EDITORIAL 



305 



new people to spend money in the neighborhood. But of 

 late there has been a tremendous awakening, North, South, 

 East and even in the far West, the land of the booster and 

 the optimist. America is tolerant of wrong, but only up 

 to a certain point. Bitter experience has recently taught 

 many communities — even entire states — that a defrauded 

 purchaser and an immigrant who fails does ti"emendous 

 harm to the reputation and fair name of the region. Asso- 

 ciations of land dealers have even been forced in self-de- 

 fense to abandon their methods of flamboyant advertising 

 and employ experts to determine cold, hard facts as to the 

 value of the lands they were endeavoring to sell, — and 

 this because sales had become impossible, due to the 

 bad name fastened upon the region through avarice and 

 irresponsible speculation. 



For the first time, too, the various state and govern- 

 mental agencies seem to have become aroused to the need 

 of a vigorous exposition of facts, and to have lost their 

 fear of incurring the displeasure of entire communities 

 acting under the leadership of these land-selling interests. 



The fight for an equitable policy in the sale and settle- 

 ment of raw lands, a poUcy wliich demands that the value 

 of these lands shall be placed at its true figure instead of 

 being inflated, is by no means won. But if many more 



such conferences as the Cut-over Land Conference re- 

 cently held in New Orleans are brought about, we may hope 

 for great things in the near future. The Conference passed, 

 among others, the following resolution: "Be it further 

 resolved, that inasmuch as many acres of this area are 

 better adapted for forest growth than for agricultural 

 crops, the Association shall undertake to further and 

 promote the development of approved forestry methods, 

 looking toward reforestation of such areas, for the benefit 

 of future generations, and where practicable to combine 

 such reforestation methods with livestock development." 

 The day of the pioneer is not gone in America— we need 

 him more than ever to help bring imder cultivation the 

 enormous areas of cut-over land suitable for agriculture. 

 Let us do him economic justice, and give him at least as 

 favorable an opportunity to make good as our forefathers 

 had, and cease our efforts to deceive him into thinking that 

 cut-over lands are worth just as much in their raw state 

 as they will be after he has put into them all he has, his 

 capital, and his life blood. We wish success to the high- 

 minded and patriotic stand taken by those Southern lum- 

 bermen, owners of 76,000,000 acres of cut-over land, who 

 have pledged themselves to the policy of fair dealing with 

 the settler, regardless of immediate profit to themselves. 



SHALL THE NATIONAL FORESTS BE MADE SELF-SUPPORTING? 



WHEN the National Forests were first placed under 

 efficient administration it was the expressed hope 

 and intention of the United States Forester to 

 make them self-supporting within five years. 



But with the development of the work, the magni- 

 tude of the task of protecting, developing and adminis- 

 tering some 160,000,000 acres of wild and inaccessible 

 land became better understood and the appropriations for 

 these purposes still exceed the income by over $2,000,000. 

 In 1916 the income from the forests totalled $2,800,000, 

 which is three-fourths of the sum required to protect and 

 administer them, the remainder being spent for perma- 

 nent improvements, and for forest investigations. Re- 

 ceipts are constantly increasing, the income for 1916 

 being greater by $340,000 than for the previous year. 



Until recently. Congress was somewhat inclined to criti- 

 cise the Forest Service for its apparent failure to establish 

 the National Forests on a self-supporting basis within the 

 stipulated five-year period. Enemies of the national policy 

 have cited the excess of expenses over income as a proof of 

 extravagance and failure of the whole program. But of late 

 a distinct reversal of attitude is noticeable, and the Service 

 has apparently justified its policy beyond fiuther question. 



The principal cause of this change of heart is the fact 

 that the leaders of Congress have become practically con- 

 vinced that the administration of the National Forests is 

 economical and efficient. A cost of less than 2}4 cents 

 per acre per year for all purposes directly connected with 

 protection and management is not an extravagant simi 

 to pay for the character of service secured. 



The two principal sources of income are fees charged for 

 grazing livestock and receipts from the sale of timber. If 

 the forests are to become self-supporting it must be mainly 



from the utilization of these two resources. In either 

 case, the income received cannot be made the primary consid- 

 eration, yet the Government must obtain from the sale of 

 these resources what they are actually worth on a com- 

 petitive basis, otherwise an unfair commercial privilege is 

 received by the successful applicant, whichreacts injuriously 

 on his immediate competitors and upon the public, which 

 would lose the revenue, their only return in lieu of 

 taxes which would be paid were these lands privately owned. 



For a long time the fees charged for the grazing privi- 

 leges were too low. But as soon as steps were taken to 

 correct this injustice, those stockmen who then held the 

 grazing privileges protested that the present income 

 from grazing was more than sufficient to pay the cost of 

 administration, and therefore the fees should not be 

 increased! This was the old doctrine of self-support, but 

 with a decidedly new apphcation ! When the grazing fees 

 have been fully adjusted — which has not yet been ac- 

 complished — the revenue from this source alone will 

 total over $2,000,000. 



In seeking to apply the same principle of charging the 

 true value of the resource to the sale of timber stumpage 

 the Forest Service has had a problem which has called 

 forth its best efforts — not only for the fixing of the proper 

 price of stumpage, but in deciding upon the quantity 

 which should be sold. If the sole object of the Service 

 had been to increase the income in order, to make a show- 

 ing for Congress, they could have done so by offering 

 large bodies of timber at reduced prices (thus approaching 

 the old pohcy by which four-fifths of our timber was sold 

 or given away for a few cents a thousand feet under our 

 land laws). But against such a policy stood the prin- 

 ciple that timber resources must bring in the actual ap- 



