-19- 



or the price-cutting of mills which did not kr.ow their costs. The 

 diversity of conditions prevailing in the limber industry, makes any 

 co-operation clifficy.lt. (5) The lumber nills of the country could cut 

 at loast 50/5 r.ore lumber than they have ever cut in a single year and 

 tMr> is a constant inducement to tb.3 mill owner to increase production 

 and thus to reduce overhead expenses. (6) IVfcile the rapid reduction of 

 timber resources in all parts of the country save the Pacific Northwest 

 reduces the wide distribution cf lumber and suggests the possibility of 

 greater concentration of holdings in the future, there is no immediate 

 probability of lessening the intensity of competition because the poten- 

 tial competition - (a) from new growth on the old forest lands of the 

 Ea.st aBd South - (b) the imports of lumber from Canada and (c) the cut- 

 ting of tinker from the public forest lands under public regulation., 

 (1/5 of all standing timber in the United States is still in public 

 ownership) will hinder the development of any lumber trust. Thus pre- 

 sent competition is not stayed by the prospect of a future combination. 



Daring the very period when there vas a great incentive, to increase 

 lumber production, the total demand for lumber was either stationary 

 or uocj.itt3.ng. it is estimated that steel, concrete and cement have 

 absorbed markets which foi-rcorly reouirsd one-fifth of the total lumber 

 cut. (1) The increase of fire proof construction in cities .has rapidly 

 curtailed the use of lumber, and with the "growth of the urfean popula- 

 tion the pel capita, consumption of lumber dwindles. Thus the per 

 capita consumption of lumber in Montana in 1915 was 1,234 feet as 

 compared with 293 feet for Pennsylvania and 206 feet for New York. (2) 

 The per capita consumption of lunger in the United States has decreas- 

 ed from 4-85 feet in 1S09 to 375 feet in 1915. Forest Service statis- 

 tics Indioate a decline in the total annual production of lumber, (which 

 is roughly equivalent to annual consumption of lumber for building pur- 

 poses) from 44,509,761,000 feet in 1909 to 39,807,251,000 in 1916 and 

 35,631,233,000 feet in 1917. Whjle the Census of 1909 probably more near- 

 ly represents the total lumber production than the statistics cf any 

 other year, the suggestion of an absolute decline in lumber consump- 

 tion is sigr-if leant. (3) 



While the demand for lumber is thus declining over a period of 

 years, the demand for lumber also fluctuates from year to year and from 

 season to season, causing alternate periods of overproduction and under- 

 production. Building operations may often be delayed and repairs can 

 be postponed when conditions- are unfavorable, so that expected markets 

 do not always materialize and lumber that h?.s been produced to meet an 

 expected demand must. of ten be dumped. Because of the enlarged mill 



(it) William B. Greeley. Op. Git. Pages 54 - 55 - 56. 



(2) vVr.lson Corrupt on, Price Problem in the Lumber Industry. American 



Zcor.Giiuc Heview. Vol. VII No. 5 Page ;>88 



(3) Production cf lumber!, Lath and Shingles in 1516, by Franklin H. Smith, 

 and Albert H. Pierson, April 19, 1918, U.S. Department oi' Agriculture, 

 Bulletin 673 1917 Lumber Production (iiijreo graphed Copy) by Franklin H. 

 Smith and Albert H. Pierson, 



(WIB359-49) 



