492 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



should be based, a classification of resources from the standpoint of 

 their possible exhaustion is first needed, and one, resembling that long 

 ago proposed by the reviewer, is quoted from an article by Prof. L. 

 C. Gray, as follows: 



1. Resources which exist in such abundance that there is no apparent necessity 

 for economy, either in present or future. For instance, water in some localities. 



2. Resources which will probably become scarce in the remote future, although 

 so abundant as to have no market value in the present. For instance, building 

 stone and sand in some localities. 



3. Resources which have a present scarcity: 



(a) Not exhaustible through normal use: Water powers. 



(b) Necessarily exhausted through use, and nonrestorable after exhaustion: 

 Mineral deposits. 



(c) Necessarily exhausted through use, but restorable: Forest, fish. 



(d) Exhaustible in a given locality, but restorable through the employment of 

 other resources of a different kind or of similar resources in different locations: 

 Agricultural land. 



The suggestion is thrown out that the difference between the 

 present and future, to the individual, is represented by interest, and, 

 in the case of forests, the discount of the future may be made at the 

 lowest possible rate paid by a prosperous State, say 2 per cent. Yet in 

 reality the interest rate cuts no figure, for essential resources should 

 be conservatively used for the longest time, and that time is an 

 unknown quantity. Private and common interest are contrasted. Pri- 

 vate conservation of resources may, in part, be secured by moral 

 education, which secures increased regard for the interest in the future, 

 yet enlightened self-interest, especially of corporations, "has a greater 

 role to play in conservation than is generally understood," but here 

 the rate of interest does set a limit. The sinking tendency of tihe 

 interest rate may increase the degree of conservation due to private 

 initiative. Finally, "when it is possible and as a general principle, 

 social burdens should be socially diffused and socially borne." Labor 

 legislation is cited in illustration. In the case of the farmer, the private 

 and the social interest coincide satisfactorily; the opposite may be 

 true with the railroads, for we regulate these to such an extent as to 

 remove a large part of the satisfaction and benefits of private prop- 

 erty. So if we are obliged to regulate very far private property in the 

 interest of conservation, we have a strong ground for public owner- 

 ship ; as in the case of forests. 



Private property yields the best results socially, when the social 

 benefits accrue largely spontaneously or by slight application of force, 

 or by single public acts occurring at considerable intervals, or finally, 



