noldings to be blocked into larger ones adapted to 

 extensive lumber manufacture. AVhile there is still 

 a large number of individual timber owners and of 

 sawmills operating as separate units, the larger in- 

 terests a*re acquiring a more dominant place in lum- 

 ber manufacture in the AYest. It is to be expected 

 that these large interests or groups will maintain as 

 time goes on, a fairly constant supply of timber for 

 their manufacturing plants by acquiring smaller hold- 

 ings. No information is at hand which would justify 

 a conclusion that monopolistic conditions on any gen- 

 eral scale have grown out of this situation. There are 

 many instances to the contrary. On the other hand, 

 the degree of control of the timber remaining in the 

 United States exercised by a comparatively small 

 number of large interests will steadily increase as 

 timber depletion continues, approaching a natural 

 monopoly in character, and this control will extend 

 particularly to the diminishing supply of high-grade 

 material. 



In 1918 our per capita consumption of lumber was 

 about 300 board feet. The homes and industries of 

 the United States require at least 35 billion feet of 

 lumber yearly, aside from enormous quantities of 

 paper and other products of the forest. A reduction 

 in the current supply of lumber below this figure 

 would seriously curtail our economic development. 

 Appreciable increases in lumber imports are not pos- 

 sible except at excessive prices. We can not afford 

 to cut our per capita use of lumber to one-half or 

 one-third the present amount to the level of Euro- 

 pean countries where lumber is an imported luxury. 



16 



