48 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



National Forests as a Business Proposition 



AS IS generally known, twenty-five 

 per cent of the receipts from the 

 National Forests in each state are re- 

 turned annually to that state for roads 

 and schools. For the year ending June 

 30, 1908, the amount of these receipts 

 was $1,788,255.19. As a part of the 

 annual budget of a National Forest 

 state, its share of this sum is a helpful 

 item. 



Speaking of this, the Denver Times 

 declares sarcastically, "Several of the 

 western states are jubilant over their 

 returns from the Pinchot preserves 

 within their borders. 



"They seem to think that every dol- 

 lar returned to them was a dollar 

 gained, when, in point of fact, they 

 paid four dollars to get one ; and, on top 

 of their four dollars the National Gov- 

 ernment was compelled to pay five dol- 

 lars. So it cost the Federal Treasury 

 and the state industry nine dollars to 

 get one dollar for local roads and 

 schools." 



This astounding statement is ex- 

 plained as follows : "The appropriations 

 by Congress for the Pinchot bureau 

 for the year ending June 30, 1908, 

 were $3,759,086.46. During the same 

 period the net receipts from timber 

 sales, penalties, grazing fees and uses 

 were $1,788,255.19. Of this latter 

 amount, paid by the people of the state, 

 there was returned to the several states 

 one-quarter. Thus it cost individual 

 citizens $1,341,192.45 more than was 

 paid back to their state ; and it cost 

 the National Treasury — of the people's 

 money — an additional amount of $1,- 

 970,831.27. * * * It cost the people 

 nearly $4,000,000 to collect $1,788,000 

 from themselves." 



In closing, the writer refers to 

 "persons who think the people can en- 

 rich themselves by paying a Federal 

 bureau to collect nine dollars from the 

 public in order to have one dollar re- 

 turned to schools and roads." 



This editorial is typical of the matter 

 which, from day to dav, is served up 

 to its readers by the school which lays 

 it down as an article of faith that "it 

 is a crime to perpetuate the public do- 



main," and "urges the fullest possible 

 liberality on the part of the Government 

 in passing the lands and their resources 

 into the hands of bona Ude citizens." 



To this school, the idea that the public 

 domain is "a national heritage to be 

 handed down" to the people, is odious, 

 the national administration of a na- 

 tional estate is constantly proclaimed as 

 "feudalism," "bureaucracy," the con- 

 version of a free people into a "ten- 

 antry," and the like ; and to its mill, 

 whatever will discredit the National 

 Forest Service is grist. 



This fact should be grasped and never 

 forgotten ; otherwise, the incessant war- 

 fare upon Mr. Pinchot and his work 

 cannot be understood. 



Let the position of the above edi- 

 torial be analyzed. The receipts from 

 the National Forests last year equaled 

 almost forty-eight per cent of the na- 

 tional appropriation for the Forest 

 Service, and of these receipts, the Na- 

 tional Forest states received twenty-five 

 per cent. Thus, "it cost the Federal 

 Treasury and the state industries nine 

 dollars to get one dollar for local roads 

 and schools." 



The assumption evidently is that be- 

 cause the National Forests in 1908 re- 

 turned in cash about half what Congress 

 appropriated for the United States 

 Forest Service, the American people 

 get out of that Service but one dollar 

 where they put in nine. 



Suppose the Forest Service collected 

 more money from the National Forests, 

 as, for example, by selling more timber, 

 it might easily do, what then? One of 

 the constant grounds of attack by these 

 critics is that the Forest Service charges 

 for the use of the natural resources in 

 its charge. Hence the greater the re- 

 ceipts of the Service, the greater the 

 offense committed by "Baron Pinchot." 



These criticisms suggest the familiar 

 alternative of a decadent theology under 

 the terms of which yon are "d — d if you 

 do, and d — d if you don't." 



If the Forest Service charges for the 

 use of the natural resources it is reduc- 

 ing the people to vassalage: if it faih 

 to charge enough to cover its entire 

 congressional appropriation it is wast- 



