442 ANNUAL KEPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1910. 



they are themselves responsible for any embarrassment which may 

 result from their inability to obtain, at the present time, prices for 

 lumber which will enable them to reap the anticipated speculative 

 profit. It is not likely that the public will be willing to bear, in the 

 form of much higher prices for lumber, the burden which the lumber- 

 men have imposed upon themselves. The demand that they be per- 

 mitted to combine, in order to advance prices as a means of meeting 

 the additional cost which practicing forestry imposes, is one to which 

 it will be exceedingly difficult to secure public assent. Moreover, the 

 additional cost made necessary by the practice of forestry would not 

 be as great as most lumbermen claim. Even under present unfavor- 

 able conditions it would in many cases be possible to practice for- 

 estry with only such increased cost as the ultimate advantage to the 

 lumberman would fully justify. 



Beyond a doubt the sentiment against forest destruction and the 

 demand for the application of lumbering methods which will better 

 utilize and perpetuate the forests will grow stronger. The demand 

 for better lumbering methods will result in the proposal of legisla- 

 tion by the States aimed at regidation of the lumber industry. Some 

 States will try one experiment, some States another. Some laws will 

 doubtless be urged which are unwise. The lumber industry will be 

 on the defensive. It will be compelled to fight drastic and unwork- 

 able propositions. IVhen regulating laws are passed, even though 

 they be good laws, the lumber industry will suffer from the lack of 

 uniform laws in different States. The greater the dissatisfaction with 

 the methods of the lumber industry the greater will be the probability 

 of the passage of laws giving scant consideration to what it may have 

 to urge in its own defense. 



If, on the other hand, they are ready and able to meet the demands 

 of the public for forest conservation with a constructive attempt to 

 recognize the obligations and the necessities of the situation, so far 

 as they are concerned, advance toward real forestry among private 

 owners may soon become rapid. Progressive lumbermen themselves 

 recognize that the ownership of our timber lands carries with it a 

 certain obligation. To the extent that the lumber industry controls 

 a fundamental resource it is affected with a public interest, and this 

 implies the right of the public to regulate the industry along lines 

 which are not fantastic, but face the actual conditions and are not 

 rmjust to the lumbermen. 



The alternative to onerous regulation would be the voluntary choice 

 of a course which would satisfy the public that the private owners 

 of forest resources were seeking in genuine good faith to perpetuate 

 them. With such a choice made, the public would not be inclined to 

 demand impossibilities. All that would be necessary would be that 

 the lumbermen should show a reasonable readiness to go as far as is 



