WHAT are the duties of a state with respect to the land 

 within its borders? To make possible the greatest 

 number of prosperous homes; to see to it that the 

 soils are put to their best uses. 



The state in its entirety may be likened to a farm on which 

 there is a great variety in soil and surface. We can imagine 

 a farm containing in part rich land susceptible to cultivation 

 where grains and root crops should be raised, damp lowlands 

 suitable for meadows, moderately poor and rough uplands 

 adapted to pasturage, and very rough or sandy land the nat- 

 ural woodlot for the farm. Can you imagine a clause in our 

 constitution which would compel the owner of such a farm 

 to handle all of his land in the same way? That, in effect, is 

 what the constitution of this state now requires in the case 

 of lands belonging to the state. We want to see this changed 

 at the earliest possible moment. 



If an acre of deep sand land or an acre of rocks or gravel 

 will produce $5.00 to $10.00 worth of timber annually, why 

 should we pursue the policy of requiring that land to be 

 stripped of timber and farmed at a profit of only $2.00 or 

 $3.00 a year? Much of this land, as a matter of fact, when 

 devoted to farming produces no profit whatever. To farm 

 some of it at all is a physical impossibility. 



We are absolutely certain that poor land will produce a 

 greater revenue when growing trees than when growing 

 meager agricultural crops. We know also that, while there 

 are millions of acres of the richest kind of farming land still 

 to be settled and developed, there are millions of acres of 

 rough, stony and deep sandy lands in Minnesota which should 

 always be kept growing timber. It is an important matter, 

 therefore, that the science and practice of forestry be rec- 

 ognized by the state of Minnesota, just as the science and 

 practice of farming is recognized. The state has a peculiar 



