FARMERS" INSTITUTES. 



77 



ments as has been the case for years, to get them to settle upon Michigan 

 lands. Michigan does welcome within her borders thrifty people who may 

 be poor, but who desire to work out a livelihood in a legitimate way. It 

 can afford to make such men inducements as to the method of payment in 

 its land offers. However, Michigan is not land poor. It is not obliged to 

 dispose of its holdings at a sacrifice in order to throw the responsibility 

 of taxation on the shoulders of would-be purchasers, with a total disre- 

 gard of their character or ability to get on in the world. The State has 

 this immense area of land that has come into its hands for delinquent 

 taxes. A business man, under like circumstances, would very carefully 

 size up the situation, put a fair price upon the lands it seemed desirable 

 to dispose of for the sake of getting thrifty settlers, then utilize the 

 remainder of the holdings in such a manner as to make them as rapidly 

 as possible, grow more valuable. This sorting process our State has 

 never done. The State of Wisconsin, with an immense area of lands in a 

 similar condition, has entered upon the sorting plan, with the idea of dis- 

 posing of the lands valuable for agricultural purposes to the farmer, and 

 retaining the thinner lands, not adapted to successful agriculture, to 

 ■grow upon them forests for the benefit of the State, and incidentally for 

 the benefit of every inhabitant of the State. This is a valuable step in 

 progress, and one' that Michigan could well afford to take. It should 

 retain vast holdings of lands unsuited to agriculture, forever, and grow 

 upon these lands forests, having in view the maintenance of a diversity of 

 industries supported by forest crops. This is a philosophical way for the 

 State to treat its landed investment. This plan recognizes forestry as a 

 branch of agriculture and has in view the maintenance of the largest 

 possible power of production from the land; and it also Tccognizes the 

 principle of mixed husbandry as a most important one in connection with 

 agriculture. 



It is a mistaken policy on the part of the State to seek its development 

 by striving to have evein' acre of its land under cultivation for the pro- 

 duction of agricultural crops. An immense line of industries of vast 

 importance to the State are supported by the production of the forest. 

 Individuals will not undertake to grow forests, having in view the sup- 

 port of these industries. The State, because it goes on forever, can enter 

 upon this project with every promise of success in the interests of its 

 larger development. My contention then is, that the State, in handling 

 its vast areas of lands, shall attack the problem of the wisest method in 

 handling them in a business way, and that it shall recognize forestry 

 as an intrinsic factor in its agriculture and shall undertake to supplement 

 the activities of the individual with a forest policy that shall make the 

 poorest and least valuable lands of great value in promoting its future 

 prosperity. 



To this end it is of the utmost importance that the State shall immedi- 

 ately take hold of the training of experts in forestry, in the same business- 

 like way that it has under solution the problem of educating its husband- 

 men in its university and college instruction; in the development of its 

 great common school interests, the importance of this line of education 

 should never be lost to the sight. In the future economy of the State the 

 tree will be as important a factor as the grain or the fruit, and an 

 educated husbandry which shall maintain the high character and standing 

 of Michigan agriculture must include a proper training of the forester. 



