of peat lands is a problem that is no nearer of solu- 

 tion tli;m il was four centuries ago. Certain cut-over 

 lands are proving to be among the most fertile in the 

 United States for the purpose for which they are 

 adapted but it is little less than pure, unadulterated 

 swindle to sell other cut-over lands to settlers for 

 agricultural purposes and a brazen holdup to cancel 

 contracts, where a worthy settler has been starved 

 out, and resell these lands to other settlers regard- 

 less of whether the State of Minnesota or a private 

 concern is the owner of such lands. The constant 

 and consistent clamor for a soil survey of State- 

 owned lands would seem to have some merit. Thou- 

 sands of acres that have been stripped of the majestic 

 pine may again grow two trees where one grew* before 

 under a practical plan of reforestation, and the crop 

 per annum will be as valuable as that secured on the 

 developed agricultural lands, even if the harvest is 

 prolonged. This will give the speculator a legitimate 

 opportunity of investing his money instead of preying 

 off the work of the thrifty, ambitious, hardworking 

 settler, whose greatest asset is brawn and muscle and 

 who has the tenacity of a bulldog. The Dunn law 

 is doing yeomen service. Amendment No. 1 will work 

 wonders, and now may the State of Minnesota take 

 an advanced legislative step in emulating the policy 

 of the great captains of industry and take a personal 

 interest in the settler. This is not charity, but will 

 prove the best dividend paying investment that the 

 state has ever made. 



21 



