152 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



suggest its continuation. May we not expect that if these activities are 

 successfully carried on there will be arguments developed for carrying 

 on at least some of them beyond the war? 



The control of public utilities has been under discussion long before 

 the war, and now we shall gain experience as to how efficiently the 

 Government can manage enterprises such as railroads, shipping, muni- 

 tion work, mines, not to mention the food control and control of profits. 



Before the war it would have been by most statesmen considered 

 Utopian to undertake to regulate, as we do now, production, distribu- 

 tion, and even consumption. Now, we attempt all these things, cutting 

 out competition as a factor in regulating prices and substituting a co- 

 operative system. Are we bound to return to the wasteful system of 

 competition ? Or shall we have learned that, at least as far as the nat- 

 ural resources that are exhaustible are concerned, communal manage- 

 ment is the only rational method. 



There is no doubt that the war and its incidental requirements have 

 forced us into abandoning at least temporarily long-cherished theories 

 of individual versus communal functions ; and the opportunity for mak- 

 ing the change permanent, for making radical changes in industrial and 

 economic conditions after the war, will never be better, provided the 

 opportunity is seized immediately and the pendulum is not allowed to 

 swing back too far. 



For many of the Government activities which the war has developed 

 convincing arguments can be brought forward in favor of abandoning 

 them to more or less unrestricted private enterprise after the exigen- 

 cies of the war which called them into existence have ceased ; but we 

 may assume that the general attitude favorable to an extension of Gov- 

 ernment functions will remain and the public interest will more than 

 heretofore be considered in the new adjustments. 



Can we not make use of this attitude in furthering the public inter- 

 ests in our own special business — the conservative use and management 

 of our forest resources ? Is it not timely to point out that, if anywhere, 

 in the handling of these resources communal interest is paramount and 

 calls for Government control? 



The arguments for such State control are familiar to you. They 

 may be summed up in one sentence, namely, that forestry — the manage- 

 ment of forests for continued production — is not an attractive business 

 for private enterprise for various reasons. 



At any rate, the idea of using our forest resources so as to produce 

 continuous wood crops has so far gained little acceptance in America — 

 none at all among the holders of the bulk of our remaining standing 



