EDITORIAL 683 



the alleged attempt to "dismember the Interior Department by taking from 

 it all those bureaus that had anything to do with the public domain, and, to- 

 gether with the forestry bureau, concentrate them in another department 

 where their combined strength would be utilized to promote propaganda de- 

 signed to operate the public domain as a national estate for the conservation 

 of certain bureau chiefs." The only comment that needs to be made on this 

 amazing charge is that it is childish. If Congress should see fit to change the 

 organization of the Interior Department or any other department of the gov- 

 ernment, as it has heretofore done, in the interests of a more logical arrange- 

 ment, we do not know of any particular sanctity attaching to the present or- 

 ganization of any of the departments which should stand in the way of such 

 action. Such action would have to be the action of the representatives of 

 the people whom Mr. Ballinger believes should dictate in all these matters. 



On the whole, it does not seem to us that the ex-secretary has strengthened 

 himself by tlie illogical and splenetic manner in which he has broken silence. 



EUROPE AND AMERICA— A COMPARISON 



XN A RECENT number of the American Lumberman, Mr. Charles 

 Willis Ward, of Michigan, makes a very clear and detailed comparison 

 between the conditions and opportunities of forestry in E\irope and 

 America. The points made by Mr. Ward are familiar in discussions of foreign 

 and home forestry but he has arrayed them in a systematic way which presents 

 the case interestingly and comprehensively to the general reader. He mentions 

 among the advantages enjoyed by the European forester the long establishment 

 of forestry in Europe upon a business basis; the supply of trained and 

 experienced foresters and the abundance of skilled labor at a labor cost less 

 than in the United States ; the high standing of forestry as a profession ; the 

 freedom of forestry from professional politics and the greater ease in securing 

 funds to carry out public forestry work ; the better system of taxation of forest 

 lands in vogue in Europe ; the existence of a market for all forest products 

 including some that are waste in American forests, although Mr. Ward believes 

 that this objection will soon be largely removed in the United States; and 

 finally the scarcity of large coal deposits and absence of mineral oils and gases 

 which tend to hold the value of wood for fuel purposes at a comparatively high 

 rate. 



On the other hand, the European forester woi-ks under the disadvantage 

 of a scarcity of low-priced land available for forestry use and the high cost of 

 food i)roducts which maintains the permanently high value of agricultural land 

 and renders remote any prospect of a reduction in the future cost of land 

 needed for new forests. 



The American forester has these advantages, as Mr. Ward points out: 

 An abundance of cheap land available for forestry use; the existence of laro-e 

 tracts of virgin forests containing heavy stands of natural timber which mav 

 be subjected to permanent forestry treatment; an abundance of low-priced 

 agricultural lands which will for some time tend to maintain a comparativelv 

 low value of food supi)ly ; less competition from substitutes for wood in 

 building materials and a wider market and more active demand for staple 

 forest products; the introduction of iron and steel in structural work of lar^e 

 buildings maintaining a constant demand and increasing values for better 

 grades of finishing wood; and, finally, the enormous railroad mileage requiring 



