1-14 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



of the merchant marine, of prohibition. Are these things un-American 

 and undemocratic? National control was necessary because State 

 control had failed. It is claimed, nevertheless, that because control in 

 these cases started with the States, failed with the States, and was 

 afterwards taken over by the Federal Government, so the regulation 

 of forests must start with the States and later, perhaps, go to the 

 National Government. 



Americanism and democracy on this basis would seem to mean that, 

 in spite of costly experience, we must hold to precedent, undertake 

 what has failed before and is sure to fail again, and so waste years of 

 supremely valuable time, at the end of which we may have little timber 

 left to perpetuate. 



We are all, or nearly all, agreed that the quickest and least costly 

 advance in keeping forest lands productive will come from preventing 

 devastation in the harvesting of the 2,500 billion feet of virgin saw- 

 timber still remaining; the bulk of which will have been cut within the 

 next forty or fifty years. Shall we deliberately plan to apply our most 

 effective remedy too late? 



So far as the forest problem is concerned, neither Americanism nor 

 democracy are restricted by political boundaries. Local governments 

 in towns, counties, and States may be far from democratic, and are 

 frequently un-American. All too often they are controlled by boards 

 and legislatures which are themselves controlled by politicians for po- 

 litical purposes, or by powerful special interests with a preponderating 

 political influence. I believe it is fair to say that, compared to the 

 average run of State or local governments, the National Government is 

 distinctly more American and more democratic. It is undoubtedly 

 cleaner and more efScient. 



With the right sort of leadership and with thoroughgoing decentral- 

 ization, national administration has been and can be intensely demo- 

 cratic. There are many examples — none better than that of the Forest 

 Service itself. Professor Kirkland's paper on the subject, which fol- 

 lows this article, handles the argument so thoroughly that further com- 

 ment here is unnecessary. 



EFFICIENCY OF CONTROL 



Few would argue against State control if the States would really 

 control. The difficulty is that they would not, and the best proof of 

 that is the constant desire of the men who are opposed to all control 



