fe.
I believe in the man who does all he can and the best he can, with the
means at his command. That is precisely what the Forest Service has been
trying to do with the money and law Congress has placed in its hands.

Every public officer responsible for any part of the conservation of
natural resources is a trustee of the public property. If conservation
is vital to the welfare of this Nation now and hereafter, as President
Roosevelt so wisely declared, then few positions of public trust are so
important, and few opportunities for constructive work so large. Such
officers are concerned with the greatest issues which have come before
this Nation since the Civil War. They may hope to serve the Nation as
few men ever can. Their care for our forests, waters, lands, and
minerals is often the only thing that stands between the public good and
the something-for-nothing men, who, like the daughters of the
horse-leech, are forever crying, "Give, Give." The intelligence,
initiative, and steadfastness that can withstand the unrelenting
pressure of the special interests are worth having, and the Forest
Service has given proof of all three. But the counter-pressure from the
people in their own interest is needed far more often than it is
supplied.

The public welfare cannot be subserved merely by walking blindly in the
old ruts. Times change, and the public needs change with them. The man
who would serve the public to the level of its needs must look ahead,
and one of his most difficult problems will be to make old tools answer
new uses--uses some of which, at least, were never imagined when the
tools were made. That is one reason why constructive foresight is one of
the great constant needs of every growing nation.

The Forest Service proposes to use the tools--obey the law--made by the
representatives of the people. But the law cannot give specific
directions in advance to meet every need and detail of administration.
The law cannot make brains nor supply conscience. Therefore, the Forest
Service proposes also to serve the people by the intelligent and
purposeful use of the law and every lawful means at its command for the
public good. And for that intention it makes no apology.

Fortunately for the Forest Service, the point of view which it worked
out for itself under the pressure of its responsibilities was found to
be that of the Supreme Court. In the case of the U.S. vs. Macdaniel (7
Pet., 13-14), involving the administr