EDITORIAL COMMENT 



The somewhat sharp arraignment of the lumber industry by Mr. 

 Ohnsted printed in an earher issue of this volume (page 222) has, as 

 was to be expected, given rise to sharp rejoinders in the lumber trade 

 press. Notably an article by Charles S. Keith in the Lumber World 

 Rcz'iczc of June 20, and another by C. S. Smith, read before the Cali- 

 fornia Section of the Society and published in The Timhcnnan for 

 June, give expression to a sore or perhaps only resentful feeling of 

 the objurgations against the lumberman's fraternity. We do not be- 

 lieve for one moment that any "malice," as Mr. Keith has it, actuated 

 Mr. Olmsted, and it was only to force attention that he used forceful 

 language in pointing out that a national forest policy must include 

 regulation or control of the exploitation of private timber lands. 



Meanwhile Colonel Graves did well by bringing this subject, the 

 formulation of a national forest policy, prominently before the Na- 

 tional Lumber Manufacturers' Association at its annual meeting in 

 April, following up the resolution adopted at the last annual meeting 

 of the Society of American Foresters. This was followed by a con- 

 ference at Washington in May, where constructive measures were dis- 

 cussed mainly by State foresters of Eastern States. The sense of the 

 meeting was expressed in one resolution: 



Resolved, that forestry questions are national questions, as well as State and 

 local questions, and it is the sense of the conference that the National Govern- 

 ment should assume leadership in these matters and aid and co-operate with the 

 several States in furnishing adequate protection from forest fires, in perpetuating 

 existing forests, and in reforesting devastated forest districts or regions, upon 

 such conditions as may seem just and equitable. 



Similar conferences were called to Harrisburg, Pa., and Asheville, 

 N. C, and discussions on the same subject also took place at other 

 Society meetings, and a special committee of the Society is at work 

 toward formulation of such a policy. 



The lumber trade papers have also been active in the discussion of • 

 the important problem. Among other articles, we note one by E. A. 

 Sterling which makes a financial showing to demonstrate the unprofit- 

 ableness of intensive forestry. Placing the cost of the needful 200,000,- 

 000 acres at $6,000,000,000 and demanding an interest rate of 4 per 

 cent, placing the stumpage value for eastern woods at $12. of Pacific 

 Coast wood at $6, he works out a deficit of $57,000,000,000 annually. 

 880 



