358 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



ments to curtail production when justified by industrial conditions. You 

 will recall that this was proposed when the Clayton Act was under 

 discussion; and in 1916 the proposal! was put forward very specifically 

 in a referendum from the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. It is out of 

 place here to discuss in detail this proposal. There are, however, two 

 defects that are pertinent to the present discussion. 



This suggestion was offered to the country as a conservation measure. 

 You will recall the language of the referendum, that "There should 

 be remedial legislation to permit co-operative agreements under Federal 

 supervision in those industries which involve primary natural re- 

 sources, on condition that the agreements in fact tend to conserve the 

 resources, to lessen accidents, and to promote the public interest." 

 The report of the Chamber indicates that the question of handling 

 the forests — that is, forest protection and forest production — is not 

 a part of the plan. This means that the only conservation, so far 

 as lumber is concerned, would be the saving of a measure of waste 

 made possible through the more stable and advantageous trade con- 

 ditions. The vital object of the public to secure a continuance of the 

 forests is wholly left out of account. 



A second serious defect is that it would not, in my opinion, be 

 really effective in bringing about a condition of permanent stability. 

 The forces that tend to throw an excess of lumber on the market are 

 too strong. Lumbermen often say themselves that a lumber combina- 

 tion could not really exist because sooner or later some one would be 

 unable to stand the pressure, and the usual break of market would 

 occur. This is doubtless true, and applies also to such an arrangement 

 as that contemplated in the proposed change of the Sherman Act. 



In short, the proposal does not reach the real source of the diffi- 

 culty and would not be of permanent benefit to the industry, aside 

 from its failure to safeguard various general public interests. 



A second suggestion that has been made is that the public co-operate 

 in the conservative financing of timber holdings through long-term 

 loans at low rates of interest. Some have suggested a system of forest 

 loans backed by the public credit, similar to the loans made to farmers 

 under the Farm Loan Act. The theory is that the financial strength- 

 ening of the stumpage holdings would act automatically to cause cur- 

 tailment when the market is overloaded and prices are likely to fall. 

 This proposal points directly to the greatest weakness of the industrial 

 situation, but, like the previous plan, it is a half-way measure. It does 

 not make any provision for the permanence of the forest. 



