tho lumber and the tost price to tho Government , and the 

 "best service to the public. 



The ejection has never "been, to ny mind, as much 

 on price as it has "been on the marking, "because if an oper- 

 ator didn't like the price he didn't have to "bid; then if 

 he did "bid ho considered the marking, and was afraid of it. 



I "believe this is one of the first contracts on 

 which a readjustment has "been provided. I don't think it 

 ia an id oal \7&y of providing for stunpage payment. I don't 

 know', and none of ray directors has ooncoived a way that 

 strikes us as any hotter or any more satisfactory* The 

 difficulty is that the cost of stumpage forms relatively a 

 email amount of the total production cost, therefore it 

 hardly seems fair to increase stiimpage cost in ratio to the 

 selling price of mill run lumber "because the profit froir 

 that reflects all of the production cost. It means that 

 15 years from no:/ in a contract such as ours if there "be a 

 good market our profit is not going to koep pace to the 

 relative increase of the selling price, and yet the Govern- 

 ment T s increased stumpage price is calculated solely upon 

 the increased price of the selling product. AS against 

 that, the differential, as I understand it, is now the 

 stock policy oi the Government, and provides for a 5-year 

 leeway. On tho other hand, there is this great disadvantage, 

 no nan likes to agree t pay for some thing out of an excess 



244 



