442 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



2. The great majority of foresters now appear to be reaching the 

 conclusion that some form of compulsory legislation is the only alterna- 

 tive to forest devastation. The sentiment as to whether national or 

 State control should prevail is less definite. When the Committee's 

 report first appeared it was largely misunderstood; but the recent 

 swing toward giving it favorable consideration is clearly marked. 



3. The public, as yet, views the whole problem through a somewhat 

 hazy atmosphere. It is decidedly interested, but lacks readily under- 

 standable information. From what it does know of the situation it 

 takes for granted, apparently, that the nation should handle, and is 

 going to handle, the job. 



4. There can now be but few foresters who believe that material 

 improvement will result from the voluntary cooperation of lumbermen. 

 If surface protestations are disregarded, and from past experience 

 we are fully justified in disregarding them, it is clearly evident that 

 the lumbermen have no intention whatsoever of cooperating with for- 

 esters — unless it be on a plan so sterilized as to be useless. The recent 

 Lumber Congress at Chicago merely emphasized the almost unbe- 

 lievable inertia of the industry. Was there need for action ? Perhaps, 

 but merely to smooth over the present unjustified ripple of public 

 sentiment against the industry. If anything needed to be done, it 

 would be done by the industry itself, which was quite able to handle 

 the situation without suggestions from beyond the fold. The public 

 would gladly entrust the safeguarding of its interests to the very indus- 

 try that is now disregarding or working against those interests — a sup- 

 position involving sublime confidence in the credulity of the people of 

 the United States. 



Mr. Mason is one of the few foresters who still clings to ancient 

 legends. His view, as expressed in the March Journal, resembles 

 the innocent belief we all held some twenty years ago, the belief that 

 the lumbermen would gladly cooperate with us foresters whenever a 

 good chance really offered. Unfortunately, the test of experience has 

 betrayed our hope. Mr. Mason, I fear, still lives under the spell of 

 gentle flattery and lip profession which held the rest of us so long. 

 His article closely follows the arguments advanced by the lumberman- 

 forester who guards so efficiently the interests of the organized lumber- 

 men in the Northwest. 



The principal arguments against the plan of the Committee may be 

 briefly touched upon as follows : 



