iiitj REPORT OF THE No. a 



"It is therefore clear tliat the depressed state of trade was solely owing 

 to over-producuon lu 164b, and to iliat primary cause combined with, a 

 decreased demand in 1847 and 1648. 



Objections to the System. 



"I believe that there were other causes arising out of the pernicious 

 influence exercised over the government of the trade by the absurd policy 

 sometimes pursued by the Crown Lands Department (as it was then con- 

 ducted), the particulars of which, as far as they relate to this question, may 

 bij classed under three heads, viz. : — 



1. The order to manufacture a certain large quantity of timber upon 

 every limit, under penalty of forfeiture. 



2. The threatened subdivision of the limits, and 



3. The want of any equitable or decisive action on the part of the 

 Department with respect to disputed boundaries, etc. 



"The first of these speaks for itself and needs no explanation, as it 

 is evident that those who considered their limits valuable, or had invested 

 large sums in their improvements would rather risk the remote and at that 

 time unforeseen consequence' of overdoing the trade, than yield any just 

 title they possessed. It is at all events impossible to deny some influence 

 to this cause, when we find these two facts staring us in the face — first fact, 

 the Government ordered the trade to be overdone— second fact, the trade 

 was overdone. 



"With regard to the second, the subdivision of the limits, there were 

 indeed some who made light of or laughed at it, knowing that it would 

 either be rescinded before it came into force, or that they could evade it, 

 but a greater number were carried away by the idea that, as after a stated 

 period they^would have to give up a part of their limits, they ought to 

 make the most of them while they had them, especially as the times were 

 then good. It thus afforded an excuse for some and added stimulus to 

 others, to increase their business; very few in the lumbering fever of that 

 period, pausing to consider the ultimate consequence. 



The Right of Might. 



"The third of these causes may appear a strange one, but it is easily 

 explained. There were cases of disputed boundaries which for want of any 

 decisive action on the part of the Government, even when applied to by 

 all the parties, resulted in appeals to physical force. This, of course, 

 induced the parties who struggled for a physical superiority in these remote 

 parts entirely beyond the reach, of law, to double, treble, or quadruple the 

 number of men they would otherwise have employed, and as such a force, 

 when on the ground, would of course be used to the most advantage, they 

 would thus double, treble, or quadruple the quantity they would otherwise 

 have manufactured. That this has been the case to somei considjprab'le 

 extent I am positively aware, as I could point to one instance in which 

 certain parties who would not otherwise have got out but a limited quan- 

 tity, but who were by this means forced into a business of half a million 

 feet or upwards. While, therefore, the rage for lumbering consequent upon 

 the large profits of 1844 and 1845, must be allowed to have been the main 

 cause of the over-production, these other causes aided very materially in 

 producing that result." 



In reply to the question — "Do you conceive that there is any danger 

 of a monopoly of licenses to cut timber on the waste lands of the Crown. 

 What means can be taken to prevent it?" Mr. Dawson said: — 



