THE STATE AND PRIVATE OWNERS 237 



an opportunity of pronouncing its verdict on muni- 

 cipal afiorestation work. 



To compare the respective methods of State, corporate, 

 and private forest ownership is no easy task. The 

 individualist would probably argue that all industries 

 should be left to private enterprise, and that a demand 

 for any commodity should always create a supply without 

 State intervention. The collectivist would argue, and 

 in this case probably with good reason, that a commodity 

 which requires two or three generations to produce will 

 never be adequately supplied by private enterprise. 

 From their own points of view both are correct. An 

 ideal forest area has several functions to perform. Some 

 of these functions are best carried out by the individual 

 to meet his own particular needs or ideas. Others, and 

 especially those of a national character, can only be 

 properly carried out by, or under the control of the 

 State. 



The planting of trees for ornament or shelter, and the 

 supply of timber for purely local purposes, can be carried 

 out most easily and naturally by the individual, provided 

 certain facilities are given him. He knows, or should 

 know, his immediate needs, the peculiarities of his soil 

 and situation, and the most profitable way of utilising 

 small patches of land unfit for any other purpose than 

 timber-growing, better than any public body or State 

 department. The needs of a particular community 

 or limited number of individuals, or of institutions or 

 companies, may also be best met by direct action. The 

 State can seldom study the needs of particular industries 

 closely enough to suit all parties, Avhile land in the hands 

 of corporations or companies may serve a better pur- 

 pose when afibrested than when let at a low rent for 

 agricultural purposes, although the nett yield may be 

 slightly reduced thereby. State afforestation, on the 



