Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks v. MacDonald

170 N.E. 902, 253 N.Y. 234, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 820
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 18, 1930
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 170 N.E. 902 (Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks v. MacDonald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks v. MacDonald, 170 N.E. 902, 253 N.Y. 234, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 820 (N.Y. 1930).

Opinion

Crane, J.

By chapter 417 of the Laws of 1929 the Conservation Commissioner is authorized to construct and maintain a bobsleigh run or slide on State lands in the Forest Preserve in the town of North Elba, Essex county, on the western slope of the Sentinel Range.

The act was passed for the purpose of providing facilities for the third Olympic winter games, which are to be held at or in the vicinity of Lake Placid, in the year 1932. The bobsleigh run will be approximately one and one-quarter miles in length and six and one-half feet wide, with a return route or go-back road. As additional land will have to be cleared on either side of the run, the width in actual use will be approximately sixteen feet, and twenty feet where the course curves. It is estimated that the construction will necessitate the removal of trees from about four and one-half acres of land, or a total number of trees, large and small, estimated at 2,500. The Forest Preserve within the Adirondacks consists of 1,941,403 acres. The taking of four acres out of this vast acreage for this international sports’ meet seems a very slight inroad upon the preserve- for a matter of such public interest and benefit to the people of the State of New York and elsewhere. The Legislature, recognizing the benefits of an international gathering of this kind, has sought in the public interest, by the *237 enactment of the above law, to provide appropriately and in the spirit of hospitality, the necessary equipment and facilities for these games, and contests, incident to winter sport, of which tobogganing is a large feature. Winter sports of course must be held in a place where there will be an' assurance of sufficient continual cold weather for snow and ice, and the vicinity of Lake Placid gives this assurance. The western slope of the Sentinel range, chosen for the toboggan slide, is the nearest and most appropriate place for its construction in connection with the center of attractions.

Considering the distinction of having one of the beauty spots of New York State selected as appropriate for the International Olympic winter games and the advantages afforded by Lake Placid and its vicinity, together with the good will promoted in the recognition by the State, through its Legislature, of the event, what possible objection can there be to the above law permitting this toboggan slide to be constructed on State land? One objection, and one only — the Constitution of the State, which prevents the cutting of the trees. This objection has been raised by the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, which has sought and obtained an injunction restraining the Conservation Commission of this State and the Superintendent of Lands and Forests from constructing and maintaining the bobsleigh run on the ground that chapter. 417 of the Laws of 1929 is unconstitutional and void.

The constitutional provision is section 7 of article VII, reading: “ The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.”

The lands and trees proposed to be taken for the toboggan slide are within the Forest Preserve and covered *238 by this provision of the Constitution. Taking the words of section 7 in their ordinary meaning, we have the command that the timber, that is, the trees, shall not be sold, removed or destroyed. To cut down 2,500 trees for a toboggan slide, or perhaps for any other purpose, is prohibited. Some opinions, notably those of the Attorneys-General of the State, cited on the briefs and by the Appellate Division, have even gone so far as to state that a single tree, and even fallen timber and dead wood, cannot be removed; that to preserve the property as wild forest lands means to preserve it from the interference in any way by the hand of man.

The words of the Constitution, like those of any other law, must receive a reasonable interpretation, considering the purpose and the object in view. (State of Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379.) Words are but symbols indicating ideas and are subject to contraction and expansion to meet the idea sought to be expressed; they register frequently according to association, or like the thermometer, by the atmosphere surrounding them. The purpose of the constitutional provision, as indicated by the debates in the Convention of 1894, was to prevent the cutting or destruction of the timber or the sale thereof, as had theretofore been permitted by legislation, to the injury and ruin of the Forest Preserve. To accomplish the end in view, it was thought necessary to close all gaps and openings in the law, and to prohibit any cutting or any removal of the trees and timber to a substantial extent. The Adirondack Park was to be preserved, not destroyed. Therefore, all things necessary were permitted, such as measures to prevent forest fires, the repairs to roads and proper inspection, or the erection and maintenance of proper facilities for the use by the public which did not call for the removal of the timber to any material degree. The Forest Preserve is preserved for the public; its benefits are for the people of the State as a whole. Whatever the advantages may be of having wild forest lands *239 preserved in their natural state, the advantages are for every one within the State and for the use of the people of the State. Unless prohibited by the constitutional provision, this use and preservation are subject to the reasonable regulations of the Legislature.

The laws developing the Forest Preserve and the Adirondack Park, up to the Constitution of 1894, are reviewed in the opinion of this court in People v. Adirondack Ry. Co. (160 N. Y. 225). By chapter 707 of the Laws of 1892 the State Park, known as the Adirondack Park, was created within certain of the Forest Preserve counties. Such park is to be forever reserved, maintained and cared for as ground open for the free use of all the people for their health or pleasure, and as, forest lands necessary to the preservation of the headwaters of the chief rivers of the State, and a future timber supply.”

Chapter 332 of the Laws of 1893, combining all previous acts, gave to the Forest Commissioners authority to sell certain timber on the Forest Preserve and also power to sell such of the lands as were not needed. They were also authorized to lease camp sites and lay out paths and roads in the park. Then came the Convention of 1894 with the debates indicating a change of policy regarding the sale and destruction of timber and the use of the lands. (Revised Record of the Constitutional Convention of 1894, vol. I, pp. 1100, 1148; vol. II, pp. 57, 1201; vol. IV, pp. 128, 137.)

At the time of the assembling of this Convention, the law of the State authorized the sale, lease, clearing and cultivation of lands in the Forest Preserve and the sale of standing or fallen timber thereon; also permitted the laying out of paths and roads through the property. (See chap. 283, Laws of 1885; chap. 475, Laws of 1887; chap. 707, Laws of 1892; chap. 332, Laws of 1893.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Roxanne Delgado v. State of New York
New York Court of Appeals, 2022
Protect the Adirondacks! Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation
2019 NY Slip Op 5363 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp.
64 A.D.3d 168 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Opn. No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1996
Balsam Lake Anglers Club v. Department of Environmental Conservation
199 A.D.2d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Balsam Lake Anglers Club v. Department of Environmental Conservation
153 Misc. 2d 606 (New York Supreme Court, 1991)
Formal Opinion No.
New York Attorney General Reports, 1986
Flacke v. Town of Fine
113 Misc. 2d 56 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)
Alacqua v. Baudanza
110 Misc. 2d 774 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1981)
Helms v. Reid
90 Misc. 2d 583 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)
Tucker v. Toia
89 Misc. 2d 116 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)
New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Steingut
353 N.E.2d 558 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Helms v. Diamond
76 Misc. 2d 253 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)
Zimmerman v. State
76 Misc. 2d 193 (New York State Court of Claims, 1973)
Oneida County Forest Preserve Council v. Wehle
128 N.E.2d 282 (New York Court of Appeals, 1955)
Black River Regulating District v. Adirondack League Club
201 Misc. 808 (New York Supreme Court, 1952)
Shamburger v. Duncan
244 S.W.2d 759 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1951)
D'Angelo v. State
200 Misc. 657 (New York State Court of Claims, 1951)
Adirondack League Club v. Board of Black River Regulating District
275 A.D.2d 618 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 N.E. 902, 253 N.Y. 234, 1930 N.Y. LEXIS 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/association-for-the-protection-of-the-adirondacks-v-macdonald-ny-1930.