keep woods in spite of all the smart 

 argument of greater pay in field and 

 meadow. 



Have we the land for forests? Yes, 

 and we shall always have it. Michi- 

 gan is located well; she can and must, 

 eventually, raise all she needs and 

 more. 



But is it not better if settled in 

 farms? We have hundreds of farms 

 in nearly every state and country 

 where a struggle is made to make, 

 poor land produce good crops, and 

 where in ten or twenty years the 

 struggle ends in complete failure, the 

 mortgage is foreclosed and this farm, 

 a grave of human happiness, is ready 

 for another victim. 



We have hundreds of more farms 

 where a miserable existence is eked 

 out and generations of wretched, 

 struggling people are trying to do the 

 impossible. Is this kind of farming 

 better than poverty? Is it better to 

 have the land tilled by a lot of people 

 who are bound to fail and turn bro- 

 ken hearted back to the cities, or is it 

 better to have a thrifty forest, the 

 only safe crop on such lands, make 

 a handsome return of a material 

 which is as necessary as wheat itself, 

 and producing a net income equal even 

 to that obtained on good farm land? 

 Are not the town, county and state 



13 



