EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
                              One Champion Plaza
                              Stamford, CT  06921



                                         March 30, 1995



Champion International Corporation
One Champion Plaza
Stamford, CT  06921


Dear Sirs:

     As Senior Vice President and General Counsel of Champion International
Corporation (the "Company"), I advise you as follows in connection with legal
and administrative claims and proceedings which are pending or known to be
threatened against the Company.

     I call your attention to the fact that, as Senior Vice President and
General Counsel of the Company, I have general supervision of the Company's
legal affairs.  In such capacity, I have reviewed litigation and claims
threatened or asserted involving the Company and have consulted with outside
legal counsel with respect thereto where I have deemed it appropriate.

     On January 4, 1991, a class action was brought against the Company in state
court in Tennessee.  The class consisted of all Tennessee residents who own or
lease land around Douglas Lake or along the Pigeon River.  Subsequently, the
case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee.  While the original complaint sought $5 billion in
compensatory and punitive damages, immediately prior to trial the plaintiffs
reduced their demand to $367.9 million.  The plaintiffs originally claimed
damages for both personal injury and property damage, but the personal injury
claims were dismissed.  The case proceeded to trial on plaintiffs' theory that
discharges of hazardous materials,  including  dioxin,  from  the Company's
Canton, North Carolina mill had decreased property values along the river and
the lake.  The trial began on September 14, 1992 and ended in a mistrial on
October 16, 1992, when the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict.  On May
3, 1993, the court approved a settlement of the action providing for the payment
of $6.5 million by the Company.  On June 1, 1993, the court's approval of the
settlement was appealed, and on September 20, 1994 the appeal was dismissed by
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  On November 7, 1994,
a motion for rehearing was denied.  The time has expired for any further appeal
of the court's approval of the settlement and, accordingly, the settlement is
final.

 
March 30, 1995
Page 2



     On November 9, 1992, an action was brought against the Company in the
Circuit Court for Baldwin County, Alabama, on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons who own land along Perdido Bay in Florida and Alabama.  The action
originally sought $500 million in compensatory and punitive damages for personal
injury, intentional infliction of emotional distress and diminution in property
value allegedly resulting from the purported discharge of hazardous substances,
including dioxin, from the Company's Pensacola, Florida mill into Eleven Mile
Creek, which flows into Perdido Bay.  However, in February 1994, the plaintiffs
reduced their demand to not more than $50,000 for each class member and in June
1994, the personal injury claims were dismissed.  It is anticipated that the
class, which was certified by the court in June 1994, will consist of
approximately 2,000 members.  The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

     In February 1994, the Company received a notice of violation from the
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission ("TNRCC") alleging unauthorized
air emissions from the Company's Sheldon, Texas mill. The notice of violation
alleged several violations, all but two of which have been resolved without
penalty. With respect to the two remaining alleged violations, it is expected
that the TNRCC will seek penalties, although the Company is unable at this time
to estimate the amount of penalties which may be sought or finally assessed.

     The Company is vigorously defending each of the pending actions described
above.

     While any litigation contains an element of uncertainty, subject to the
foregoing, it is my opinion that the outcome of each such proceeding or claim
which is now pending or known to be threatened, or all of them combined,
including the actions described above, will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company.

     I hereby consent to the reference to this opinion in the Company's Annual
Report to Shareholders for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1994, and in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1994
(the "Form 10-K"), and to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Form
10-K.
 
                                                 Very truly yours,





                                                 Marvin H. Ginsky
                                                 Senior Vice President
                                                 and General Counsel
MHG/col