Forestry and Government 163 



owner would, and attempt by proper silvicultural 

 treatment to derive the greatest possible revenue 

 from them. This policy is followed by many of 

 the European states where forestry most flour- 

 ishes, and it is well known that several of the 

 states of the German Empire, as well as France 

 and other countries, derive a very considerable 

 part of their revenue from such public forests. 



The objections to such a course are obvious, both 

 from an economic and a political standpoint. They 

 are the same objections which are usually urged 

 against the conduct of a business enterprise by 

 public authorities. Raising timber and other forest 

 products for the market is not a proper govern- 

 mental function. It smacks of paternalism and 

 socialism, and is opposed to the settled policy of 

 the American people. It would be folly to deny 

 the weight of these objections. Without entering 

 upon the controversy as to how far the adoption 

 of socialistic measures might be wise, we may say 

 that no American government will, for many years 

 to come, enter upon the business of forestry simply 

 as a convenient means of raising a revenue. 



But there may be other reasons why it should 

 be expedient to permanently maintain public for- 

 ests, so that the revenue becomes a mere incident 

 to more important objects. If a State, or the 

 federal government, should become convinced that 

 the continued existence of forests capable of pro- 

 ducing commercial timber and other forest products 

 was absolutely demanded by the public welfare, 



