SHAI,!, WE CAPITALIZE OUR FORESTS? 25i7 



some merchantable material can be cut. Here would be an evidence of 

 liability which could not be covered up by a little bookkeeping and 

 would have to be met. If Government forests were taxed on the same 

 basis as the private forests, as they should be, the private investor 

 would be reasonably assured that the Government forest would not 

 come into unfair competition with his own when matured. With this 

 assurance the writer believes considerable private capital would be 

 invested in the growing of timber. Furthermore, the amount of money 

 the Government could raise under such an arrangement would be 

 practically limitless. People will lend money for interest when they 

 will not vote for money to be collected in the form of taxes from 

 which they do not expect to get any money return. This being true, 

 there would be nothing to prevent the Government from expropriating 

 and growing forests on all forest soil which private capital does not 

 keep productive. 



The third step which the writer feels would be desirable, would be 

 to separate the income producing and non-income businesses carried 

 on by the Government. As long as such work as extension, research, 

 and the growing of forests are carried on by the same bureau, there 

 is going to be danger of false capitalization. When administrative in- 

 dividuals have been tied with red tape by the politicians, it is a tempta- 

 tion to use funds for one kind of work which needs doing and charge 

 them to some other account on which there happens to be a surplus. 

 Such dodging of red tape usually results in efficiency and better public 

 service, and does no more harm than to make some cost figures inac- 

 curate, when it is between non-income producing departments. When, 

 however, manipulation takes place between capital accounts and the 

 expense accounts for non-income producing work, it results in either 

 over or under capitalization. Also more people would be interested 

 in the accounts of the income producing departments than in the other, 

 and they would be much simpler if not confused with a number of 

 non-income producing accounts. Furthermore, the writer feels that 

 a department which had charge only of capitalized business would be 

 less open to pressure from the politician or citizen who wanted a job 

 for his friend. Through the annual financial report, the efficiency of 

 the department would be shown uj) too ])lainly. Also such a depart- 

 mctit would be less dependent on the politician and general citizen for 

 funds to work with than the ordinary bureau. Such departments 

 should be organized, not as a bureau, but as a corporation, the capital 



