73 



the high price of competing food products, all go to form an economic 

 bulwark against which private forestry cannot stand. No agency except 

 fire is so destructive of our woodlands as the grazing business which is 

 now throttling our remnant forests. 



With this in mind we are face to face with the fact that there are in 

 the state large industries that depend upon the forests for their raw mater- 

 ial and the employment of thousands of people. These great commercial 

 enterprises are confronted with inevitable dissolution if some means is not 

 worked out by which their future supply will be assured. If they go, many 

 communities will be practically destroyed and even if the industry can 

 afford to bring its raw material from greatly distant and foreign fields, 

 the state must repay in a greatly increased cost. 



Forestry in Indiana is not a local question, nor is it a political one. It 

 is essentially a question which affects the prosperity and happiness of the 

 coming generations. 



The situation is acute. We must have a constructive forest policy 

 which will establish a permanent timber supply. There is but little hope 

 in private interest, although they may be urged into some activity by the 

 proper classification of lands with corresponding taxation which will per- 

 mit the placing of private forestry on a profitable basis. 



It is seeming paradox that just as wood is the fuel for the very 

 rich or the very poor, so is the tenure of forest land likewise only pos- 

 sible for the two extremes ; the millionaire who makes a plaything out of it 

 and the poor man whom it supplies with the return of a few wagon-loads 

 of railroad ties, hoop-poles or tanbark, to maintain his precarious exis- 

 tence. 



This, however, does not include the circumspect farmer whose properly 

 arranged woodlots constitute a valuable farm asset, but neither can the 

 woodlot be construed a solution of the forestry problem. 



We cannot shun the fact that the question is one for the public and it 

 remains for the state and the municipality to meet the situation. The state 

 can carry the investment safer than the individual. A long time invest- 

 ment is no object. It is the duty of the state to have a forest at hand for 

 national safety. 



When in August, 1914, the world was set afire, we admitted in the 

 following years that we were unprepared for war. Isn't it plain to us 

 now that primarily we were unprepared for peace. And when we did arise 

 in our might, what was it that lent substance to our energy and to our 

 devotion but our wonderful natural resources. 



Colonel Graves has told us and from Colonel Greeley we will hear a 

 similar story what part American timber has played in the war. If we 

 could have that mighty contribution presented to us in one bill it would 

 readily open our eyes to the immediate need of replacement. 



This time we still had the substance. Let not another emergency arise 

 and find us wanting. 



Intensive growing of timber is work beyond the strength of the indi- 

 vidual. It is more than a mere economic need; it is a solemn, patriotic 

 duty for it aims to preserve the integrity of a nation. 



Deep significance lies in the fact that our fore-fathers beheld the forest 



