306 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



praised value of the stumpage — and this principle has 

 been strictly adhered to at all times. In fact, the foresters 

 employed by the Service have developed timber appraisals 

 to a science which in thoroughness and accuracy exceeds 

 anything previously attempted by private corporations. 

 Even with this check upon excessive sales of timber, 

 opposition is still strong in some quarters against any 

 sales of national forest timber whatever. This is especially 

 true in regions like Washington, Oregon and Idaho, where 

 there is an overproduction of lumber. It reaches an 

 acute stage when the Service appraisals show stumpage 

 values less than those desired or expected by the owners 

 of small tracts of private timberlands acquired under the 

 homestead, or stone and timber laws. There is much ex- 

 cusable ignorance of the factors which determine stumpage 

 values on the part of such land owners. The prices paid 

 for stumpage do not in any case determine the price of 

 lumber, — but on the contrary, the lumber prices, less the 

 cost of manufacture, transportation and logging, are the 

 only ultimate basis for the value of the stumpage. Stump- 

 age prices cannot be regulated by law. It has been pro- 



posed — for the benefit of timber owners — to set a minimum 

 price upon National Forest timber. The only effect of 

 such a law would be to prevent the sale of such timber at 

 all, except where it was actually worth more than the 

 price set. It would not serve to increase values. 



Whatever is the outcome of these conflicting economic 

 factors, one thing is certain — that the income from the 

 National Forests must be based upon other considerations 

 than those of profit and loss on the administration. What 

 other department of the Government is placed upon this 

 basis ? Are we to eliminate the educational activities and 

 experimental research of the Service because it is not pro- 

 ductive of immediate revenue? And what value shall we 

 place upon the protection afforded to watersheds and irri- 

 gation throughout the west, or upon the recreational and 

 scenic features of the forests, which reqiure an expensive 

 system of fire protection? 



The National Forests may become self-supporting, and 

 even produce a surplus income. We do not care how soon 

 this occurs, nor should we tolerate the sacrifice of a single 

 economic principle or public benefit to attain such a result. 



A VICTORY FOR EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY 



THE Minnesota Forest Service, since its establishment 

 in 1911 by the emploj-ment of a trained forester, has 

 been a model for other states. The ideals sought by 

 this law were complete freedom from political influence, 

 the appointment of all agents strictly on a basis of merit, 

 and the enforcement of regulatory police powers to secure 

 fire protection, without fear or favor, against both the 

 rich and influential, and the man of smaller means and 

 less responsibility. 



These objects have been completely attained, bj^ the 

 continuance of the Minnesota State Forestry' Board of 

 nine members, with power to appoint and to protect their 

 own executive agent, the State Forester. 



But the movement for efficiency and economy, initi- 

 ated in Alinnesota four j-ears ago, and gaining great head- 

 way, with practically no real opposition, suddenly devel- 

 oped into a sinister attack upon the integrity of tliis State 

 Forest Service. The so-called PubUc Domain Bill, which 

 sought to effect a great consolidation of the departments 

 of lands, forestry, immigration, highways, fish and game, 

 drainage, waterpower, and mines, under a single all- 

 powerful commissioner, who should appoint subordinates 

 over various of these departments, included a provision 

 abolishing both the State Forestry Board and the State 

 Forester's office. The independence and integrity of the 

 forestry department was to be completely destroyed by 

 creating a new department of lands, forestry and immi- 

 gration, under a political subordinate, who in turn would 

 have control of an official of tliird rank charged with the 

 former duties of State Forester. 



Whether this plan was deliberate, or arose from the 

 inability of politicians as a class to grasp the essential 

 principles of efficiency in state work, the effect of such a 

 measure, if passed, would obviously have been to put an 

 end to the effective enforcement of the law requiring log- 



gers to bum their slash, and to throw the entire machinery 

 of state forestry back into the morass of patronage and 

 party politics. Against such a result the American For- 

 estry Association lodged a vigorous protest. 



Partly through the Association's efforts exerted along 

 educational lines in calling the attention of the people of 

 the state to this situation, and partly because of vital 

 defects in the bill itself, which not only failed to secure 

 economy but threatened to destroy certain essential safe- 

 guards now in force in the methods of handling public 

 property of immense value, this imprudent and danger- 

 ous measure was finally defeated, not once, but tw^ce — 

 for after the first defeat in the State Senate, a duplicate 

 bill passed the House, only to be again consigned to 

 oblivion in the Senate. 



It was freely claimed that this bill would create a vast 

 political patronage — a part of which would have been 

 represented by the field force of the State Forest Service, 

 deprived of their directing head, the State Forester, and 

 subjected to the influence of the party in power. For the 

 present, this movement to capture the State Forestry 

 Department has been definitely side-tracked. But the 

 people of Minnesota may not yet realize that under the 

 cloak of efficicncj' and economy, the effort to reduce all 

 state departments to a sj'stem dependent upon influence 

 and partisan politics, will surely be continued. There is 

 much to be learned by our states if they ever expect to 

 attain a really efficient and economical administration of 

 their internal affairs — and it is time that the people as a 

 whole came to a better understanding of the need for skilled 

 ser\'ices and merit in the management of state departments 

 requiring technical direction. They would then be less apt 

 to swallow the sugar-coated pill of consolidation whose 

 apparent purpose is to improve the state machinery, 

 but whose effect is often to tear down its most efficient units. 



