July 25, 1921 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



21 



the subsequent testimony filed with the committee. Much of this 

 testimony canio out in the form of questions and answers — ques- 

 tions by otluT witnesses and members of the committee .-mswered 

 by the Chief Forester. 



The questioning of the Chief Forester, however, was interspersed 

 by the statements of various other witnesses. The first of these 

 statements was made by A. L. Osborn of Oshkosh, Wis., who repre- 

 sented the Northern Hemlock & Hardwood Manufacturers' Associa- 

 tion. "The time has come for the people of the United States to 

 wake up to the necessity for the better handling of our timber 

 resources," Mr. Osborn said. "The day and hour is here when 

 something should be done to assure a perpetual forest supply." 



Mr. Osliorn disagreed with the opinion of the Chief Forester 

 that fire protc^ction is the first essential of reforestation. He held 

 that "proper utilization of the timber cut will save more than if 

 we should stop all fires. ' ' 



Mr. Osborn wanted it understood that the lumbermen of the 

 northern territory desire to cooperate with all elements sincerely 

 interested in protecting the forest resources of the country from 

 devastation. 



On behalf of the lumber industry Mr. Osborn disputed the popu- 

 lar belief that the lumberman is a plutocrat who, because of his 

 exceptional prosperity, should be made to bear the burden of refor- 

 estation. He declared that the "lumbermen as a class are not 

 exceptionally prosperous." That as a matter of fact the hazards 

 of the lumber business are so great as to be comparable with the 

 risks taken by a faro player. "The great body of lumbermen 

 fail," Mr. Osborn said, and the lumberman who accumulates great 

 wealth is the rare exception. "The lumbermen can not be .bur- 

 dened with any special load the public should carry," he declared. 



Mr. Osborn agreed with Col. Greeley that fire protection is an 

 important phase of the reforestation problem, but disagreed with 

 him as to the cheapness of slash disposal. He said he had had 

 experience in which slash disposal cost as much as stumpage, and 

 he urged that the Chief Forester make a thorough investigation to 

 find out about the cost of slash disposal. 



Can't Produce For Posterity 



The lumbermen, Mr. Osborn said, arc prepared to share part of 

 the expense of protecting young growth on eutover land so that 

 it can come to maturity, but "the lumbermen do not feel and never 

 will feel that it is their duty to grow trees for future generations. ' ' 



As to proposed forestry policy legislation, Mr. Osborn said that 

 the control features of the Snell bill would be acceptable to the 

 lumbermen provided the limitations of this control are clearly de- 

 fined, and assurance is given that the control of private timber 

 lands will not be taken out of the hands of the owners. 



Following Mr. Osborn 's statement, Dr. H. L. Drinker of Marion, 

 Pa., a member of the committee, questioned Col. Greeley as to the 

 constitutionality of the Capper bill, and the nature of the Snell 

 bill, whether regulatory or advisory?" Col. Greeley answered this 

 with the discussion of the Swedish reforestation policy and a com- 

 paration of principles of the Capper and Snell bills. The Swedish 

 law merely provides that the country's forest lands shall be kept 

 continuously productive, he said, leaving the application of this 

 principle to local committees. This carries out the idea of the 

 forest lands being a public utility. 



Through its administration by local committees, which are rep- 

 resentative of all elements directly concerned, the mandatory 

 provisions of the Swedish law are largely turned into one of edu- 

 cation and cooperation, the Chief Forester said. 



Here Prof. Filibert Roth of Michigan State University, Ann 

 Arbor, Mich., interposed the suggestion that the carrying out of 

 this method in America would 1)0 complicated by the fact that 

 timber lands in this country arc largely held in small tracts, 

 whereas in Sweden the forest lands are in large holdings and con- 

 sequently much easier to control. 



Here, also, H. P. Pearsons, president of the Geographic Society 

 of Chicago and mayor of Evanston, 111., suggested that it may 

 require a constitutional amendment to permit the operation of a 

 measure like the Capper bill, which provides for tlu' use of Federal 



police power to an extent that would conflict with state preroga- 

 tives. , • 



L.atcr the Chief Forester exjiressed the belief that the Cap[ier bill 

 jprincijjle could not be put into effect in advance of a constitutional 

 amendment. This bill raises not only the (piestion of a constitu- 

 tionality, but also the important political question of private prop- 

 erty rights, or the right of Government to operate private enter- 

 prises. 



On the other hand the Snell bill commends itself because it seems 

 undoubtedly constitutional and could be installed at once, he said. 



At this point Wm. B. Baker of Chicago, secretary of the Associa- 

 tion of Wood Using Industries, a.sked for more light on the question 

 of the cost of reforestation, a question, he said, that had been 

 raised at the New York hearing of the committee, when George N. 

 Ostrander, president of the Empire Forest Products Association, 

 had said that the cost of operating either the Capper or Snell bills 

 •would be prohibitive. "The question is one of the cost of a system 

 of forestry versus the cost of no system of forestry," said Mr. 

 Baker. 



Holds Cost Negligible 



Col. Greeley replied that forestry practice is now actually costing 

 an average of 75 cents a thousand or a minimum of 25 cents and a 

 maximum of $1.75. But 18 cents a thousand would probably repre- 

 sent the cost of complete protection, because of the great extent of 

 the practice under a national policy. But should this cost be $1 a 

 thousand feet it would mean a total of only $50,000,000 or $52,000,- 

 000 a year, the Chief Forester said. "And say $50,000,000 is 

 annually expended on reforestation, such a figure need not even be 

 considered in the light of the heavy transportation cost that will 

 result from deforestation." Chicago alone, he declared, spends 

 annually over $22,500,QW more for freight on forest products than 

 she paid twenty-five years ago, because of the depletion of rela- 

 tively adjacent stands of timber. 



Mr. Worcester was the next witness called and he stated that 

 while he favored putting into operation a bill such as the Snell 

 bill he objected to the saddling of the cost of slash disposal on the 

 lumberman. He differed with the Chief Forester's opinion that 

 the cost of slash disposal could be passed on to the consumer by 

 the lumberman. "We all know that lumber is sold for long periods 

 at prices which bear no relation to cost." "This condition prevails 

 today in many instances," he said. "The cost of slash disposal 50 

 per cent of the time will fall on the lumberman instead of the 

 ]iul)lic. The people should pay the cost of reforestation because 

 the lumber industry four years out of five sells its product at a 

 loss at prices totally unrelated to cost." 



The Chief Forester replied that this is because the lumber indus- 

 try overproduces and is overcapitalized. 



Mr. Worcester answered that however true this might be the 

 lumber operator cannot stop producing in these lean years, but 

 must operate .at a loss in order to pay the cost of his overhead. 



Chairman Goodwillie introduced the suggestion that the lumber- 

 III I M would be glad to have some system of regulating production 

 by ilriiKinil sii th;it this waste of the forest resources could be 

 a\'oiil('il. 



.VI r. Worcester said that such a system would certainly strike the 

 lumber industry as ideal, but would be impossible of attainment. 

 He recalled that the Government had interposed serious objoc- 

 timis to the gathering and dissemination of information on stocks, 

 |ir(iiluction, etc., that might be used to regulate production by 

 ili'iiiand. 



Greeley Favors Market Information 



Col. Greeley declared in reply to this that he believed the free 

 circulation of market information a perfectly legitimate process, 

 and that it would eliminate much of the evil of over-production. 



Herman H. Hettler, the Herman H. Hettler Lumber Company, 

 Chicago, was called at this point. His opinion was that the entire 

 responsibility for reforestation rests with the Federal Govern- 

 ment. He said that as the tracts of timber are cut off they should 

 be ])iirchased by the U. S. Government and reforested for posterity. 



