5i)6 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



Several facts appear to have been rather definitely established by 

 the two meetings in Chicago : 



( 1 ) The lumber industry does not regard its investment in timber as 

 permanent, and is therefore anxious to convert its timber holdings 

 into cash as soon as possible and at the highest possible profit. 



(2) It has decided to wage an energetic advertising campaign, altru- 

 istically laying particular stress on the "Own your own home'' move- 

 ment as one of the most effective means of increasing lumber sales. 



(3) Every efifort will be made to have the investment in both stump- 

 age and equipment valued and taxed on the basis that the forest is a 

 mine and not a Grop- 

 es) Those interested in safeguarding the future of our timber supply 



cannot look to the lumbermen for any concerted support in the efi^ort 

 to make the practice of forestry general on private as well as public 

 lands. 



Why a Union for Foresters? 



As a forester and a member of the National Federation of Federal 

 Employees, I should like to make some remarks on the Journal's 

 editorial comment in the April issue on the subject, "Why Not a Union 

 for Foresters"' ? 



Full consideration of the big and vital question brought forward by 

 Aldo Leopold and by the editorial commentary on his article, so far as 

 they relate to unionism, would involve a lengthy discussion of the whole 

 trend and purpose of the labor movement. 



I am heartily in favor of the unionization of professional men, and 

 fully believe that the "brain-workers"' of America will, in the next two 

 decades, be fully organized as joint partners in the great labor move- 

 ment that has been carried forward during the past century by the 

 hand-workers. Their interests are joint interests; but through innate 

 conservatism, false pride, "white-collar"" snobbishness, lethargy, and 

 economic stupidity the professional classes have always dreamed that 

 their real interests lie with the capitalist class. The truth is that the 

 technical workers have always been the keen-edged tools that, in com- 

 bination with the hand-workers, have been used for the creation of 

 wealth which has, in great part, been appropriated by non-producers. 

 Their economic status has been regulated by the law of pure, unre- 

 strained competition, and this status is bound to become worse and 

 worse as competition becomes more keen by reason of the increase of 

 technical schools, the cheapening of technical education, and the in- 



