HARDWOOD RECORD 



that such aetiou was impending roused the Southern lumbermen to 

 quick and earnest action. It was considered of sufficient import- 

 ance to lay before a mass meeting of the delegates to the National 

 association's meeting, and it was formally placed before the meet- 

 ing when Mr. Kirby presented his report, which is given below 

 with very slight abridgment: 



The demand for an agreement between the government and the pro- 

 ducers of yellow pine lumber fixing a price on such lumber and covering 

 not only government purchases but sales to the public or to the trade, 

 did not originate with the lumber committee of the Council of National 

 Defense but is said to have come from a source higher up which was not 

 deflnitely disclosed to me. 



My discussion of the subject was almost exclusively with. Mr. Edgar 

 of the lumber committee and covered a period of three days, May 7, 8 

 and 9. 



I represented that as far as known the manufacturers of yellow pine 

 were opposed to a price-fixing program in so far as it applied to com- 

 mercial or non-government sales, for a number of reasons and among them 

 the following : 



The average price of lumber compared to its present high cost is not 

 high and there has been no profiteering. 



Since government orders were being given priority and dispatch and 

 would so continue, it could not be contended that the government 

 was unable to obtain the supplies it needs or seeks at prices It fixes, 

 notwithstanding that price is lower than the market price. 



A price to the public would be violative of the Bill of Rights. If the 

 price fixed by the government were below the market price the elCect 

 would be to take the property of the seller and bestow, it upon the buyer, 

 or if the price fixed was above the market price, then it would be taking 

 the property of the buyer and bestowing it upon the seller. 



Since there is no profiteering, there is no abuse of the consumer and 

 no public interest could be subserved by fixing a price on lumber as a 

 commodity but, on the contrary, it would take the heart out of the whole 

 industry and greatly embarrass lumber production. 



On the first proposition I recited and filed with the lumber committee 

 the record of my company from the year 1913 to the quarter ending 

 March 31, 191S. In the year 1013 the income of my company from lum- 

 ber sales was 7.48% on the net capital invested. In the year 1917, with 

 substantially the same capital invested, the return was 2.68%. 



The average price realized In the year 1913 was $16.56 per thousand 

 feet while the average price realized for the three months ending March 

 31, 1918, was $25.86. 



The average cost of the product in the year 1913 was $14.33, while 

 the average cost of the product in the three months period ending March 

 31, 1918, was $22.23. 



I am unalterably opposed to any effort on the part of the Government 

 to fix prices to the public for the reasons stated, but more than all for the 

 reason that It violates the Bill of Rights. The government Is entirely 

 without the power to do such a thing. The fifth amendment to the consti- 

 tution, known as Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, expressly provides that 

 "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due pro- 

 cess of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without 

 just compensation." Private property can be taken for public use only. 

 It is conceded that the government has the power to take the citizen's 

 property for governmental use by paying just compensation, but the gov- 

 ernment is absolutely forbidden to take the citizen's property for private 

 use regardless of the compensation which may be offered. 



I am willing and you are willing that the government shall take our 

 mills, trees, railroads, everything we own, if the government has need 

 of such things, and we will not cavil about the price, but when the gov- 

 ernment seeks to take our property and bestow it upon another or take 

 another's property and bestow it upon us, the government seeks to perform 

 an act forbidden under the constitution and such act should not be toler- 

 ated at any time, under any circumstances, or under any conditions by 

 any patriotic American who loves the constitution or values his liberty. 

 We should oppose such act not so much because it may Impose a loss of 

 property of the citizen but because It violates the constitution and 

 imperils the very existence of the government Itself. 



We must keep in mind that there are two kinds of laws In this republic : 

 Organic or constitutional law, made by direct act of the people or of the 

 states ; and statutory laws enacted by the people's representatives. The 

 constitution is a contract of all the people with each individual citizen 

 by which he is protected in his personal rights. The spirit of '76, giving 

 its expression In the Declaration of Independence, held that the citizen 

 was endowed with certain inalienable rights. These our forefathers sought 

 to forever guarantee under a written constitution. We, their descend- 

 ants, would be recreant to our duties as citizens and would commit trea- 

 son against posterity if we permitted the socialistic tendencies of this hour 

 to lay a vandal hand upon that sacred document. 



Our forefathers knew the ■ political history of all the nations of the 

 earth. They knew that an autocracy was a form of government where 

 all of the people might be property owners, but where a few people exer- 

 cise all political authority ; that a despotism was a form of government 

 where a few people owned everything ; that a socialism is a scheme of 

 government where no man owns anything. The government they created 

 under the constitution differed from all these. They created a democracy, 



a government of the people, by the people, and for the people under a 

 written instrument which is the bulwark of our liberty. Its underlying 

 principle is the Bill of Rights. In our religion we teach that a sin against 

 the Holy Ghost will not be pardoned even by a God of love. In our politics 

 we should hold that a crime against the Bill of Rights is treason. 



Liberty is too sacred an heritage to be dealt with lightly. The Anglo- 

 Saxon race has been its foremost advocate. In blood and tears they 

 wrung from King John the Magna Charta, and after eight years of suffer- 

 ing and sacrifice they wrung from King George the power to enforce the 

 Bill of Rights. 



The "blessings of liberty" are vitalized in the Bill of Rights. It is 

 the Bill of Rights which the socialists in this country desire to destroy. 

 They have no sympathy with the government created under that consti- 

 tution and no respect for any government instituted for the preservation 

 of life and liberty and property. The Bill of Rights was instituted for the 

 purpose of protecting the citizen in the enjoyment of his Inalienable rights. 

 The government was instituted as an instrument in the hands of the citi- 

 zen for the promotion of his happiness. It was a creature of the citizen 

 and his servant. The socialists believe that the citizen is a creature of 

 the government and that the citizen should have no rights of which the 

 government may not at its will despoil him. If we yield to the demand 

 of the socialists and the near-socialists in this country and permit a 

 deviation from the lines laid down in the constitution and permit open 

 and palpable violation of the constitution, the effect will be to destroy this 

 government and Mexicanize our people. 



Discussion of Price Fixing 

 Mr. Kirby 's report elicited a lively and prolonged discussion 

 which continued till late in the afternoon. His views were criti- 

 cized by some, but were indorsed by most, and in the end a resolu- 

 tion was adopted to send a committee to Washington with full 

 power to act, but with the knowledge that the association opposes 

 the proposition of fixing prices for the private buyer to pay for 

 lumber; yet if an occasion should arise in which it becomes neces- 

 sary that such prices be fixed, in order to win the war, then the 

 association will abide by the decision of the government as to what 

 those prices shall be. 



However, that resolution was not carried until a number of per- 

 sons had spoken on the subject, both for and against the views 

 expressed by Mr. Kirby. 



R. A. Long was not in favor of taking any action that could 

 be construed as opposition to the government while it is carrying 

 the enormous weight and responsibility of the war. Mr. Long did 

 not say that the proposition to fix prices at which the manufacturers 

 sTiall sell their lumber to private consumers met his approval. In 

 fact, he made it clear that he did not approve it, and that he would 

 fight it if it stood alone as a separate issue, but he based whatever 

 support he gave the plan on the ground that "My country, may 

 she ever be right; but right or wrong, my country," while the 

 stress of this war was upon her; that lumbermen should suifer 

 injustice temporarily if necessary in order that the greater good 

 might be the more speedily attained, and the Hun be put out of 

 business so thoroughly that he will never again trouble the world. 

 "After we have flown our flag over Berlin," exclaimed Mr. Long, 

 "we will come back, and then we can rearrange any dislocation 

 of our rights and liberties that have suffered because we sus- 

 pended the constitution long enough to do a thing that had to be 

 done in order to win the war." 



Charles S. Keith upheld the view advanced in Mr. Kirby 's re- 

 port that we were playing with fire when we begin to violate our 

 constitution and tha Bill of Bights. 



B. H. Downman advised that a middle course be followed, and 

 that efforts be directed toward reaching an understanding with 

 the government so that the controversy will not lead to antago- 

 nism and opposition. He believed that the proposal to fix lumber 

 prices in sales to private parties had come from complaints by pri- 

 vate parties that they were compelled to pay much higher prices 

 for lumber than the government was paying. These complaints 

 having reached the ears of high officials, raised suspicions that 

 there was profiteering in lumber; hence the proposal to fix prices 

 for private buyers. 



The question of cost finding came up. It will be desirable to 

 show the government that the prices charged to private buyers are 

 not unreasonable in view of the high cost of the product, though 

 the government may be buying considerably cheaper and conse- 

 quently more nearly at actual cost. Mr. Keith presented figures 



