A XATIONAL LUMBER AND FOREST POLICY 359 



Still again, tax reform has been urged for a decade or more. On 

 the ground that the present system tends to force premature cutting, it 

 is proposed that there should be an annual land tax and a tax on the 

 product when it is cut. The present tax system without question op- 

 erates to discourage the holding of land for growing timber. But 

 there are other forces much stronger that are causing premature cut- 

 ting and that are preventing the owners from caring for the cut-over 

 lands. Taken alone, tax reforms will not achieve either result. 



I can further illustrate the failure of half-way measures by reference 

 to various proposals which have also been made regarding the protec- 

 tion and reproduction of the forest. ]\Iost of these concern fire pro- 

 tection, and largely leave out of account the question of forest replace- 

 ment. Specific proposals, however, have been made to place legal 

 restrictions on methods of operation in the woods. In a number of 

 States such proposals have been widely discussed, bills have been 

 offered in the legislatures, and there is behind them a very consider- 

 able body of public sentiment. 



These have made little headway because for the most part they have 

 not provided for meeting certain economic difficulties. Here again the 

 industrial problems must be considered along with the proposals to 

 secure forest renewal and growth. 



In approaching the question of a national lumber and forest pro- 

 gram, involving perhaps some radical departures from the present 

 principles of relations between the public and industry, we shall find, 

 I believe, that the most important and fundamental questions relate 

 to the speculative character of forest ownership. Such ownership 

 means cutting as fast as possible and without reference to how the land 

 is left after lumbering. What is needed is some strengthening influence 

 that would make possible the husbanding of the resource and its con- 

 servative use, as the public would use it if it had retained control over 

 it, and at the same time provide for the continued productiveness of 

 the land. 



If the public had retained title to forest lands, it would have been 

 able to dispose of timber as it is needed ; it could have secured orderly 

 development and built up permanent enterprises secure in a perpetual 

 supply of raw material ; it would have been able readily to organize 

 protection and to secure forest replacement. The public cannot recover 

 the position it surrendered, yet it may be possible to bring about in 

 a measure the objectives we have been discussing. 



