328 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



"Well, if you want to continue in that position, stop this innovation 

 which you have planned." 



(4). Farm Woodlots. — I agree most heartily with Colonel Greeley 

 that it is very essential that forestry be practiced on the farm. I see 

 no reason whatsoever for excluding the farmer from the benefits, or 

 dangers if you will, of Federal conservation. The most practical 

 forestry just now in dollars and cents will probably be just the kind of 

 forestry which the farmer can afford to undertake. When our farmers 

 are convinced of the practicability and desirability of forestry, they 

 will prove a tremendous force in securing improvements and benefits 

 in legislation, when that becomes necessary. 



(5). Industrial Essentials Should Not Be Linked. — Here again I 

 feel that Colonel Greeley is right and that these essentials should not 

 be linked with the movement against forest destruction. 



(6). Subsidy. — Why should a subsidy not be granted? It will un- 

 questionably cost the private owner money to follow out the kind of 

 beneficial Federal legislation, which we hope to secure. Should he 

 not be compensated, and should not the public, who gains, pay for what 

 it secures? To my mind foresters are unfair when they fail to recog- 

 nize that just compensation is due the private owner. With Federal 

 legislation and the consequent power of checking the work by State 

 agencies, the danger of graft in subsidies would be minimized. 



I can not help but feel that the best plan for the lumbermen is to 

 boost rather than to fight the campaign for forestry in the United 

 States. Our national economical supremacy is largely due to our wealth 

 in national resources. Our forests are one of our most important 

 storehouses of raw products, and why should they be destroyed and 

 the soil laid waste when the very nation itself will sooner or later reap 

 the harvest of profligacy? 



