606 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE. 
European governments have properly-equipped forest administra- 
tions. Russia, the English colonies in Asia and Australia, Japan, and 
even China have recognized the necessity for action in this direction, 
and have acted. The United States alone, among the civilized na- 
tions, has as yet failed to perceive the wide bearing which a proper for- 
est policy has upon the material and moral development of a country. 
While it is gratifying to note that interest in the forestry problem 
is growing in every section; while the discussions on the same have 
assumed a more precise and practical character; while in some of the 
States a dawning of what the forestry question really means is observa- 
ble, yet we can not say that the importance of the question is at present 
adequately appreciated by the mass of our people, or even by those 
directly interested; nor can we say that there is a disposition on the 
part of those who shape the future of this country to give even an 
earnest consideration to this great interest, which, to be sure, affects 
the future rather more than the present. 
Let it not be overlooked that the State, represented in its legisla- 
ture, is not only the representative of the interests of the community 
as against those of the individual, but also arepresentative of future 
interests as against those of the present; let us not forget, too, that 
the forest is a kind of trust, of which only the usufruct belongs to 
the present, and that to draw upon its capital is a perversion of the 
trust which can only be excused by direst necessity. Every civilized 
country has found by severe experiences that private interest is not 
sufficient to protect the forest property of a nation and that the State 
or the community must exercise a supervision of forest management, 
in those regions at least where the forest subserves other functions 
than those of merely supplying material. 
It is not the forest that is valuable and would appear worth his 
protection to the individual, but the timber which the forest yields. 
As soon as that is gone the value and the interest for the individual 
is gone. Theindividual man plans for his pocket and his own short 
life; only the collective and protracted life of the State is fitted to deal 
with the protracted life of the forest and with interests not measured. 
by pecuniary considerations alone. ‘The interest which the com- 
munity has in the forest is transcendent; the continuation and _pro- 
tection of the forest cover is of significance to the continued welfare 
of the community, especially in the mountain regions, and the mount- 
ain forests will therefore be in safer hands with the community at 
large—with the State. : 
This brings us to the question that I wish to discuss in the few 
pages allotted to me in this report: 
WHAT IS THE FIRST DUTY OF THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT IN RE- 
GARD TO THE FORESTRY QUESTION? 
The answer will be apparent to everybody after the presentation 
of the following facts: 
The General Government still holds, as an individual national 
property, a forest area the extent of which is unknown, but may be 
estimated between 50,000,000 and 70,000,000 acres. The bulk of these 
lands is to be found on the rugged mountain sides and crests of the 
Western ranges, notably the Rocky Mountain, Cascade, Sierra Ne- 
vada, and Pacific coast ranges, mostly land not fit for agricultural 
use. The agricultural valleys at the foot of these ranges are not 
only destitute of timber, but they are dependent for their agricultural 
