The question is, shall we permit him to do it? 



The answer must be found in public opinion. At 

 present public opinion says: "Why not, he owns it." 

 It is much the same attitude that the tenderfoot in the 

 west encountered when he expressed his surprise at 

 the ethics of the poker game he was watching. He 

 very distinctly saw one of the players dealing from 

 the bottom of the deck. ''Did you see that?" he 

 asked in horrified tones of a dignified citizen who 

 stood next to him. "See what?" he asked languidly. 

 "That fellow was dealing from the bottom of the 

 deck!" he whispered. "Wai, stranger," came the 

 quiet answer, "it's his deal, ain't it?" 



But when public opinion has learned what that at- 

 titude really means to the public its answer will be a 

 very emphatic "No." 



When it learns that those same idle lands properly 

 put to work will yield an annual stumpage value of 

 at least $6,500,000, that the harvesting and primary 

 manufacture of it will yield $7,500,000 more, and 

 that the production of that lumber in the state will 

 mean a saving in freight of $4,000,000 more, $18,000,- 

 000 in all! public opinion will shout "No" with a roar 

 that will shake the present delinquent tax laws clear 

 out of the statute books. 



Think of it! The state of Minnesota is due to lose, 

 on the most conservative estimate, $18,000,000 a year 

 because some of her land land for the most part too 

 poor to yield any profit from agricultural crops is 

 lying idle. The loss will really be much greater than 

 that because many wood using industries will leave 

 the state for the lack of cheap raw materials. 



30 



