25G JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



have been able to interpret the "points" in the Hght of the writer's own 

 previously published statements rather than, as he has done, in the light 

 of his own "assumptions" — assumptions which he would then have 

 known do by no means represent the writer's views or the views of 

 the lumbermen generally for whom he is thought to have spoken. 



Mr. X.'s article is, it seems to me, essentially a confirmation of the 

 correctness of the general statements of fact, or the so-called "points," 

 which he criticises. The acknowledgment of this as quoted from Mr. 

 X. in the following statement, is all that the writer has contended for — 

 namely, their validity as general principles : 



"Taken by themselves, his (Mr. Compton's) 'principles' are so gen- 

 eral that few will controvert them." 



Under the varying conditions cited by Mr. X. in his article, I would 

 in most cases have applied these general principles just as he has done 

 and I would have reached quite the same conclusions as he has reached. 

 What I have stated negatively as cautions Mr. X. has stated as positive 

 corollaries. I believe just as strongly, with but few exceptions, in the 

 specific conclusions which Mr. X. has reached (assuming the facts and 

 conditions to be as he has stated them) as I do in the general principles 

 themselves, since his specific conclusions are but concrete applications, 

 under a given set of facts, of these principles themselves. 



No well-informed person will fail to recognize the existence of the 

 general conditions which Mr. X. has described. One might perhaps 

 be led, however, at a few points to a different conclusion than that 

 which he has reached. As I stated in the article in which the so-called 

 "points" were outlined : 



"The following statements of principles must obviously be brief. 

 I am confident, however, that I may rely upon the high-mindedness of 

 the reader to interpret them in the light of reason and in the light of 

 facts zvhich he knows to be matters of common knowledge. Thus may 

 they contribute to clear thinking and straight thinking on national 

 economic policy." 



Assuming that I meant what I said, which I did, but which Mr. X. 

 assumes that I didn't, his views are apparently not inconsistent with 

 my own, except on one significant point. That is the efficacy of manda- 

 tory private enterprise as a way to the solution of our forest problem. 

 The distinctive characteristic of mandatory private enterprise is, of 

 course, that such enterprise would not be undertaken unless it were 

 compulsory. 



