Forest Service Revenue and Organization 215 



from the central bureau. It is possible that one all-round man 

 could handle these problems with sufficient efficiency without the 

 necessity of this duplication of travel. As the Service grows older 

 and the forest efficiency increases, cannot good all-round men be 

 secured to obviate the necessity of so much travel in duplicate? 

 Moreover, there can be such a thing as too much efficiency. 

 In any business there is a certain theoretical limit when it pays 

 to be less efficient and more economical. Has not paper efficiency 

 often been put at too high a premium? When one compares 

 the highest efficiency with work that is somewhat less efficient 

 but much cheaper, often the less efficient work should be our 

 ideal. It is similar to the case of the company that hired a tool 

 custodian at $75 per month to prevent an annual tool loss of 

 $100. There was greater efficiency in looking after tools but the 

 net loss was $800 a year. 



Another point is that, although the ranger is obviously becom- 

 ing more and more effective and although recruited from a 

 higher class of men (many of them with technical forest educa- 

 tion), he is to be given under the new plan (unmodified) less 

 important work than the frontiersman was given in the past. 

 The new organization might mean more frequent changes of resi- 

 dence on account of the varying volume of business necessi- 

 tating reductions or increases in the staff. On paper, it looks 

 as though we would be maintaining at needless public expense 

 two district organizations. Why can't the present district organi- 

 zation he abolished if ive adopt the supervisor staff organisation? 

 If this change were made one of the main objections would be the 

 fear of tremendously increased traveling expenses between Wash- 

 ington and the West, yet, if the trips are properly systematized, 

 this travel would be more than paid for by the saving in the 

 large rental cost of the present district offices. Another objection 

 to the abolishment of the district office is its beneficial effect on 

 local public sentiment, but this could probably be handled quite 

 as efficiently by a general inspector free from onerous routine 

 duties. There would probably be slightly decreased efficiency if 

 the District were abolished; this would be more than counterbal- 

 anced by economy and uniformity. Perhaps, $100,000 to $300,- 

 000 a year could be saved and the present District policy would 

 be welded together. The application will be discussed later on. 



