256 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



Federal Trade Commission as $4.83, in 191 7, then must represent the 

 yield upon the $60.81 of investment — "certainly not a fair return." 



That a margin of $3 per thousand feet manufactured is recognized as 

 fair "is rather a dictum than a fact" is alleged, and that "at no time 

 since 1907 has there been a profit in the lumber industry consonant with 

 the investment therein." 



J. D. Lacy is quoted as placing "the reasonable cash value of stump- 

 age (southern pine?) in 1917 as between $7 and $8.'' Had this value 

 been used in calculating the net profits, rather than the figures actually 

 used, profits would have amounted to but 2.73 per cent. 



General commodity prices are quoted to show that "the value of lum- 

 ber, as expressed in money, shows an increase of 39 per cent, but 

 expressed in exchange value, shows a decrease of 43.7 per cent. The 

 conclusion reached is that "there is certainly no justification whatever 

 in the charge that southern pine has been profiteering." 



It would seem evident that the nub of the controversy again rests 

 upon the value to be allowed for stumpage, there often being a very 

 considerable difference between the net cost plus carrying charges and 

 the actual current sale value. The governmental authorities seem to 

 incline toward the former appraisal, the lumbermen toward the latter 

 {Auierican Lumberman, July 13, 1918). 



There is further discussion of the subject by C. S. Keith in the Lum- 

 ber Trade Journal for September 15, 1918. 



"must the lumber industry always trail?" 



The rapidity with which affairs in the lumber world are changing 

 and the leading part being played by the trade journals is indicated by 

 frequent editorials, as, for instance : 



"An honest appraisal of the lumber industry will develop one fact which is 

 far from satisfying. Too much of its progress has come from without, too little 

 from within. . . . Of course, there have been exceptions . . . but aside 

 from some progress in the actual processes of lumber manufacture, lumbermen 

 have little to which they can point with pride as evidence of a progressive busi- 

 ness spirit comparable with what is found in some other industries. Were this 

 not so, the refuse burners would have disappeared from most American sawmills 

 a decade or two ago. . . . The lumber industry has ahead of it a problem of 

 national scope that, while not altogether new, is almost generally unknown — the 

 problem of making lumber a more economical building material in the face of 

 rising costs. . . . It is the problem of selling houses rather than lumber by 

 the thousand feet" (Lumber, October 28, 1918, page i). 



