DISCUSSION ON FORESTRY ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION. 9 



Forest Policy in Scotland under men conversant with the science 

 and art of Forestry.' " 



Mr Drennan. — " I have much pleasure in seconding that." 



Mr H. M. Cadell. — "Would it not be better English to say, 

 ' Men with a practical and theoretical knowledge of the 

 subject'?" 



Mr Menmuir. — "It is all the same." 



The amendment was supported by three members, and was 

 declared lost by a large majority. 



The Chairman. — "This resolution, which was submitted by 

 the Arrangements Committee, has been put before you very 

 ably by the mover and seconder. I think there is one point 

 which was quite rightly left out of the resolution, but which we 

 must consider, and which to my mind, once we get a working 

 body on forestry started, is the most important question of all, 

 that is, the financial side. Whatever may be done as regards 

 having a good body to advise and control forestry, it is quite 

 certain, as regards private enterprise at any rate, that you will 

 never get planting on a scale in any way commensurate with 

 the interests of the country unless it can be shown that those who 

 are going to plant as a private enterprise have some prospect 

 of getting a reasonable return. In all our discussions afterwards 

 that must be kept in the forefront. I do not mean to say I am 

 against State afforestation at all, but it would be a very great 

 mistake if anything is done which may practically prohibit any 

 private afforestation, especially as we all know the State at the 

 present time has no staff sufficient to cope with the subject. It 

 would require a very highly skilled staff of course. It would take 

 a considerable number of years to organise and develop that staff, 

 and those years would be lost during which we might get a very 

 great advantage even from the mistakes of private planters. I 

 have ventured to bring this forward in an article on the taxation 

 of woodlands, which I admit is not particularly well written and 

 does not do justice to the subject, which will appear in the forth- 

 coming number of the Transactions. I would ask members to 

 be kind enough to read that article. I have written it chiefly 

 that this question may be considered. I feel that the amount 

 of burdens and taxation on woodlands and timber at the present 

 time is unfair and unjust, and is far and away higher than on 

 any other form of property or industry in this country ; but the 

 real point is this, whether just or unjust it is so prohibitive that 



