296 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



It seems very clear indeed that of all products which might be 

 produced and sent into foreign trade, forest products, consisting as 

 they do mainly of air and water acted upon by solar energy, are among 

 the most advantageous. It is well known, in fact, that proper manage- 

 ment of forests improves the soil, hence the intelligent production and 

 export of forest products will remuneratively employ our labor. At the 

 same time it continually puts our resources in better producing condi- 

 tion. What is the case with our copper, iron and other metals? The 

 more we sell the poorer we become in resources. I do not wish to see the 

 production or export of the latter restricted, but I do believe that if any 

 industry deserves encouragemnt by the nation it is forest production, 

 and that if private interests are unable to maintain their portion of 

 our forest resources in producing condition adequate remedies should 

 be taken. Not that any hostile attitude toward the private interests is 

 in any way called for or that they should be put to any burdensome 

 expense; the writer's belief is radically the contrary. 



The matter of substitutes is one which might be discussed at length, 

 but only a few points can be touched upon. Modern engineering and 

 business specialists have become aware that there is practically no such 

 thing as permanence in use value of any structure. Even if the ma- 

 terials are permanent all structures become in time obsolete. This 

 obsolescence is particularly active in the case of buildings. In all 

 probability, every business structure has outlived its usefulness after 

 15 or 20 years of service, no matter what the materials. Improvements 

 in lighting, plumbing, heating, and in the case of manufacturing build- 

 ings, changes in machinery, have rendered the structure obsolete, and if 

 use is continued the business is placed at a disadvantage. Why, then, 

 put permanent material into impermanent structures ? The fact is that 

 when the time comes for wrecking these structures the permanent ma- 

 terials are a curse, as in the case of concrete and steel. Only valuable 

 city property will, as a rule, bear the cost of salvaging from these in- 

 cumbrances. Eastern farms are covered with the scars of old build- 

 ings though only foundation walls remain. If the land is not always 

 worth salvaging, it certainly will never bear the enormous expense of 

 removing an obsolete concrete structure. Wood is still cheaper than 

 these substitutes, plenty permanent enough and can be largely salvaged 

 when the structure it forms a part of becomes obsolete. When these 

 and related facts become known, as they will through lumber advertise- 

 ments, the false idea of permanence in structures will be punctured 



