. But I do know that the longer the matter is put off, the more likely there is to be a controversy and the more serious it will be. Norris, himself, is Exhibit A in support of this proposi- tion. I have not checked recently in the Senate because I have not known definitely when the order was to go up. But I have kept in touch with Dempsey in the House and he continues to assure me that, in that Chamber, your order can be made to stick. And suppose there is some controversy over this order? We don't get much in this life, especially when we are dealing with Congress, without a fight, and yet I seriously question whether the Democratic majority in either House would care to oppose you with too great vehemance on this issue. But give Pinchot, the Forest lobby and the farm lobbies, time to unlimber their guns and begin to fire at the members of Congress and what may be possible today may not be possible two weeks from now. 5 Frankly, I am not now happy in my present job. Please do not mis- understand me,Mr. President. I appreciate deeply your generous thought in making me a member of your Cabinet, but my chief ambition and inter- est, since you did me the honor to bring me to Washington, has been in trying to help to create and to administer a real Department of Conservation. TVA has been allowed to slip away. Rural Electrifica- tion is still in a Department where, in my humble judgment, it does not belong at all. There are other less important Federal activities scattered here and there that belong in any genuine Department of Conservation, but of course the keystone to the arch is Forestry. Without Forestry there can be no Department of Conservation. And unless it is transferred now, in my judgment, it will not be transferred at all. At any rate, a future transfer would not be of the slightest personal interest to me. At the best, my tenure of office is short. At the best, I would have all too short a time to disarm the suspicions of those who oppose the transfer and weave Forestry into the warp and woof of its new Department. A transfer at some indefinite later time would be too late for me. This is my last plea to you in this matter. I believe that the logic of the situation is with me, not only from the point of view of the proper locus in quo for Forestry, but from the point of view of making a real beginning in the building up of a genuine Department of Conservation. However, the decision is with you. What I hope is that, if you do plan to transfer Forestry, the order will go up within 6 the next day or two. This would be only good tactics. And if you have decided that you will not transfer Forestry at this time, I will be under additional obligations to you if you will frankly tell me 80 . Sincerely yours, Harold 7.Feber Secretary of the Interior. The President, The White House. 7 PSF:1940 Iches OF THE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTONHE WHITE HOUSE January 23, 1940. JAN 23 12 13 PM '40 RECEIVED My dear Mr. President: I have read, and am returning herewith, Gifford Pinchot's letter to you of January 17, in which he repeats his opposition to the transfer of Forestry to Interior. Of course, I humbly recognize that Gifford Pinchot must neces- sarily say the last word on any matter affecting Forestry and that to venture to join issue with him would amount to lese majeste; perhaps even to sacrilege. Accordingly, I will not attempt to meet his arguments, which are as familiar to you as they are to me. After all, this whole matter has passed the stage of argument on the merits. The case is in in full on both sides and it only awaits the final decision of the judge. Sincerely yours, Secretary of the Interior. The President, The White House. Enc. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON January 15, 1940. MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR YOUR INFORMATION AND RETURN FOR OUR FILES. F. D. R. - form letters PSF I Feles January 15, 1940. Dear Gifford:- I have received the form letters and my general reaction to them 1s unfavorable because this sort of organized drive is just as such a special group effort as drives on the Congress or the President by separate Protestant denominations or individuals like Coughlin or the United States Chamber of Commerce or the Cattlemen's Associations or, for that matter, horrid things like the K.K.K. itself. I &o not believe in group drives anyway because I think they have hurt the improvement of the general processes of administrative government and Congressional decisions. Furthermore, to suggest that we should have two recreation departments doing practically identical work, one in the Department of Agri- culture and the other in the Department of the Interior is wasteful and inefficient. There are two schools of thought in regard to the two Departments concerned -- one is that everything that grows should be in the Department of Agriculture and only inanimate things, like minerals and oils, should be in the Department of the Interior. If this were done the Department of Agriculture would be bigger than all the other Departments of the Government put together, both in personnel and in money spending, and the Department of the Interior would have two or three minor Bureaus in it only. One of the essentials of Government is to prevent any one Department from becoming a tail that runs the Federal dog! A more logical division goes back to the origin of both Departments. The Department of the Interior was organized primarily to take charge of Government owned land, and the Department of Agri- culture was organized primarily to look after the neede of the private land owners of the United States. Frankly, I an getting to the point of believing that logio favors the latter view. And, incidentally, the days have passed when any human being can say that the Department of Agriculture is wholly pure and honest and the Department of the Interior is utterhyyblack and crooked. Very sincerely yours, Honorable Gifford Pinohot, 1615 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. 6. PSF Ickes GIFFORD PINCHOT MILFORD PIKE CO PA 1615 Rhode Island Ave., N. W., Washington, D. C., January 17, 1940. The President, The White House, Washington, D. C. Dear Franklin: Many thanks for your letter of January 15. Here are some of the reasons why, as a matter of sound government organization, the Forest Service should not he transferred. The Service was born, grew up, and for a long generation has done admirable work in the Department of Agriculture. There is no tenable claim that it could do better else- where, and no reason to expect that it could do as well. The Forest Service is a research as well as an executive organization. This union of research and administration under- lies the progress of forestry and the morale and efficiency of the Service. To separate the two would ruin the Service. This union is also the distinguishing characteristic of the Department of Agriculture. The Service is in constant neces- sary cooperation with more than half of the twenty-odd other organizations in the Depart- ment, such as the Soil Conservation Service, the Bureaus of Agricultural Economics, Ento- mology, Plant Industry, etc., etc. That co- operation would be badly dislocated if the transfer were made. The President January 17, 1940. --2-- The sentiment of the people most concerned is overwhelmingly opposed to the transfer. Users of the National Forests; experts in forestry in and out of the govern- ment service; the great national agricultural organizations and many others; the people of the Rocky Mountain and Pacific coast states and their representatives in Senate and House, of both parties--all these are, in immense majority, vigorously opposed to the transfer and in favor of keeping the Service where it 1s. Silcox did not believe that the Forest Service could continue to succeed if transferred to the Interior Department. I understand that he gave you his reasons. The transfer is not a question of personalities, but of good permanent organiza- tion. Secretaries pass; the natural relations between lines of work do not. If Harold Ickes were in Agriculture and Henry Wallace in Interior, I would still be emphatically opposed to the pro- posed transfer. To uproot the Service from its life- long surroundings would do great injury to its morale, to its essential cooperation with other agricultural bureaus, to its relations with the users of the National Forests, and to public support. Only the strongest constructive reasons could justify it. So far as I know, such reasons do not exist. It strikes me as particularly unfor- tunate that conservation should become a con- troversial issue just at this time when I believe it can be made the foundation of enduring peace The President January 17, 1940. --3-- hetween nations. This is what I have wanted to see you about. I enclose 8. memorandum on the subject. and Faithfully your Enclosure. A PLAN FOR PERMANENT PEACE THROUGH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN THE CONSERVATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES The Proposal National life everywhere is built on the foundation of natural resources. Throughout human history the exhaustion of these resources and the need for new supplies have been among the greatest causes of war. A just and permanent world peace is vital to the best interests of the United States. When the terms which will end the present war are considered, the United States should be in position to point the way to such a peace. That being so, it would be wise to prepare in time. The proposal is that the United States make ready now to bring the nations together, at the right moment, in a common effort for conserving the natural resources of the earth, and for assur- ing to each nation access to the raw materials it needs, without recourse to war. --2-- In all countries some natural resources are being depleted or destroyed. Needless waste or destruction of such resources anywhere threatens or will threaten, sooner or later, the welfare and security of peoples everywhere. Conservation is clearly a world necessity, not only for enduring prosperity, but also for permanent peace. No nation is self-sufficient in essential raw materials. The welfare of every nation depends on access to natural resources which it lacks. Fair access to natural resources from other nations is therefore an indispensable condition of permanent peace. War is still an instrument of national policy for the safeguarding of natural resources or for securing them from other nations. Hence inter- national cooperation in conserving, utilizing, and distributing natural resources to the mutual advan- tage of all nations might well remove one of the most dangerous of all obstacles to a just and permanent world peace. --3-- The conservation of natural resources and fair access to needed ráw materials are steps toward the common good to which all nations must in prin- ciple agree. Since the United States is less dependent on imported natural resources than any other industrial nation, and since it 1a already engaged in broadening international trade through negotiated agreements, its initiative to such ends would undoubtedly be well received. It is eminently fitting that the present Administration, which so vigorously supports both the conservation policy at home and the policy of fair access to raw materials abroad, should take the lead in this matter. The problem of permanent peace includes, of course, great factors which the foregoing proposal does not cover. But it does cover that factor which 1s certainly, in the long run, the most potent of them all. --4-- Facts Required If the foregoing proposal is adopted, facts in support of it will be needed, and a plan for assembling them. The formulation of a general policy and a specific program of action would follow. Facts for the United States and for each nation separately should be grouped under the gen- eral classes of Forests, Waters, Lands, Minerals, and Wildlife. In rough outline they should include: As to Conservation: 1. Resources in existence, consumption, prob- able duration, waste, conservation if any, necessary reserves, and available surplus. 2. The foregoing figures segregated for cer- tain key resources, such as arable land, oil, tim- ber, water power, cotton, rubber, coal, tin, iron, copper, etc. 3. The relative consumption of natural resources in war and peace. --5-- 4. A combination of these figures for the whole World, and separately for the Americas, Europe, Asia, the British Empire, and the French Empire. As to Fair Access: 1. Present interdependence of Nations in natural resources (raw materials), with the ori- gin, destination, and quantities of imports and exports. 2. Present barriers to Fair Access, such 8.8 tariffs, embargoes, monopolies, military require- ments, transportation. 3. Sources of pressure to acquire natural resources, such 8.3 excess population, desire for power, mental invasion, racial colonies, and nationalism on the march. --6-- A Way to Assemble Them The information just outlined undoubtedly exists in sufficient detail for the present pur- pose, and can be put together without original investigation. That could be done through: 1. A board, say of three persons attached directly to the White House, with one or two capable assistants, two or three stenographers, and the necessary office space. This force might have to be increased if available time proved shorter and the cooperation of other agencies less effective than is anticipated. 2. A Presidential order directing all Govern- ment organizations to cooperate and supply desired information and assistance on request of the Board. 3. Funds for salaries and expenses of the Board members and their assistants. On the basis of one year's work the cost should not exceed $50,000. --7-- Formulation by the Board of recommendations for a general policy and a specific program of action--including the presentation of the plan to neutral and belligerent nations, the sequence and the timing--could not wisely be undertaken without the fullest cooperation and guidance of the Secre- tary of State. It could best be undertaken after facts enough to support it have been collected. At a time and under circumstances which are not here suggested, the plan should be announced to the American people and fully discussed in pub- lic, with special care to show that the interests of Labor, Capital, and the Farmer have all been duly recognized. --8-- Previous Efforts The idea of international cooperation in the conservation and distribution of natural resources the world over as a promoter of human welfare and a preventer of war is not new. Early in 1909 a North American Conservation Conference met in Washington by invitation of President Theodore Roosevelt. Upon the recommendation of this Con- ference the President invited 58 nations to meet at The Hague for the purpose of formulating plans for an inventory of the natural resources of the world. This was to have been followed by further steps in the direction of permanent world peace, but after 30 nations had accepted the invitation of the United States, President Taft killed the plan. At the end of the World War President Wilson, at the suggestion of Colonel House, took steps toward securing world-wide cooperation in the con- servation and distribution of natural resources. --9-- Unfortunately nothing came of it beyond the initia- tion of an inquiry under the League of Nations. During President Hoover's Administration a group of nearly two hundred leading citizens urged him to take action along the same general line. Nothing came of that either. There is a strong reason to believe that what other Presidents refused to try or failed to achieve can now be undertaken with every prospect of ultimate success. Jan 17.1940. Adolth Bert Int TSF OF THE FREE IRIOR THE with SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR fee. Tnkn WASHINGTON O February 2, 1940. THE FEB WHITE 6 RECEIVED 8 HOUSE 58 - ASSISTANT My dear Mr. President: FEB 1040 STATE MR. BERLE I spoke to you briefly the other day about appointing delegates to the Indian Conference in Mexico next April to represent this country. Since then I have been informed that, although the Depart- ment of State had promised to submit to us all names before passing them on to you, this is not being done. I do not personally attest to the fact, but my further information is that Mr. Berle has taken over the handling of this matter, in the doing of which apparently he does not propose either to consult or to take this Department into consideration. So far as I know, there is no agency of the United States Govern- ment that has as much interest or concern as does Interior for our Indian citizens. While technically, because of its international phases, this is a matter that should be cleared through the Depart- ment of State, it seems to me that it is essentially a matter for this Department. We hope that delegates will be appointed to this conference who have the technical knowledge and social vision requisite to dis- cuss intelligently our own Indian policy, and the enormous progress that has been made in all matters affecting the Indians under your Administration. There will be in attendance at this conference repre- sentatives of countries such as Mexico, the majority of whose citizens are of Indian blood. Surely we want to make the best showing possible and this can be done only if leadership is vested in this Department through its Bureau of Indian Affairs. Sincerely yours, Horold Secretary of the Interior. The President, The White House. 2 February fillesmat 10, 1940 gakes DEPARTMENT OF STATE ASSISTANT SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO THE PRESIDENT. Re Secretary Ickes' Letter: Fear Lest the State Department Interfere with the Indian Conference in Mexico City I have taken this up with Secretary Ickes. Why in Gehenna anybody here should want to monkey with the Conference on Indian Affairs is past my comprehension. I have nothing to do with it, except that the Division of Conferences, pro forma, reports to me. I have suggested to the Secretary that he will get straighter "information" if he telephones direct, instead of picking up town gossip. He seemed satisfied in talking to me; but he has a suspicious Department. The suggested list of delegates will come over, in due course. GRB A. A. Berle, Jr. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON February 6, 1940. MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO READ FOR YOUR AMUSEMENT AND RETURN FOR MY FILES. F. D. R. PSF 1990 EORGE W. NORRIS Ickes NEBRASKA United States Senate WASHINGTON, D.C. N/K January 25, 1940 My dear Mr. President: I an very sorry to learn that you have changed your mind and have decided to issue an order transferring the Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of the Interior. I shall not go into details, because at the con- ference which we recently held I expressed quite fully my ideas on the subject. I want to make one last suggestion and that is that the entire matter might be settled satis- factorily by making Mr. Ickes Secretary of War, I appreciate the fact that Mr. Ickes' real inter- est is in conservation. In the War Department, he would have a wonderful opportunity to do a real service in carrying out your ideas of conservation. He possesses the peculiar qualities that fit him admirably for this work, and as I have pointed out to you several times the War Department through some of its agencies has not been in harmony with your own policy of conservation. As I see it, there is no other person who could more satisfactorily per- form this job than Mr. Ickes. Sincerely yours, The Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt President of the United States The White House. PSF Icke ol. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON February 6, 1940. MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO READ FOR YOUR AMUSEMENT AND RETURN FOR MY FILES. F. D. R. Letter addressed to the President under date of January 25, 1940 by Senator Norris in re transfer of Forest Service from the Department of Agriculture. Makes the suggestion that the matter might be settled satisfactorily by making Mr. Ickes Secretary of War. PSF: 1940: I ckes 8Feb. 40 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR My dear an President: you are a hard man to deal with, especially when any one advice and loves you ps & do, your tether quit touched me. 9 our yours to commond to the efter of very ability; of my lemotions there can he no doubt However, in all sincerely, 9 believe that the Flank attack M Fountry that & suggested yesterday is the proper affroach at this time. you connot offord the beater on This issue and 9 one affrehensive Least of all would I want to be every advertly re- spousible for your defeat, with deep affections, Prby. 8,1440, Honold PSF I.bs THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON February 8, 1940. MEMORANDUM FOR F. D. R. On receipt of the attached, I wrote longhand a memorandum to H. L. I. and gave it to him. MEMORANDUM FOR H. L. I. You and I have been married "for better or worse" for too long to get a divorce or for you to break up the home. I continue to need you. Affectionately, F.D.R. PSF Ickes OF THE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON February 7, 1940. Dear Misey: Late yesterday afternoon General Watson called me to summon me to a conference with the President and the Di- rector of the Budget at 3:15 this afternoon, to consider another draft of the order and message transferring Forestry to Interior. I trust that you will find it possible to get the enclosed letter into the President's hands this morning, because he will see from this that there will be no oc- casion for the conference that he has called for this afternoon. I want to spare him as much time and trouble as possible. Yours, as always, Horold 7.9chr Miss Marguerite LeHand, Secretary to the President, The White House. Inc. PSF Ickes THE OF FINTE RIOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON February 7, 1940. My dear Mr. President: I had a long talk with George Norris on Monday about Forestry. I found that he has no objection to transferring Forestry to In- terior, per se. He does not think that Agriculture has any greater claim on Forestry than Interior has. He volunteered that every Sec- retary of the Interior might not personally be a scoundrel any more than that every Secretary of Agriculture might be a man of out- standing rectitude and civic virtue. He said that if your order had gone up some time ago it would probably have caused little disturbance. He feels that to send it up now would bring out in the open a fight that is already smouldering and that it would affect adversely your chances for re-election. He said to me that he had already told you that he regarded your election for a third term as of paramount importance. As you know, I agree with Senator Norris as to this. No more than Senator Norris would I want to urge or be a party to any act on your part that might make it more difficult for you to be re- elected if the people should decide that it was your duty to them to run again. Moreover, I have a feeling that, as matters have developed with respect to Forestry, it will now mean a hard fight to transfer it. It could have been done easily at the last session. It could have been done without much trouble if the order had gone up, as we had planned, upon the convening of Congress for this session without any prior intimation that such an order was in prospect. But already protests by the hundreds, stimulated un- doubtedly by Gifford Pinchot and the well-organized Forest lobby, are pouring in upon individual members of Congress. Word has just come to me from one Congressman that he has received a letter from Pinchot containing this language: "The Interior Department has no claim whatever upon the national forests. Ambition for power is no good reason for upsetting a lay- out that works superbly as it 1s." The result is that, whereas last spring I felt every assurance that there would be no difficulty in transferring Forestry, and while I believed the same at the beginning of this session, I no longer possess any degree of confidence. Accordingly, I cannot conscientiously ask that you transfer Forestry. However, unfortunately, Forestry has become a symbol to me. I have had one consistent ambition since I have been Secretary of the Interior, and that has been to be the head of a Department of Conservation, of which, necessarily, Forestry would be the key- stone. I have not wanted merely to be a Secretary of the Interior; I have wanted to leave office with the satisfaction that I had accomplished something real and fundamental. I have told you 2 frankly that, as this Department is now set up, it does not interest me. So I have come to the reluctant conclusion that, as matters now stand, I cannot be true to myself nor measure up to the high stand- ards that you have a right to expect of a man whom you have honored by making him a member of your Cabinet. Accordingly, I am resign- ing as Secretary of the Interior and, at your pleasure, I would like my resignation to take effect not later than the 29th of February. You have highly honored me by naming and retaining me as a member of your Cabinet for practically seven years. Until last July 1, I thoroughly enjoyed my work. Although I now feel that I cannot go on, I want you to know how much I appreciate the many expressions of regard and confidence that I have had from you and what an inspiration it has been to work in such close cooperation with the man whom I regard as the outstanding statesman of his generation. Sincerely yours, Secretary of the Interior. The President, The White House. 3 PSF I.kes C 0 P Y THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON March 7. 1940. MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Will you speak to me about this? F.D.R. Smare THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR can WASHINGTON Original filedin PSF Agriculture [3-9-40] The President The White House. My dear Mr. President: I have received your memorandum of March 7, transmitting Sec- retary Wallace's letter of March 4 concerning recreation in the na- tional forests, which I an returning herewith. Understated in Secretary Wallace's letter is the fact that the Forest Service is administering 73 primitive areas set aside by or- der of the Chief Forester as "preserving for all time to come, for the purpose of public education, inspiration and recreation, with such restrictions as have been found necessary These primi- tive areas total 14,268,705 acres. The Forest Service also has de- veloped a number of major recreational areas, notably Mount Baker National Forest Park, Washington; Columbia River Gorge and Mount Hood, Oregon; the area recently created as the Kings Canyon National Park, California; and the White Mountains, New Hampshire. Specifically, the major recreational development in Kings Can- yon still remains in the national forest outside of the park bound- aries in the Cedar Grove reclamation withdrawal. The Cedar Grove development consists of 7 miles of one-way, 10 foot, campground service roads, all of which are oiled. There are 2 public camp- grounds totalling 45 acres and covering 197 individual sites. These are complete, with parking spurs, campfire stoves, tables, piped water, flush type toilets and septic tanks. A third campground unit of approximately 55 acres and covering about 160 individual camp sites is partially completed. Unless this recently constructed rec- reational development is transferred to the National Park Service, there will be two departments administering recreation for the same park. The Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture has developed numerous important recreational projects, generally without consultation with State park authorities or with the National Park Service, and these recreational developments conflict in a num- ber of cases with developments that the latter Service is carrying out in cooperation with the States. Over emphasized in Secretary Wallace's letter is the incidental recreational use of minor campgrounds and pionic grounds, which range in size from 8 to 10 sets of fireplaces and tables to the occasionally large area of 50 to 75 sets. I am not concerned with this incidental recreational use of the national forests. I believe that such inoi- dental use should be continued under the direct supervision of the Forest Service, but that the function of recreational land planning, to avoid duplication of effort and competition with other Federal and State recreational developments, should be transferred to the Do- partment of the Interior so that a coordinated park, parkway and rec- reational program can be carried out, as directed by the Congress. I believe, also, that most of the designated primitive and reo- reational areas, the primary purpose of which is for recreation and preservation, should be transferred to this Department. Such areas could continue to be open to hunting, prospecting and mining, and other non-destructive uses. If such transfer is consummated, the widespread, incidental recreational use of the forests, which Seo- retary Wallace logically holds to be a legitimate use, would still remain undisturbed under the administration of the Forest Service. With reference to his conclusion that such transfer would result in duplication of personnel at various levels and greatly increased cost of administration, it is observed that protection and administra- tion of large primitive areas is generally based on physical limita- tions of personnel to patrol and to protect. Furthermore, most of the primitive areas are at higher elevations and require less pro- tection than the lowlands. Until funds and personnel can be adjusted authority is contained in the National Park Service Organic Aot of 1916 for the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with that Service to such extent as may be requested by the Secretary of the Interior in the supervision, man- agement, and control of national monuments contiguous to national for- ests. Such cooperation could be followed also in connection with the primitive and recreational areas, if transferred to this Department. Concerning construction and maintenance of trails, the cost is limited by physical conditions. There is no reason to believe that construction and maintenance will cost more under the supervision of the National Park Service than under the supervision of the Forest Service. 2 There are repeated implications in Secretary Wallace's letter that management of recreational lands by any agency other than the Forest Service would result in prohibitive cost of recreation for low income groups. This argument is directed at the reasonable special service fees and automobile fees which the National Park Service charges in accordance with your wishes and the requirements of the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress. There appears to be very little reason why the Department of Agriculture should be permitted to break down this revenue producing practice by providing a competing system of so-called free recreation. The map, which Secretary Wallace attached, shows the multiple use plan of management for the Wenatchee National Forest, a typical national forest. I have no thought of recommending the transfer of any portion of it. It is an ordinary national forest with its well distributed incidental, recreational use. It does have one point of interest, how- ever, and that is that only about 35 percent of it is useful for timber production, and the remaining two-thirds of it hardly can be classified as "forestry" land. It is the opinion of many foresters that, if the Forest Service were liberated from the problems of recreational area administration, the energies of that great organization would be turned to the legiti- mate function of forestry. Because of these considerations, I recommend that those national forest lands which, in reality, serve as parks, be transferred to the Department of the Interior, and that the recreational land planning of the Federal Government also be concentrated in this Department. This can be accomplished without disturbing the normal and desirable rec- reational use of timber producing lands and without detracting from the national sustained yield timber program. There is no reason to believe that such transfer would increase present administrative costs in any particular. To the contrary, present duplication and conflict point conclusively to savings to be attained by substituting coordination for conflict. Sincerely yours, Secretary of the Interior. Enclosure 1936829. aed ilm FILE COPY Surname: THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON Sungray Milar TO SECRETARY MAR 15 1940 FOR SIGNATURE The President INTERIOR DEPT. The White House. MAR 1 5 1940 My dear Mr. Presidents MAIL SECRETARY'S CENTER I have received your memorandum of Harch 7. transmitting Seo- retary Wallace's letter of March 4 concerning recreation in the na- tional forests, which X an returning herewith. Understated in Secretary Wallace's letter is the fact that the MAR 16 194@orest Service is administering 73 primitive aroas set aside by or BECRETARY der of the Chief Forester as "preserving for all time to come, for the purpose of public education, inspiration and recreation, with INTERIOR RECEIVED DEPT. such restrictions as have been found necessary . . .". These primi- tive areas total 14,268,705 acros. The Forest Service also has de- MAR 1 8 1940 veloped a number of major recreational areas, notably Mount Baker SECRETARY'S MAIL CENTER National Forest Park, Washington, Columbia River Gorge and Mount Hood, Oregons the area recently created as the Kings Canyon National INTERIOR RECEIVED DEPT. Park, California; and the White Mountains, New Hampshire. MAR 1 8 1940 FIRST ASSISTANT Specifically, the major recreational development in Kings Can- SECRETARY you still remains in the national forest outside of the park bound- aries in the Cedar Grove reelamation withdrawal. The Codar Grove development consists of 7 milos of one-ways 10 foot, campground service roads, all of which are ciled. There are 2 public camp- grounds totalling 45 acres and covering 197 individual sites. These are complete, with parking spurs, compfire stoves, tables, piped water, flush type toilets and septie tanks. A third campground unit of approximately 55 acros and covering about 160 individual camp sites is partially completed. Unless this recently constructed reo- reational development is transferred to the National Park Service, there will be two departments administering recreation for the same park. The Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture has developed numerous important recreational projects, generally without consultation with State park authorities or with the National Park Service, and these recreational developments conflict in a num- ber of cases with developments that the latter Service is carrying out in cooperation with the States. Copy for Secretary's Office Over emphasised in Secretary Wallnce's letter is the incidental recreational use of minor campgrounds and pienic grounds, which range in size from 8 to 10 sets of fireplaces and tables to the occasionally large area of 50 to 75 sets. I an not concerned with this incidental recreational use of the national forests. I believe that such inoi- dental use should be continued under the direct supervision of the Forest Service, but that the function of recreational land planning, to avoid duplication of effort and competition with other Federal and State recreational developments, should be transferred to the De- partment of the Interior so that a coordinated park, parkway and roo- reational program can be carried out, as directed by the Congress. I believe, also, that most of the designated primitive and reo- reational areas, the primary purpose of which is for recreation and preservation, should be transferred to this Department. Such areas could continue to be open to hunting, prospecting and mining, and other non-destructive uses. If such transfer is consumnated, the widespread, incidental recreational use of the forests, which Sec- retary Wallace logically holds to be a legitimate use, would still remain undisturbed under the administration of the Forest Service. With reference to his conclusion that such transfer would result in duplication of personnel at various levels and greatly increased cost of administration, it is observed that protection and administra- tion of large primitive areas is generally based on physical limita- tions of personnel to patrol and to protect. Furthermore, most of the primitive aroas are at higher elevations and require less pro- tection than the lowlands. Until funds and personnel can be adjusted authority is contained in the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 for the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with that Service to such extent as may be requested by the Secretary of the Interior in the supervision, nan- agement, and control of national monuments contiguous to national for- ests. Such cooperation could be followed also in connection with the primitive and recreational areas, if transferred to this Department. Concerning construction and maintenance of trails, the cost is limited by physical conditions. There is no reason to believe that construction and maintenance will cost more under the supervision of the National Park Service than under the supervision of the Forest Service. 2 There are repeated implications in Secretary Wallace's letter that management of recreational lands by any agency other than the Forest Service would result in prohibitive cost of recreation for low income groups. This argument is directed at the reasonable special service fees and automobile fees which the National Park Service charges in accordance with your wishes and the requirements of the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress. There appears to be very little reason why the Department of Agriculture should be permitted to break down this revenue producing practice by providing a competing system of se-called free recreation. The map, which Secretary Wallace attached, shows the multiple use plan of management for the Wanatchee National Forest, a typical national forest. I have no thought of recommending the transfer of any portion of it. It is an ordinary national forest with its well distributed incidental, recreational use. It does have one point of interest, how- over, and that is that only about 35 percent of it is useful for timber production, and the remaining two-thirds of it hardly can be classified as "forestry" lands It is the opinion of many foresters that, if the Porest Service were liberated from the problems of recreational area administration, the energies of that great organisation would be turned to the legiti- mate function of forestry. Because of these considerations, I recommend that those national forest lands which, in reality, serve as parks, be transferred to the Department of the Interior, and that the recreational land planning of the Federal Government also be concentrated in this Department. This can be accomplished without disturbing the normal and desirable rec- reational use of timber producing lands and without detracting from the national sustained yield timber program. There is no reason to believe that such transfer would increase present administrative costs in any particular. To the contrary, present duplication and conflict point conclusively to savings to be attained by substituting coordination for conflict. Sincerely yours, Secretary of the Interior. Enclosure 1936829. aed:lm PsF Interior THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON [3-15-40] The President The White House. My dear Mr. Presidents I have received your memorandum of March 7. transmitting Sec- retary Wallace's letter of March 4 concerning recreation in the na- tional forests, which I an returning herewith. Understated in Secretary Wallace's letter is the fact that the Forest Service is administering 73 primitive areas set aside by or- der of the Chief Forester as "preserving for all time to come, for the purpose of public education, inspiration and recreation, with such restrictions as have been found necessary ⑇. These primi- tive areas total 14,268,705 acros. The Forest Service also has de- veloped a number of major recreational areas, notably Mount Baker National Forest Park, Washingtons Columbia River Gorge and Mount Hood, Oregons the area recently created as the Kings Canyon National Park, California; and the White Mountains, New Hampshire. Specifically, the major recreational development in Kings Can- you still remains in the national forest outside of the park bound- aries in the Cedar Grove reclamation withdrawal. The Cedar Grove development consists of 7 miles of one-way, 10 foot, campground service roads, all of which are ciled. There are 2 public camp- grounds totalling 45 aores and covering 197 individual sites. These are complete, with parking spurs, campfire stoves, tables, piped water, flush type toilets and septio tanks. A third campground unit of approximately 55 acres and covering about 160 individual camp sites is partially completed. Unless this recently constructed reo- reational development is transferred to the National Park Service, there will be two departments administering recreation for the same park. The Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture has developed numerous important recreational projects, generally without consultation with State park authorities or with the National Park Service, and these recreational developments conflict in a num- ber of cases with developments that the latter Service is carrying out in cooperation with the States. Over emphasised in Secretary Wallace's letter is the incidental recreational use of minor campgrounds and pienie grounds, which range in size from 8 to 10 sets of fireplaces and tables to the occasionally large area of 50 to 75 sets. I an not concerned with this incidental recreational use of the national forests. I believe that such inci- dental use should be continued under the direct supervision of the Forest Service, but that the function of recreational land planning, to avoid duplication of effort and competition with other Federal and State recreational developments, should be transferred to the De- partment of the Interior so that a coordinated park, parkway and rec- reational program can be carried out, as directed by the Congress. I believe, also, that most of the designated primitive and rec- reational areas, the primary purpose of which is for recreation and preservation, should be transferred to this Department. Such areas could continue to be open to hunting, prospecting and mining, and other non-destructive uses. If such transfer is consumnated, the widespread, incidental recreational use of the forests, which Sec- retary Wallace logically holds to be a legitimate use, would still remain undisturbed under the administration of the Forest Service. With reference to his conclusion that such transfer would result in duplication of personnel at various levels and greatly increased cost of administration, it is observed that protection and administra- tion of large primitive areas is generally based on physical limita- tions of personnel to patrol and to protect. Furthermore, most of the primitive areas are at higher elevations and require less pro- tection than the lowlands. Until funds and personnel can be adjusted authority is contained in the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 for the Secretary of Agriculture to cooperate with that Service to such extent as may be requested by the Secretary of the Interior in the supervision, man- agement, and control of national monuments contiguous to national for- ests. Such ocoperation could be followed also in connection with the primitive and recreational areas, if transferred to this Department. Concerning construction and maintenance of trails, the cost is limited by physical conditions. There is no reason to believe that construction and maintenance will cost more under the supervision of the National Park Service than under the supervision of the Forest Service. 2 There are repeated implications in Secretary Wallace's letter that management of recreational lands by any agency other than the Forest Service would result in prohibitive cost of recreation for low income groups. This argument is directed at the reasonable special service fees and automobile fees which the National Park Service charges in accordance with your wishes and the requirements of the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress. There appears to be very little reason why the Department of Agriculture should be permitted to break down this revenue producing practice by providing a competing system of se-called free recreation. The map, which Secretary Wallace attached, shows the multiple use plan of management for the Wenatchee National Forest, a typical national forest. I have no thought of recommending the transfer of any portion of it. It is an ordinary national forest with its well distributed incidental, recreational use. It does have one point of interest, how- over, and that is that only about 35 percent of it is useful for timber production, and the remaining two-thirds of it hardly can be classified as "forestry" land. It is the opinion of many foresters that, if the Forest Service were liberated from the problems of recreational area administration, the energies of that great organization would be turned to the legiti- mate function of forestry. Because of these considerations, I recommend that those national forest lands which, in reality, serve as parks, be trensferred to the Department of the Interior, and that the recreational land planning of the Federal Government also be concentrated in this Department. This can be accomplished without disturbing the normal and desirable reo- reational use of timber producing lands and without detracting from the national sustained yield timber program. There is no reason to believe that such transfer would increase present administrative costs in any particular. To the contrary, present duplication and conflict point conclusively to savings to be attained by substituting coordination for conflict. Sincerely yours, Secretary of the Interior. Enolosure 1936829. P PsF Interior Y DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON March 4. 1940. The President, The White House. Dear Mr. Presidents As a follow-up of our talk about National Forest recreation on February 13, I thought you would like to have thefollowing brief statement: The recreational use of the National Forests began before there was any provision for handling it. The advent of the auto- mobile brought sharply increased use, creating problems of fire protection and sanitation which had to be met. The great area and distribution of the National Forests - 175 million acres not in 40 States and two Territories, inevitably makes them important locally, regionally, and nationally in varying degrees as recreational outlets. This inespecially true in the West where the National Forests contain the bulk of the higher mountain territory, furnishing escape from the hot lowlands in the summer and the larger part of the winter sports opportunity in the winter. Both because the people in large numbers use these areas for recreation on their own invitation and because such use is regarded by the Department as highly desirable, the recreational opportunity has been recognised as one of the important resources of the National Forests and has been given its appropriate place in the pattern of management and use. Recreation use fits nicely into the multiple use plan of management. Much of it is so dispersed in character that it requires nothing but the opportunity to roam around over lands which are at the same time growing timber and forage, furnishing water and wildlife, and in other ways contributing various public benefits. The more con- centrated form, such as camping and pionicking, requires only a small total area of actual use, though the use spots themselves are scattered throughout the National Forests. Campgrounds and pionio grounds are usually small, varying from 8 or 10 sets of fireplaces and tables to the occasional large area providing 50 to 75 sets. It is necessary to give recreation the right of way only over limited areas such as camp and picnic grounds, lake shores, resort areas, and the like. In such situations, commercial use of the timber and other resources is denied because of the greater recreational or scenic value. Reservation is made of "natural areas" of virgin timber here ahd there for visitors to enjoy. The wilderness and wild areas comrpise the only large tracts primarily devoted to recreation. These are pieces of the"back country," usually low in economic value, which are reserved from the encroachment of roads and similar artificialities for the enjoyment of those who like the primitive. These areas are situated in the hinterland of the Na- tional Forests and the administrators of the adjoining National Forest land can give them the necessary protection and simple administration with the minimum of expense. Recreation use has increased steadily and measurably. Estimates indicate that in 1924 there were about 42 million visits to the National Forests by people who camped, picnicked, stayed at resorts, or other- wise made actual use of the recreational facilities. In 1938, this number had increased to 142 million. In addition to this actual use of recreational facilities in 1938, there were over 18 million other visits by persons who took their recreation in traveling National Forests roads to enjoy the outdoor scenery. This total estimated figure of 32-3/4 million visits compares with a little over 164 million for the National Parks, monuments, and historical areas for the same year. In 1938, 75 per cent of those who actually used facilities were campers and picnickers; about 20 per cent stayed at resorts. Among the remaining 5 per cent are those who used summer homes in the Forests as owners or guests. Of the foregoing, our best estimate is that about 8 per cent came primarily for hunting, 21 per cent for fishing, 9 per cent for winter sports, and the remaining 62 per cent primeipally just to get out into the woods. National Forest recreational use is essentially a use by people of low or moderate income who in the main live near enough to be able to get to the National Forests cheaply and who must enjoy them at low expense when they get there. This is reflected in one way in the large numbers of campers and picnickers. Another striking bit of evidence is the result of a cross section taken in 1937 of the users of camp and picnic grounds as to their annual income classification. This shows as follows: 2 Income of Camp and Picnic Users - 1937 Income Group Per Cent Under $1000 28 $1000 to $2000 43 $2000 to $3000 19 $3000 to $5000 7 Over $5000 3 100 The facilities installed on the National Forests are mostly of a simple character designed primarily to meet the needs of the average citizen. Thus, there are nearly 4000 camp and picnic grounds; about 800 permitted resorts, mostly moderate priced; many places where winter sports may be enjoyed by those who can afford nothing more than a pair of skis and the cost of a short drive to the mountains. lie are now installing so-called organization camps for low rental to charitable or civic groups who subsidize vacations for the underprivileged. General public use is always given the right of way in planning and installing facilities. Exclusive use, such as summer homes, is allowed only where areas are not needed for general use. There are only about 13,000 summer homes in all of the National Forests, each one occupying a lot averaging less than an acre in size. When a block of summer-home lots is laid out, publicity is given and permits are granted on a first-come first-served basis. Most summer homes are modest affairs costing not over $1000. More elaborate homes are the exception. Timberline Lodge on Mount Hood, which you visited, is an ex- ceptional development. It was built by the WPA and on a scale which wouldnot have been undertaken except through the availability of relief labor. Its significance, however, lies not in the beauty of building and its furnishings nor in the few rooms used by the higher- paying guests, but rather in the fact that it is the rallying point in the use of Mount Hood by scores of thousands of people from nearby communities for winter sports which they must find near at hand cheaply or forego them. The administration of National Forest recreation is just a part of the entire administrative job. The men who give it general super- vision - the Regional Foresters and Supervisors - are the same men who supervise all of the other uses. The district rangers who supervise the heavy week-end business, and the lighter use through the week, are the same men who are handling the timber sale business, the fire pro- tection, the supervision of grazinguse, the issuing of permits for all sorts of miscellaneous uses, and all the other things that go along with the multiple use plan of management. 3 Furthermore, the actual use itself must always be fitted into the other uses in a way which can be done only by the general overseer. The enclosed map of the Wenatchee National Forest, showing the general multiple use pattern, gives an idea of the way recreation has to be fitted into that pattern. These considerations seems to me to point conclusively to the fact that it would be virtually impossible to turn over the recreation job to another agency. It would cause conflicts in purpose and in handling. It would require much duplication of personnel at various levels and a greatly increased cost. Beyond this, and without drawing invidious comparisons, I am satisfied that it would cause much public discontent, for there is ample proof that the people who use the National Forests for recreation are very much wedded to the way in which it is now handled. Sincerely yours, (SGD) H. A. WALLACE Enclosure. Secretary. PSF get OF STATE SINTE IRIOR fill THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Marll Man THE lobes WASHINGTON March 9, 1940. RECENCE = I 15 WHITE AM 3 HOUSE My dear Mr. President: When I got back to my office after Cabinet on Friday, I found two communications from the Department of Agriculture to you, each carrying the notation "Yill you speak to me about this" over your initials. One of these communications has to do with the proposal to trans- fer to this Department the recreational activities of the Forest Service and the other relates to the proposed transfer to the Grazing Division of Interior of the grazing in the national forests. In view of my trip to California, I cannot take these matters up with you until my return which will be on March 17. In the meantime, I am having detailed replies prepared for my consideration. In preliminary fashion I may say that it was hardly to be expected that Agriculture would willingly yield to your suggestion in this or in any other matter. Of course these questions can be argued ad lib and direful forebodings indulged in of the breakdown in the services affected if transfers are made. It seems to me that it all gets down to a question of whether similar services and activities are to be com- bined in one department or whether they are to be divided among two or more departments. I suppose now that Agriculture knows that modified transfers from Agriculture to Interior are being considered, the good old Forestry lobby will again go into high gear and deluge Congress with jeremiads and lamentations, all tending to prove that the Federal Government will crash about our ears if Agriculture is not to have what it wants when it wants it. In this connection I recall that I was not even given the benefit of clergy when the Soil Erosion Service, which started under Interior and vas giving such a satisfactory account of it- self, was transferred to Agriculture. I was actually at the Miami rail- road station when a telephone call came through from my Department apprising me that an order had been issued to Assistant Secretary Chap- man (who had no authority in the matter) to agree to the transfer. I pleaded that the matter be held open until the following morning but when I reached my office early the following day, the Soil Erosion Service had been gathered to the rapacious bosom of Agriculture. I was not even given an opportunity to try to prove, as I believe, that to repair and build up the soil, especially on the public lands, is at least as much the concern of Interior as it is of Agriculture. Agriculture lost little time in stretching its prehensile fingers in the direction of the public domain wherever it could through the activities of the Soil Erosion Service. A great deal of time and energy is required to repel the unholy advances of Agriculture. I may remind you in passing that the Soil Erosion Service was transferred to Agri- culture over the protests of Director Bennett of that Service. Sometimes I think that it might be better to transfer all of Interior to Agriculture and see whether that would suit the rapacious 2 appetite of this over-grown and bloated Department. On the basis of size alone, an effort ought to be made to reduce Agriculture either by logical transfers to Interior or by splitting the Department in two. No man is able to oversee and administer efficiently this vast and varied Department which now ranges from the Weather Bureau to operations in high finance. In this connection the enclosed tabulation may be of interest. I spoke to you after Cabinet on Friday about going ahead with the transfer plans that we had been discussing in lieu of the transfer of Forestry. I believe in short, quick operations myself when it comes to transfers. The patient may be shocked as I was when I suffered a major operation with respect to the Soil Erosion Service and actual dismember- ment under Reorganization Plan No. 2. But even a complete shock is preferable to lying on the operating table gazing at the instruments while the internes and nurses debate what operation the surgeon will perform and what instruments he will use, Sincerely yours, Secretary of the Interior. The President, The White House. Enc. 3 Comparison between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior as to appropriations, employees, space occupied, and number of bureaus or subdivisions, Fiscal Year 1940 March 8, 1940. Interior Agriculture Square feet of space occupied in D. C. 1,163,692 2,420,493 Appropriations for 1940: General and special funds $155,572,530.65 $1,141,345,967.11 Emergency Relief (direct appropri- ations exclusive of amounts transferred from WPA) 8,350,000.00 143,000,000.00 Total as carried in 1941 Budget $163,922,530.65 $1,284,345,967.11 Number of positions as carried in 1940 column of estimate schedules (exclusive of temporary positions and CCC) : Regular - D. C. 6,051 12,733.7 Field 19,842 30,722.1 Emergency - D.C. 111.9 973.9 Field 1,024.4 14,192 Total - D.C. 6,162.9 13,707.6 Field 20,866.4 44,914.1 Grand Total 27,029.3 58,621.7 Number of employees as of December. 31, 1940, including emergency, CCC, and temporary 46,648 86,262 Number of bureaus or major subdivisions 10 26 PSF tIckes THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Kuranegh WASHINGTON [Oriqual filed in PsF Pomien with related care spondence of Wallace. Indexed There-MeB March The President, 3-9-40 The White House. My dear Mr. President: I have read Secretary Wallace's letter to you of March 2 with a great deal of interest. After carefully considering all of the points made by the Secretary I cannot escape from the idea that he has failed to grasp the broad importance of the matter under dis- cussion. It seems to me that under these circumstances it would be entirely proper to present to you my concept of this problem and how it can best be solved in the public's interest and under a. long- time land use plan. The act authorizing the establishment of the forest reserves was for the primary and avowed purpose of protecting the Nation's forest resources. Forest reserves, and later national forests, were established pursuant to the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11, 34, 36) U.S.C. Title 16, Section 475. In that Act this significant section occurs: "No public forest reservation shall be established except to improve and protect the forests within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to effect a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States; but it is not the purpose or intent of these provisions, or of the act providing for such reservations, to authorize the inclusion therein of lands more valu- able for the minerals therein or for agricultural purposes than for forest purposes." The original reservations and forests were largely of the type contemplated under the law of 1897. In recent years the forests have been extended to embrace large areas of land clearly outside the purview of the act. These extensions of forest areas into the open or sparsely timbered range lands of the West have aggregated many millions of acres. These extensions, ostensibly made for water- shed protection purposes when timber values were impossible to defend, in general constituted an invasion of areas of primary value for range purposes and the imposition of a timber or forest economy that has often been inimical to grazing or range use, and to the unbalancing of the local economy built and maintained by the livestock industry. Grazing use by the livestock industry of lands within forests has been permitted because denial of such use would have resulted in widespread disturbance of social and economic con- ditions in the western range areas. Such grazing use of the forests under sufferance is contrasted with legal recognition of grazing use on the Federal ranges under the Taylor Act. The security pro- vided under the Taylor Act has such obvious advantages as to need no defense. Such security is essential to stabilization of the stock industry; the development of a sound economy in the range territory and rehabilitation of the ranges. Of the thousands of forest grasing users, only a small per- centage is entirely dependent upon forest range for a livelihood. The great majority use forest ranges for only limited seasons each year. During the other seasons the stock are on private, leased, or Federal range lands. The ranges being administered under the Taylor Grasing Act provide a part or all of the off-forest grasing by an estimated 75 percent of the forest users, while only approximately 25 percent of the Federal range users are dependent in any degree upon the national forests. of the thousands of forest users, many receive permits for only a portion of the stock they own and wish to graze. The Forest Service restricts numbers of stock and grazing use in accordance with climatic conditions and requires owners to find other ranges for any additional numbers of stock or for all stock during seasons or parts of seasons when climatic conditions are unfavorable. Other lands, therefore, carry and have carried the burden of the full numbers of stock owned. In the case of the Grazing Service, the sise of permits or licenses truly reflects the actual size of the operations of the permittees or licensees. The apparently large number of small licensees or permittees using the national forest ranges is not a true picture of the size of operations or the classification of users as small or large. The condition of forest ranges where they are admitted to be in good condition is due largely to the forced use of public domain and other range outside the national forests by stock that have been excluded or those that are kept off until the Forest Service decides that the forest range is ready for use. 2 Because of this restricted range policy of the Forest Service, forest ranges have been protected at the expense of public and private holdings and with little regard for the economic effect on owners who, having the stock on hand, must necessarily graze them somewhere while waiting to get onto the forests. This long estab- lished policy of the Forest Service is in definite contrast with that being followed by the Grazing Service for meeting the broad social and economic problems in the range country. The Forest Ser- vice is interested primarily in timber and forest products and such related uses of forest lands that do not interfere with forest growth. Forest administration has been directed along these lines regardless of the effect on the livestock industry. They have per- mitted vast areas of open range land to grow up into a jungle of small reproduction, excluding grazing, and yet in many of these same areas there is little or no opportunity ever to develop com- mercial timber stands. The cumulative effect of 35 years of this type of adminis- tration is noticeable in hundreds of mountain valleys and rural communities. Social and economic values have been sacrificed to the growing of timber of no commercial worth and of no greater watershed protection value than would have been furnished by 1 good stand of grass and browse, the use of which would have per- mitted continuance of a livestock economy, production of taxes, income, and a livelihood for many persons directly and all very large number indirectly. The Forest Service has in its past administration failed to give due consideration to proper use of private as well as public lands in its long-time planning. It has substituted an economy based primarily on timber production for the one evolved by trial and error methods of the western people over a long period of years. The Forest Service alone among Federal agencies has heretofore failed to indicate a desire to recognize the desirability or sig- nificance of correlated management of all Federal lands and land resources. This applies especially to grazing lands and the forage resources. This attitude on the part of the Forest Service is in strong contrast to that of other bureaus of the Government where cooperative agreements have been executed authorizing the Grasing Service of the Interior Department to administer lands or act as a grazing adviser. Such agreements are in effect with the Soil Conservation Service and the Farm Security Administration of the Department of Agriculture, and with the Reclamation Service, the Biological Survey, the National Park Service, the Indian Service of the Department of the Interior, and even on areas under the control of the War and Navy Departments. Furthermore, the Grasing Service secured enactment of the Pierce Act which permits corre- lated use of privately owned, State, and county lands without affecting titles or tax rolls. 3 The Grazing Service of this Department, under the authority of the Taylor Grazing Act, is engaged in the administration of approxi- mately 134,000,000 acres of grazing land in 10 western States. Interspersed with this area are upwards of 25,000,000 acres of national forest lands, including entire "forests" in all number of Instances, which are non-timbered grazing lands. In close associa- tion with these areas are 40,000,000 to 45,000,000 acres more of national forest land, the primary resource value of which is grazing. The tree growth supported thereon of minor or insignificant value as a source of commercial timber or a basis for operations that would provide a livelihood for some of our citizens. This area within grazing districts and forests of more than 200,000,000 acres of public grazing land, together with nearly a like amount of pri- vately owned farm, ranch, and range lands constitutes the backbone of the livestock industry and the general economy of these western States. In my opinion the existing divided administration of the public grasing land is productive of waste and inefficiency, in a large measure is unsound and ineffective, and consequently is detrimental to the public interest. The proposal of Secretary Wallace to con- tinue with only slight modification, this method of administration would provide but minor improvements at best, and would be unwork- able in practice. The proposed situation would be comparable to two families attempting to use the same household facilities. Con- fusion and conflict would be inevitable. This Department has given long and careful consideration to the question of properly conserving or providing for orderly use of the vast heritage embraced in our Federal lands and the resources thereon. I know how interested you are in trying to effect and put into action a long-time program of administration that will provide the greatest possible benefit, not only to the lands and the resources, but to the public that owns both and is entitled to an efficient and proper administration thereof. I believe that a unified administration of the public grazing land is imperative to the accomplishment of your purpose. May I suggest, therefore, that the first step toward accomplishing this most desir- able objective would be to determine the primary values of the lands in question and then to assign them to the respective agencies res- ponsible for their proper administration. This would result in the transfer from the forests, to the grazing districts, under Section 13 of the Taylor Act, of administratively manageable areas approximating 25,000,000 acres of open non-commercial timber land of primary value for grasing purposes, and the transfer of any manageable units of lands supporting commercial timber stands from the grazing districts to the adjacent forests. For the remaining 40,000,000 or 45,000,000 4 acres of land of combined forest and grazing value, such areas could be administered under cooperative arrangements similar to those now in effect with other bureaus of this Government as heretofore mentioned. Sincerely yours, Secretary of the Interior. 5 FILE COPY Surname: THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR WASHINGTON Karanagh Restrips 3-9-40 INTERIOR MAR 1 8/1940 RECEIVED The President, SECRETARY'S MAIL CENTER The White House. My dear Mr. President: I have read Secretary Wallace's letter to you of March 2 with a great deal of interest. After carefully considering all of the points made by the Secretary I cannot escape from the idea that he has failed to grasp the broad importance of the matter under dis- cussion. It seems to no that under these circumstances it would be entirely proper to present to you my concept of this problem and how it can best be solved in the public's interest and under a long- time land use plan. The Act authorising the establishment of the forest reserves was for the primary and avowed purpose of protecting the Nation's forest resources. Forest reserves, and later national forests, were established pursuant to the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11, 34, 36) U.S.C. Title 16, Section 475. In that Act this significant section occurs: "No public forest reservation shall be established except to improve and protect the forests within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to effect a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States; but it is not the purpose or intent of these provisions, or of the act providing for such reservations, to authorise the inclusion therein of lands more valu- able for the minerals therein or for agricultural purposes than for forest purposes." The original reservations and forests were largely of the type contemplated under the law of 1897. In recent years the forests have been extended to embrace large areas of land clearly outside the purview of the act. These extensions of forest areas into the open or sparsely timbered range lands of the West have aggregated many millions of acres. These extensions, ostensibly made for water- shed protection purposes when timber values were impossible to defend, in general constituted an invasion of areas of primary value for range purposes and the imposition of & timber or forest economy that has often been inimical to grazing or range use, and to the unbalancing of the local economy built and maintained by the livestock industry. Grazing use by the livestock industry of lands within forests has been permitted because denial of such use would have resulted in widespread disturbance of social and economic con- ditions in the western range areas. Such grasing use of the forests under sufferance is contrasted with legal recognition of grasing use on the Federal ranges under the Taylor Act. The security pro- vided under the Taylor Act has such obvious advantages as to need no defense. Such security is essential to stabilization of the stock industry; the development of a sound economy in the range territory and rehabilitation of the ranges. of the thousands of forest grasing users, only a small per- centage is entirely dependent upon forest range for a livelihood. The great majority use forest ranges for only limited seasons each year. During the other seasons the stock are on private, leased, or Federal range lands. The ranges being administered under the Taylor Grasing Act provide a part or all of the off-forest grazing by an estimated 75 percent of the forest users, while only approximately 25 percent of the Federal range users are dependent in any degree upon the national forests. Of the thousands of forest users, many receive permits for only a portion of the stock they own and wish to graze. The Forest Service restricts numbers of stock and grazing use in accordance with climatic conditions and requires owners to find other ranges for any additional numbers of stock or for all stock during seasons or parts of seasons when climatic conditions are unfavorable. Other lands, therefore, carry and have carried the burden of the full numbers of stock owned. In the case of the Grazing Service, the sise of permits or licenses truly reflects the actual size of the operations of the permittees or licensees. The apparently large number of small licensees or permittees using the national forest ranges is not a true picture of the sise of operations or the classification of users as small or large. The condition of forest ranges where they are admitted to be in good condition is due largely to the forced use of public domain and other range outside the national forests by stock that have been excluded or those that are kept off until the Forest Service decides that the forest range is ready for use. 2 Because of this restricted range policy of the Forest Service, forest ranges have been protected at the expense of public and private holdings and with little regard for the economic effect on owners who, having the stock on hand, must necessarily graze them somewhere while waiting to get onto the forests. This long estab- lished policy of the Forest Service is in definite contrast with that being followed by the Grazing Service for meeting the broad social and economic problems in the range country. The Forest Ser- vice is interested primarily in timber and forest products and such related uses of forest lands that do not interfere with forest growth. Forest administration has been directed along these lines regardless of the effect on the livestock industry. They have per- mitted vast areas of open range land to grow up into a jungle of small reproduction, excluding grazing, and yet in many of these same areas there is little or no opportunity ever to develop com- mercial timber stands. The cumulative effect of 35 years of this type of adminis- tration is noticeable in hundreds of mountain valleys and rural communities. Social and economic values have been sacrificed to the growing of timber of no commercial worth and of no greater watershed protection value than would have been furnished by & good stand of grass and browse, the use of which would have per- mitted continuance of a livestock economy, production of taxes, income, and a livelihood for many persons directly and a very large number indirectly. The Forest Service has in its past administration failed to give due consideration to proper use of private as well as public lands in its long-time planning. It has substituted an economy based primarily on timber production for the one evolved by trial and error methods of the western people over a long period of years. The Forest Service alone among Federal agencies has heretofore failed to indicate a desire to recognize the desirability or sig- nificance of correlated management of all Federal lands and land resources. This applies especially to grazing lands and the forage resources. This attitude on the part of the Forest Service is in strong contrast to that of other bureaus of the Government where cooperative agreements have been executed authorizing the Grazing Service of the Interior Department to administer lands or act as a grazing adviser. Such agreements are in effect with the Soil Conservation Service and the Farm Security Administration of the Department of Agriculture, and with the Reclamation Service, the Biological Survey, the National Park Service, the Indian Service of the Department of the Interior, and even on areas under the control of the War and Navy Departments. Furthermore, the Grazing Service secured enactment of the Pierce Act which permits corre- lated use of privately owned, State, and county lands without affecting titles or tax rolls. 3 The Grasing Service of this Department, under the authority of the Taylor Grasing Act, is engaged in the administration of approxi- mately 134,000,000 acres of grasing land in 10 western States. Interspersed with this area are upwards of 25,000,000 acres of national forest Lands, including entire "forests" in at number of Instances, which are non-timbered graming lands. In close associa- tion with these areas are 40,000,000 to 45,000,000 acres more of national forest land, the primary resource value of which is grazing. The tree growth supported thereon of minor or insignificant value as 1 source of commercial timber or A basis for operations that would provide s livalihood for some of our citizens. This area within grasing districts and forests of more than 200,000,000 acres of public grasing land, together with nearly a like amount of pri- vately owned farm, ranch, and range lands constitutes the backbone of the livestock industry and the general economy of these western States. In my opinkon the existing divided administration of the public grasing land is productive of waste and institutenty, in a large measure is unsound and ineffective, and consequently is d trimental to the public interest. The proposal of Secretary Wallace to con- tinue with only slight modification, this method of administration would provide but minor improvements at best, and would be unwork- able in practice. The proposed situation would be comparable to two families attempting to use the same household facilities. Con- fusion and conflict would be inevitable. This Department has given long and careful consideration to the question of properly conserving or providing for orderly use of the vast heritage embraced in our Federal lands and the resources thereon. I know how interested you are in trying to effect and put into action a long-time program of administration that will provide the greatest possible benefit, not only to the lands and the resources, but to the public that owns both and is entitled to an efficient and proper administration thereof. I believe that a unified administration of the public grazing land is imporative to the accomplishment of your purpose. May I suggest, therefore, that the first step toward accomplishing this most desir- able objective would be to determine the primary values of the lands in question and then to assign them to the respective agencies res- ponsible for their proper administration, This would result in the transfer from the forests, to the grasing districts, under Section 13 of the Taylor Act, of administratively manageable areas approximating 25,000,000 acres of open non-commercial timber land of primary value for grasing purposes, and the transfer of any manageable units of lands supporting commercial timber stands from the grazing districts to the adjacent forests. For the remaining 40,000,000 or 45,000,000 acres of land of combined forest and grasing value, such areas could be administered under cooperative arrangements similar to those now in effect with other bureaus of this Government as heretofore mentioned. Sincerely yours, Secretary of the Interior. 5 Kawangh Receipt 3-9-40 The President, The White House. My dear Mr. President: I have read Secretary Wallace's letter to you of March 2 with a great deal of interest. After carefully considering all of the points made by the Secretary I cannot escape from the idea that he has failed to grasp the broad importance of the matter under dis- cussion. It seems to no that under these circumstances it would be entirely proper to present to you my concept of this problem and how it can best be solved in the public's interest and under a long- time land use plan. The act authorizing the establishment of the forest reserves was for the primary and avowed purpose of protecting the Nation's forest resources. Forest reserves, and later national forests, were established pursuant to the Act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 11, 34, 36) U.S.C. Title 16, Section 475. In that Act this significant section occurs: "No public forest reservation shall be established except to improve and protect the forests within the reservation, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to effect a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States; but it is not the purpose or intent of these provisions, or of the act providing for such reservations, to authorise the inclusion therein of lands more valu- able for the minerals therein or for agricultural purposes than for forest purposes." The original reservations and forests were largely of the type contemplated under the law of 1897. In recent years the forests have been extended to embrace large areas of land clearly outside the purview of the act. These extensions of forest areas into the open or spareely timbered range lands of the West have aggregated many millions of acres. These extensions, ostensibly made for water- shed protection purposes when timber values were impossible to defend, in general constituted an invasion of areas of primary value for range purposes and the imposition of a timber or forest economy that has often been inimical to grazing or range use, and to the unbalancing of the local economy built and maintained by the livestock industry. Grazing use by the livestock industry of lands within forests has been permitted because denial of such use would have resulted in widespread disturbance of social and economic con- ditions in the western range areas. Such grazing use of the forests under sufferance is contrasted with legal recognition of grasing use on the Federal ranges under the Taylor Act. The security pro- vided under the Taylor Act has such obvious advantages as to need no defense. Such security is essential to stabilization of the stock industry; the development of a sound economy in the range territory and rehabilitation of the ranges. of the thousands of forest grasing users, only a small per- centage is entirely dependent upon forest range for a livelihood. The great majority use forest ranges for only limited seasons each year. During the other seasons the stock are on private, leased, or Federal range lands. The ranges being administered under the Taylor Grasing Act provide a part or all of the off-forest grazing by an estimated 75 percent of the forest users, while only approximately 25 percent of the Federal range users are dependent in any degree upon the national forests. of the thousands of forest users, many receive permits for only a portion of the stock they own and wish to graso. The Forest Service restricts numbers of stock and grazing use in accordance with climatic conditions and requires owners to find other ranges for any additional numbers of stock or for all stock during seasons or parts of seasons when climatic conditions are unfavorable. Other lands, therefore, carry and have carried the burden of the full numbers of stock owned. In the case of the Grazing Service, the sise of permits or licenses truly reflects the actual size of the operations of the permittees or licensees. The apparently large number of small licensees or permittees using the national forest ranges is not a true picture of the sise of operations or the classification of users as small or large. The condition of forest ranges where they are admitted to be in good condition is due largely to the forced use of public domain and other range outside the national forests by stock that have been excluded or those that are kept off until the Forest Service decides that the forest range is ready for use. 2 Because of this restricted range policy of the Forest Service, forest ranges have been protected at the expense of public and private holdings and with little regard for the economic effect on owners who, having the stock on hand, must necessarily graze them somewhere while waiting to get onto the forests. This long estab- lished policy of the Forest Service is in definite contrast with that being followed by the Grazing Service for meeting the broad social and economic problems in the range country. The Forest Ser- vice is interested primarily in timber and forest products and such related uses of forest lands that do not interfere with forest growth. Forest administration has been directed along these lines regardless of the effect on the livestock industry. They have per- mitted vast areas of open range land to grow up into a jungle of small reproduction, excluding grazing, and yet in many of these same areas there is little or no opportunity ever to develop com- mercial timber stands. The cumulative effect of 35 years of this type of adminis- tration is noticeable in hundreds of mountain valleys and rural communities. Social and economic values have been sacrificed to the growing of timber of no commercial worth and of no greater watershed protection value than would have been furnished by a good stand of grass and browse, the use of which would have per- mitted continuance of a livestock economy, production of taxes, income, and a livelihood for many persons directly and a very large number indirectly. The Forest Service has in its past administration failed to give due consideration to proper use of private as well as public lands in its long-time planning. It has substituted an economy based primarily on timber production for the one evolved by trial and error methods of the western people over a long period of years. The Forest Service alone among Federal agencies has heretofore failed to indicato a desire to recognize the desirability or sig- nificance of correlated management of all Federal lands and land resources. This applies especially to grazing lands and the forage resources. This attitude on the part of the Forest Service is in strong contrast to that of other bureaus of the Government where cooperative agreements have been executed authorizing the Grazing Service of the Interior Department to administer lands or act as a grazing adviser. Such agreements are in effect with the Soil Conservation Service and the Farm Security Administration of the Department of Agriculture, and with the Reclamation Service, the Biological Survey, the National Park Service, the Indian Service of the Department of the Interior, and even on areas under the control of the War and Navy Departments. Furthermore, the Grazing Service secured enactment of the Pierce Act which permits corre- lated use of privately owned, State, and county lands without affecting titles or tax rolls. 3 The Grazing Service of this Department, under the authority of the Taylor Grazing Act, is engaged in the administration of approxi- mately 134,000,000 acres of grasing land in 10 western States. Interspersed with this area are upwards of 25,000,000 acres of national forest lands, including entire "forests" in a number of Instances, which are non-timbered grazing lands. In close associa- tion with these areas are 40,000,000 to 45,000,000 acres more of national forest land, the primary resource value of which is grazing. The tree growth supported thereon of minor or insignificant value as a source of commercial timber or a basis for operations that would provide a livelihood for some of our citizens. This area within grazing districts and forests of more than 200,000,000 acres of public grasing land, together with nearly a like amount of pri- vately owned farm, ranch, and range lands constitutes the backbone of the livestock industry and the general economy of these western States. In my opinion the existing divided administration of the public grasing land is productive of waste and ineffisioncy, in a large measure is unsound and ineffective, and consequently is detrimental to the public interest. The proposal of Secretary Wallace to con- tinue with only alight modification, this method of administration would provide but minor improvements at best, and would be unwork- able in practice. The proposed situation would be comparable to two families attempting to use the same household facilities. Con- fusion and conflict would be inevitable. This Department has given long and careful consideration to the question of properly conserving or providing for orderly use of the vast heritage embraced in our Federal lands and the resources thereon. I know how interested you are in trying to effect and put into action a long-time program of administration that will provide the greatest possible benefit, not only to the lands and the resources, but to the public that owns both and is entitled to an efficient and proper administration thereof. I believe that a unified administration of the public grazing land is imporative to the accomplishment of your purpose. May I suggest, therefore, that the first step toward accomplishing this most desir- able objective would be to determine the primary values of the lands in question and then to assign them to the respective agencies res- ponsible for their proper administration. This would result in the transfer from the forests, to the grasing districts, under Section 13 of the Taylor Act, of administratively manageable areas approximating 25,000,000 acres of open non-commercial timber land of primary value for grazing purposes, and the transfer of any manageable units of lands supporting commercial timber stands from the grazing districts to the adjacent forests. For the remaining 40,000,000 or 45,000,000 acres of land of combined forest and grazing value, such areas could be administered under cooperative arrangements similar to those now in effect with other bureaus of this Government as heretofore mentioned. Sincerely yours, Secretary of the Interior. 5