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 administrative powers of the head of a Department, the Supreme Court of the United States said: 

“He is limited in the exercise of his powers by the law; but it does not follow that he must show statutory provision for everything he does.  No government could be administered on such principles.  To attempt to regulate, by law, the minute movements of every part of the complicated machinery of government, would evince a most unpardonable ignorance on the subject.  Whilst the great outlines of its movements may be marked out, and limitations imposed on the exercise of its powers, there are numberless things which must be done, that can neither be anticipated nor defined, and which are essential to the proper action