To the glory of us Brazilians this principle is the confirmation of a doctrine of which I spoke last here at Albuquerque, promulgated in 1892 by the eminent Brazilian, Dr. Francisco Saturnino Rodrigues de Brito, who wrote: “The argument against such laws has no reason for being, because the owner of the land is only a steward of the soil that was entrusted to him by the past generations; he is the depository of lands as he is a depository of capital, and thus, as it has a social origin, territorial property must have a social application, in attending to collective interest; and these require the individual effort of each man to preserve and improve on the planet the necessary means of living, among which are the preservation and replantation of forests, that may keep the necessary moisture for regular rainfall and the normal distribution of water, detaining it among their roots and not permitting the destructive overflows that take from the soil the fertilizing humus. The argument has no reason for being, also, because the interest of the family itself requires providence against the prodigal member who steals from his own children the inheritance from the past, giving to this improvident and egotistical father only the income of it; and as it happens with the inheritance, legislative enactment must regulate the question of lands for the interest of the social community that has a great attainment from the Past, and comprehending the Present and the Future.” The arguments of President Roosevelt are very similar to those of the illustrious Brazilian engineer and the same thing can be said in regard to the reasons presented by the Supreme Court of the United States as quoted by the American President: “The State, as quasi-sovereign and representative of the interest of the public, has a standing in court to protect the atmosphere, the water and forests either in its territory, irrespective of the ascent or descent of the private owner of the land most immediately concerned.” I am deeply convinced that the conscientious scruples of a great many of our eminent legislators and loyal men in accepting this doctrine lie only in the fact that they are always busy with something else, never dedicating themselves to any serious study of the forests in their relations to life and the progress of countries; they have never considered that, on account of such relation, the sacred rights of humanity, the life of our children and future generations require a direct and immediate protection for the trees, which protection is undoubtedly a measure of public safety. And really such a protection is as important as any other measure that may prevent the invasion and spread of some epidemic disease. To the 4th Latin-American Congress I moved that all possible effort should be made to have Brazil and all nations represented at the congress accept the proposition that is found in my address of forests last year, which proposition I write now as follows: