86 FOREST LANDS FOR THE PROTECTION OF WATERSHEDS. 



Consider the question of transportation and take Chicago as being practically 

 on the meridian through the center of population of the country. The rate on 

 fir from the Cascades to Chicago is 55 cents per 100. or $16.50 per 1,000 feet 

 h. in. The average rate from the Appalachian forests is about 18 cents, or 

 about $9 per 1.000 for green oak. By a proper distribution of our forests these 

 rates on the average ought to be brought within 10 cents per 100. In logging 

 nnd transportation together, the country will tax itself on the average not less 

 than $10 per 1 000 for whatever supply it derives from these mountain forests 

 as compared with what it might receive from forests more favorably located. 



If it were not for the erroneous assumption that forests have a regulative 

 effect upon the flow of our navigable rivers, would not the policy in regard to 

 the acquisition of hinds for forest reserves be quite different from that now 

 proposed? If Congress were to vote, say, $10,000,000 at the next session to 

 commence the establishment of national forests by purchase, would it not be 

 far better spent in lands where the pine, oak, cherry, and ash used to grow, 

 in locations convenient for access by the people and in every way better adapted 

 to their needs? States, counties, or other agencies should be required to meet 

 half the original cost. Even if the total cost to the Government were several 

 times what equal areas in the mountains cost, it would be far more economical 

 in the long run. There is an abundance of land in nearly all the States, suit- 

 able for the purpose, that can be had at not excessive cost. In New England, 

 for example, would not the development of forests in the lowlands, where in 

 many places former cultivation has been abandoned, be far better than to buy 

 up the difficult slopes of the White Mountains? Let there be a national forest 

 in every county of the United States where it is practicable to create one. Let 

 its location be carefully chosen so that its product may be manufactured and 

 shipped with the smallest cost to the people, and serving also not only as a 

 pleasure ground but as a stimulus to similar work by .private agencies. 



It will be urged that these mountain lands are worth more for forestry than 

 for agriculture. Very true; but that would not justify their purchase if the 

 same money would produce a better result elsewhere. " Never buy wh,at you 

 do not want because it is cheap." Again, it may be said that here is our only 

 remaining timber supply in the East, and it must be saved. Except in some 

 possible economy by the more judicious cutting under government control, it is 

 not apparent how a forest tree that has attained its growth is going to render 

 any greater good to humanity by being saved for the next generation than by 

 being cut for this. There is a general sentiment current in these later years 

 that if timber is cut off by private agencies it is wasted; but does it not find 

 Its way into common use just the same? Not as completely, perhaps, but still 

 substantially the same. Take the combination of the Weyerhaeuser Timber Com- 

 pany, considered entirely apart from its economic and ethical aspects as a great 

 trust or corporation, and solely as a preserver of our forests. With its system 

 of fire control, its policy of holding its timber for high prices, is it not really 

 conserving the timber for future use? To speak of such timber as being '' lost" 

 to the people, " wasted," and its acquisition as a " looting of our heritage," is 

 as disingenuous as it is untrue. Will its lumber cost the consumer a cent more 

 per thousand than if it were from a government reserve? It is a wholly gratui- 

 tous assumption that our timber is going to be " wasted " unless it is ^placed 

 under government control. The thing of prime importance is to get new forests 

 started. In the thirty to fifty years that our present supply will last new for- 

 ests should be brought into existence all over the country. This is far more 

 important than to buy the virgin timber of the Appalachians. 



Moreover, it seems now to be considered that the virgin lands have already 

 risen too high in price to be purchased by the Government, and that it is only 

 the second-growth lands that can be economically acquired. Be that as it may, 

 It is certain that the acquisition of such of these lands as are desirable for the 

 strict purposes of timber production will be greatly facilitated by disabusing the 

 minds of the owners of the impression so diligently fostered of late that the very 

 salvation of the country depends upon their selling out to the Government. Can 

 anyone doubt that the present course will add vastly to the purchase price? 



Still another argument that may be urged is that only by linking the forests 

 with the rivers in a way to establish their utility in maintaining navigation can 

 the constitutional objection to the acquisition of these lands be overcome. But 



Report of Secretary of Agriculture on Southern Appalachian and White 

 Mountain watershed, December, 1907, pp. 8, 30, 35. 



