FORESTRY AND THE WAR 153 



timber. Indeed, we may agree with Coolidge's statement, that "indi- 

 vidual ownership has proved eminently uneconomical, and even de- 

 structive of the permanent productivity" of their lands. He does not, 

 however, draw the proper conclusion when declaring that "there is no 

 economic necessity for State production of timber." 



Nor do we agree with Professor Toumey, who also pins his hope on 

 private ownership, although admitting that "it is far more important to 

 the nation that the second growth be adequately safeguarded than it is 

 to the individual." 



He proposes "by liberal tax laws and technical assistance to help the 

 private owner to attain a protected reproduction, etc." 



We, on the other hand, do not believe that there can be enough in- 

 centive created by these means for private forestry. 



In vain have we striven for decades to interest the lumberman and 

 timberland owner in a more conservative treatment of his property 

 with a view to a future, to substituting silvicultural management for 

 exploitation. Outside of protection against destruction of their prop- 

 erty from fire, we have practically secured no response, and that natu- 

 rally, for such management is financially not attractive. 



Private interest in any industry can only be a financial one, but finan- 

 cially forestry- — a sustained-yield management — means curtailing pres- 

 ent revenue or making present expenditures for the sake of a future 

 revenue, and that in a distant future which is of no interest to the indi- 

 vidual. 



This time element, which is peculiar to our business, is a natural 

 deterrent to private enterprise in this field, for self-interest works only 

 for the present. Only a long-lived, stable, permanent ownership can 

 assure us of conservative managament ; only State ownership can afford 

 to exercise providential functions, can guard the interest of a distant 

 future and wait a century for returns on its outlays. 



That in some localities the forest cover, in addition to the mere ma- 

 terial function, exercises a protective function on waterflow, soil, and 

 climate, affecting local as well as distant interests — this protective func- 

 tion only adds argument for State control. 



I repeat, we have tried persuasive and promotive methods to induce 

 private enterprise to engage in forestry, but the inherent troubles which 

 surround this business have rendered the result negligible. We might 

 apply methods of control and supervision over the use of private prop- 

 erty which might insure continuity of supplies. Experience in the old 

 countries has sbovvn that, in spite of much more perfect machinery for 

 enforcing laws, and in spit(> of much more ready disposition to submit 



