CORRESPONDENCE 



619 



reasons are urged. It is argued, in the first 

 place that higher prices are warranted by 

 the real but hidden condition of supplies. 

 The second reason adduced is that higher 

 prices would enable timber owners to put 

 conservative methods into practice. In this 

 form, we admit the general validity of this 

 argument without hesitation. 



2. The consumer. It is contended that 

 both prudence and public spirit should in- 

 duce the consumer to pay more for wood. 

 Prudence counsels him that if he refuses to 

 pay more now he will have to "face practi- 

 cally prohibitive prices at some definite fu- 

 ture time" which is near enough to interest 

 him. Public spirit exhorts him on the 

 ground that if he refuses to pay more now 

 he is refusing to contribute his fair share of 

 a legitimate charge for forest conservation 

 in the interest of the general welfare. 



This argument is by no means such plain 

 sailing. Before he can fairly be expected to 

 assent to it the consumer has the right to 

 have at least two questions answered. He 

 will want to know how great the advance 

 in price ought to be, and whether the money 

 he takes out of his pocket to pay the differ- 

 ence is actually going to be invested in 

 forest conservation. In order to make out 

 their case, the timber owners must there- 

 fore be able to satisfy the consumer by de- 

 vising and defending a satisfactory machin- 

 ery for advancing prices ; by furnishing 

 some sort of guaranty that the money 

 ostensibly raised for conservation will be 

 used for conservation, and not simply 

 pocketed as profits needed in the business ; 

 and by setting some measure of a fair con- 

 servation charge. 



This is scarcely a seasonable time for ap- 

 proaching the consumer with a proposal to 

 add to the cost of his living, even with the 

 most disinterested motives, and the motives 

 behind this communication are admittedly 

 colored with "more or less selfish interest." 

 As long as the law of supply and demand is 

 actually or apparently fixing the price, the 

 consumer is plucky enough to pay the price. 

 But let the price be raised artificially, and 

 his suspicions are at once aroused. These 

 suspicions will have to be allayed. 



Now, obviously the only machinery for 

 raising prices above the level determined by 

 supply and demand is some sort of combi- 

 nation. As long as competition prevails, if 

 A and B advance their prices. C may fol- 

 low suit, D may undersell, while E, F, and 

 G may withdraw from the market alto- 

 gether and hold out for a further rise. A 

 general advance all along the line would re- 

 quire concerted action among a sufficient 



proportion of the owners. In going to the 

 consumer with such a plan timber owners 

 would have to provide him with the means 

 of protecting himself from extortion; they 

 could hope to persuade him, if at all, only by 

 enabling him to erect safeguards in the 

 form of State regulation and expert super- 

 vision of their business. 



Having convinced the consumer of the 

 need of advancing wood prices, and placed 

 the control of the advance in his hands, the 

 timber owners would next have to satisfy 

 him as to the amount of the proposed ad- 

 vance and the use designed to be made of 

 it. There is good reason to believe that the 

 amount of the advance would not have to 

 be great. A recent law in Louisiana levies 

 a tax of three-quarters of a cent a thousand 

 on all the lumber manufactured in the 

 state, and the estimated revenue from this 

 source is $25,000 a year. On this basis, 

 and in that state, a tax of three cents a 

 thousand would produce $100, 000 a year, a 

 sum which would doubtless suffice for a 

 complete protective system for the forests 

 of the state. Again, one of the competent 

 foresters in this country has estimated that 

 a large company could put forestry into 

 practice at an added cost which, expressed 

 ii) terms of the annual cut, would range 

 from 50 cents to one dollar a thousand feet. 

 Should the timber owners retrench them- 

 selves by advancing prices in proportion to 

 these figures, the consumer might never be 

 the wiser and certainly would have slight 

 ground for protest. It seems unlikely how- 

 ever, that such moderate advances, or any- 

 thing like them, would assuage the "more 

 or less selfish interest" of the timber own- 

 ers, while markedly greater advances ought 

 to be rigorously scrutinized, lest the swollen 

 profits be wrongfully diverted. Certainly the 

 consumer would properly expect a consid- 

 eration for his money. 



On the whole, we are inclined to assent 

 unreservedly to the theoretical argument that 

 higher present prices for wood are desirable 

 if they should furnish a fund which would 

 actually be expended in defraying the cost 

 of forest protection and production. But 

 we can not conceal from ourselves the prac- 

 tical difficulty of securing, first, strictly 

 legitimate advances, and second, the assur- 

 ance of good faith on the part of timber 

 owners and the actual reinvestment of the 

 added profits in conservation. Until this 

 difficulty is met, our correspondent's pro- 

 Dosal seems lilc^lv to liav^ rptber rough go- 

 ing with the nublic. But let the timber own- 

 ers by all means come forward with a work- 

 able plan. — Ed.) 



