020 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



ble and least valuable commercially of the Western forest 

 arras. A large per cent of this timber must be kept as 

 a mere watershed protection, since the cost of logging it 

 may remain prohibitive. The remainder has commercial 

 value or will have in time as markets improve, transpor- 

 tation systems are built and private stumpage is cut. 



This residual area of commercial timber, not exceed- 

 ing an average of 10 per cent of the area of the Western 

 States, and probably nearer 5 per cent for the region as 

 a whole, must form the basis of the whole contention, 

 for it constitutes the resource purposely retained by 

 the nation. 



Let us first consider the claim that these Western 

 States should receive as grants the lands in the National 

 Forests. The government has been exceedingly liberal 

 with all public land States both East and West of the 

 Mississippi River. The final column in the table shows 

 the per cent of the area of each Western State granted 

 to the State from the public domain up to this time. The 

 average area, weighted, is 11 per cent. The inclusion 

 of South Dakota, Minnesota and Arkansas, each of which 

 contains large National Forest areas, raises this average 

 to 11.75 per cent. 



By contrast, fourteen Eastern public land States have 

 received in grants 12.25 per cent of their total area, almost 

 an exact equivalent. The actual acreage granted to the 

 Western States is, of course, far greater, due to their 

 larger area. Florida is in a class all by itself. The 

 Swamp Land grant secured to this State 58 per cent of 

 its total area. 



Any substantial grant of National Forest lands to 

 Western States would be a discrimination in their favor 

 as against other states ; and there exists no valid argument 

 for such additional land grants. The total gifts to West- 

 ern States now exceed 80,000,000 acres, and this does 

 not include the immense private grants to railroads. 



The final argument for dismemberment of these Na- 

 tional Forests is the plea for state and local revenue from 

 taxation. This would mean that state ownership would 

 be transitory as the State cannot tax itself, and that the 

 desired goal is private acquisition of the timberlands. The 

 old plea that agricultural lands are withheld from settlers 

 has been so thoroughly exploded by wide publicity that 

 even stump speakers find it an unprofitable argument. The 

 question narrows down to that of private versus national 

 ownership of the public timberlands, and the economic 

 effect on local communities. 



To the forest, private ownership will be destructive. 

 These slow-growing species present no future for indi- 

 vidual investment. In parts of the northwest coast 

 it may pay to grow timber, but elsewhere, in the 

 West, a clear cutting and the permanent ruin of the forest 

 can be expected. By contrast, public ownership, as already 

 proved, means methods which insure a second growth 

 and a perpetual forest cover. The tax revenue derived 

 from private timberlands will, therefore, terminate 

 with the logging. 



Furthermore, it is being conclusively shown that own- 

 ers of private stumpage in these States cannot carry the 



burden of an annual taxation for standing timber for 

 long periods. The effect of such taxes for an extended 

 period of forty to fifty years is to practically wipe out 

 the present stumpage value, and produce a chain of 

 aggravated economic evils of which over-production in the 

 mills is the most prominent symptom. 



No move to increase the amount of privately owned 

 stumpage is justified until these evils are overcome. State 

 politicians who close their eyes to the welfare of the lum- 

 ber industry, on which, to an enormous extent, the com- 

 munity prosperity depends, and look solely upon possible 

 increase in revenue from taxes, are in the same class with 

 land speculators who do not care what happens so long 

 as they are given an opportunity to juggle with the values 

 of timber stumpage now beyond their grasp. 



But what is the effect of national ownership? In the 

 first place, the absolute right of the nation to retain these 

 forest lands is unquestioned. This principle was decided 

 by the United States Supreme Court in 1835 and is ad- 

 mitted even by the most rabid opponents of the system. 



Are the states without revenue from these forests? 

 For on this point seems to hinge the whole weight of 

 the argument. 



A forest property, whether belonging to states or in- 

 dividuals, must be protected from fire. Idaho spends 2 

 to 4 cents per acre on her state lands for this purpose. 

 Otherwise losses greatly exceed the cost of their preven- 

 tion. The states would either have to spend huge sums 

 on the protection of these areas or speedily shift this bur- 

 den to private shoulders. At present, this entire cost is 

 carried by the national government, which last year spent 

 $5,281,000 on the administration of these areas. States 

 could not do the work successfully for less ; hence this is 

 equivalent to a direct saving in state expenditures. 



In the second place, the counties receive by national 

 statute 35 per cent of the gross income from all sources, 

 earned by the Federal Government from these forests, and 

 free from the expense of collection and administration. 

 The forests earned last year $2,481,469.35, and the states' 

 share amounted to $610,797.75. This sum will rapidly in- 

 crease as the resources of these forests are developed. 

 In this connection, the sum of $244,319.10 out of the total 

 of administration expense was spent to construct roads 

 and trails. 



Still a third source of revenue was provided this year 

 by a congressional appropriation of $10,000,000 for the 

 construction of roads within or partly within the National 

 Forests, one-tenth of which, or $1,000,000, is available 

 each year until expended. The effect of this law is to 

 increase the return to the communities to equal two-thirds 

 of the total income from the forests, and at the same time 

 expend upon their administration a sum at present twice 

 as great as the total of this income received ; so that, if we 

 consider administration expense as saved to the state, the 

 community receives under the present plan from the gov- 

 ernment $2.77 for every $1.00 yield in income from the 

 forest resources. In the narrower sense, considering only 

 the income, the state is given 65 cents for every dollar 

 earned, leaving 35 cents to the government or public at 



