THE STATE IN RELATION TO AFFORESTATION. 151 



the land, and subject to payment of a moderate rate of interest 

 and a share in the ultimate profits. 



But here one is faced with the fact that complete private 

 control of public moneys would hardly be tolerated. The 

 aphorism about " benevolent despots " seems to apply ; there is 

 no guarantee that the estates would be wisely and zealously 

 administered by series of proprietors. It is possible, also, that 

 in the hardships which accompany most economic changes, the 

 tenants and crofters might find cause for discontent and 

 irritation, and in this way political influences might be invoked in 

 a manner most harmful to the proper management of the business. 

 Of course, so far as the administration of the forests is concerned, 

 it would be possible to frame some scheme of public supervision. 

 But the limits of such control would be difficult to determine ; 

 the landlord might be either too strong or too weak, and in each 

 case friction would be likely to arise to the detriment of the 

 industry. It is, after all, not so much dual ownership as dual 

 control that is unsatisfactory. 



The other alternative which has been proposed is afforestation 

 by the State. But this possesses, besides the usual weaknesses 

 of State -controlled industry, the additional disadvantage of 

 subjecting varying local considerations to the decision of a 

 remote Government department. Indeed, such centralised 

 control of local matters is out of harmony with our traditional 

 methods and institutions. In striking contrast to continental 

 procedure, we have constantly entrusted local affairs to local 

 bodies, and our practice has been justified by experience. The 

 object of this paper is to suggest that methods which have been 

 successful in other departments might well be applied to forestry. 

 It would be in accordance with our traditional usage to allow all 

 sections of the local community to combine in the administration 

 of a matter of public local interest. " What touches all should 

 be approved by all " is a sound maxim, and makes for peace. It 

 seems, moreover, that a system of local government afforestation 

 would be free from many of the disadvantages on the one hand 

 of private, and on the other hand of national afforestation. And 

 such a scheme would combine many of the advantages of both 

 of these plans. 



First of all, " Corporations do not die " — it would provide 

 permanent mechanism of a fairly uniform character for the 

 administration of the forests. Secondly, adequate control of 



