26 



HARDWOOD RECOHD 



December 25, 1920 { 



Manufacturers 



SOUTHERN HARDWOODS 



Ash 



Poplar 



Red Gum 



Mixed Oak ^^P ^"^ 

 Elm Maple 



Tupelo 



CUMMER LUMBER COMPANY 



SALES OFFICE: 



280 MADISON AVENUE 



NEW YORK, N. Y. 



MAIN OFFICE 



JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 



(Contmued ]rom page 24) 

 recommendations of the report of the Committee for the Applica- 

 tion of Forestry of the Society of American Foresters. I need not 

 repeat them. 



The arguments of the two sides of the case as to the method of 

 administration to be followed in the execution of a timberland 

 policy may be summed up briefly, as follows: Mr. Piuchot, advo- 

 cating control through a federal commission, holds that the out- 

 standing fact is ' ' that it is a question of national control or no con- 

 trol at all." He believes that the experience of the past 20 years 

 has shown regulation of forest devastation by the states ts be 

 inefScient, if not actually ineffective, and that no far-reaching 

 results will be attained by the indirect method of subsidized sug- 

 gestion of persuasion. It is his opinion that too great stress is 

 being placed on forest fire protection, which while of the utmost 

 immediate importance, is nevertheless but a first step toward proper 

 forest management. Further, he thinks that "federal supervision 

 of state laws is surcharged with the certainty of friction." 



But back of it all Mr. Pinchot feels that the people of the unfor- 

 ested states, like Kansas and Nebraska, and of the states from a 

 commercial standpoint are now practically deforested, like Penn- 

 sylvania and New York, will never be content "to contribute their 

 money through federal appropriations, and then sit calmly by and 

 trust to the legislatures and state forces" of certain states in the 

 south and west "for the enactment and application of measures 

 which will assure to the farmers of the middle west and the workers 

 of the industrial east the timber supplies they must have to earn 

 their living." 



Col. Greeley's rebuttal of these arguments is in its essentials 

 substantially as follows: 



While admitting the greater effectiveness of federal control as a 

 regulatory measure, he holds, because it introduces so many mooted 

 questions, both legal and administrative, that time would simply 

 be wasted in advocating it, and that under it we should get nowhere. 

 He believes in encouraging every sound development toward better 



forest practice that originates and becomes effective locally. This, 

 he thinks, will follow cooperation with, backed by aid to, the states. 

 Col. Greeley said at Madison that in his judgment adequate fire 

 protection was, for the immediate present, 75 percent of the prob- 

 lem. He believes that "fire protection and silviculture are so 

 interwoven that one administrative organization must handle 

 both," and so he disagrees with the Pinchot plan, which leaves 

 fire protection to the states and regulation of cutting to a federal 

 commission. Should it appear after trial that federal control is 

 the only effective remedy, Col. Greeley sees the Forest Service 

 program as a preliminary and partial measure. His contention is 

 that under it something can be accomplished at once, which he does 

 not think will occur under the Pinchot plan. 



Both plans aim, in the last analysis, at the same objective, more 

 or less compulsory regulation by governmental agencies over pri- 

 vately owned forest lands, but they differ radically as to methods. 



It is along these lines that the debate in Congress will begin, for 

 until the central question is settled as to how regulatory measures 

 are to be administered, that is, whether by the nation, or through 

 the states, all the other ;features of the policy drop back into a 

 secondary place. 



In recapitulation and as a final summary, the problem of a 

 national timber land policy reduces itself to this: It is an undis- 

 puted fact that as a nation we are approaching the end of our 

 supply of mature timber. Our only hope for the future lies in new 

 forests resulting from second growth, naturally or artificially . 

 regenerated. Roughly, four-fifths of the commercial timberlands of 

 the country are now in private ownership. The people of the United 

 States cannot get on without wood in its many forms. If the pri- 

 vate timberland owners do not set about producing new forests 

 to replace the fast diminishing present supply, the public will some- 

 how see to it that such provision is made otherwise; and this 

 speedily, for the approaching scarcity of timber is going to make 

 itself keenly felt in the very near future. 



Two programs dealing with the regulation of the private owner 



