282 



AMERICAN FORESTRY 



least in our enthusiasm to promote that 

 interest they should not be left out of 

 sight. 



It is public sentiment apprehending 

 the necessity for it that will bring about 

 regulation of cutting whenever it does 

 come, and I feel that it is very import- 

 ant that public sentiment should be 

 sound and sane, based on just views and 

 correct information. In this connection 

 let me call attention to one thing that 

 illustrates the principle. 



From time out of mind we have had 

 periodical agitations on the subject of 

 timber supply, calling attention to the 

 decrease of supplies, predicting timber 

 famine and calling for radical measures 

 of one sort or another to forestall it. 

 In recent years this agitation has been 

 renewed, with much better spirit than 

 formerly and on a much stronger basis, 

 but still, as some are convinced, in a 

 form that goes beyond the exact fact>. 

 There are many who, seeing that timber 

 supplies in large sections are reproduc- 

 ing, believe that lumber for common 

 purposes will be abundant for a very 

 long time ; who reflect that the finest 

 sizes and grades of timber are in the 

 main luxuries, not necessities, and that, 

 too, their enjoyment may be greatly ex- 

 tended by the use of veneers ; and who, 

 in regard to the whole problem feel a 

 confidence that the invention and re- 

 source of their countrymen, manifested 

 already in this very field, will very 

 largely stand in the gap to prevent the 

 sustaining of heavy shocks and .great 

 loss. If this view is correct, then 

 some recent agitation has been exagger- 

 ated ; and while striking pictures are 

 often indispensable to give birth to a 

 public sentiment that will call for and 

 sustain action, when the time comes for 

 legal regulation an over-strained senti- 

 ment, based on exaggeration, may be a 

 very dangerous thing. I feel that it 

 may not be too early, even in our pres- 

 ent deliberations, to reflect on that. 



Let us clearly understand, for another 

 thing, that the enforcement of regula- 

 tions by the state means in and of itself 

 higher prices for forest products. 



Coupled with this thought is the 

 further one that regulation of forest 

 cutting should not be an outside or an 

 ex parte matter, but that all interested 

 and informed parties should contribute 

 to it with their special information and 

 with their assent. I do not mean by 

 this that the consent of all forest owners 

 is essential, or that they should be the 

 formulators of the plan. But I do think 

 they should be consulted in regard to 

 the operation and effect of such meas- 

 ures, and it does seem to me that one 

 true test as to whether any regulating 

 law is desirable and workable is that it 

 is assented to by some at least of the 

 liberal and progressive lumbermen. 

 This touches not merely the soundness 

 and fairness of the method of regula- 

 tion, but the possibility of the law's t 

 enforcement; for laws that run counter 

 to the interests, the judgment and the 

 sense of fairness of those who are 

 touched by them cannot be enforced and 

 had better not be passed. 



It seems to me that New York state 

 during the past year in the history of 

 the law requiring tops to be lopped 

 from soft wood trees cut in the forest 

 preserve counties, furnishes an illus- 

 tration of how these things should be 

 done. The law itself, passed by the 

 legislature of 1909, was framed with 

 the cooperation of lumbermen. In its 

 administration the state authorities, 

 realizing that it was a new thing, were 

 reasonable and patient, though firm. 

 Some men on whom the expense came 

 and who from the operation of the law 

 could not possibly derive benefit them- 

 selves naturally objected to it, and 

 based on one ground and another a con- 

 siderable body of opposition during the 

 course of the season grew up. This 

 came out at the recent meeting of the 

 Adirondack Lumbermen's Association, 

 where also the state was represented, 

 and after full and fair discussion the 

 opposition was outvoted and the law 

 will continue in force. Whatever it 

 may be worth, here is an example of 

 successful regulation by the state, yet it 

 might have been turned into failure by 

 mistakes at several points. 



