134 ANNUAL REPORT OF 



revenue derivable from forestry is absolutely safe, no one will care 

 for forestry as an investment. 



I "Economy, is the highest virtue of a legislature." But is it 

 / economy to allow millions of acres to lie or to get barren, millions 

 ' of dollars to escape the laboring classes of the future, because the 

 state cannot afford $50,000 annually for forest protection? Is it 

 possible that the pffovincral functions of government are not suffi- 

 ciently understood under the regime of democracy? If everything 

 is done "by the people, for the people and through the people," 

 why not forest protection? 



I do not know whether constitutional restrictions prevent the 

 rescue of forestry from its main adversaries, fires and taxes; but if 

 they do, why not change the constitution? A constitution which 

 does not allow of adaptation to changed economic conditions, is 

 not for the good of the people. If for one reason or another, pri- 

 vate forestry cannot be made a remunerative undertaking through 

 state's authority and aid, then the state itself will have to embark 

 in forestry. 



The interdependence between the prosperity of the various forms 

 of industry is nowhere better understood than in the United States. 

 The industry of a country is a quadruped, with manufacture for 

 the head and with the three soil industries (agriculture, mining, 

 forestry) and transportation for the legs. Cutting off one of the 

 legs, we cripple the entire animal. 



The decision whether private forestry shall be made remunerative 

 at the expense of the state, or whether state forestry shall be estab- 

 lished, must be left to the legislature. To me, a combination of 

 both methods seems most advisable. The state should practice 

 forestry on all non agricultural land owned by it, after clearing its 

 title to land forfeited for nonpayment of taxes, and private indi- 

 viduals should be induced to practice forestry on their holdings of 

 nonagricultural character. The advantage of the combined system 

 is its greater elasticity. Finding that the one branch is cheaper 

 and more effective than the other, we can gradually emphasize the 

 one and abandon the other. To judge from a century's experience 

 abroad, state forestry is the more advisable system. It is more 

 stable, bears better regard to the people's interest in the forest and 

 spends a comparatively small sum for administration and protec- 

 tion. Under the combined system, the governmental staff of for- 

 esters can at the same time protect the private forests from fires 

 and assist in their proper assessment for tax purposes. 



