Canadian Forcslrii Journal, May, ntlS 



1693 



experience a return lo unregulaeed 

 industry and to the Nvastefiil com- 

 petitive system, at least in part. But 

 Nvhile this reaction may take place 

 in directions of temporary character, 

 there are other directions in which 

 Government control will have shown 

 itself so superior as to suggest its con- 

 tinuation. May we not expect that 

 if these activities are successfully car- 

 ried on there will be arguments de- 

 veloped for carrying on at least sonw 

 of them beyond the war? 



The control of public utilities has 

 been under discussion long before the 

 war, and now we shall gain experience 

 as to how efficiently the Government 

 can manage enterprises such as rail- 

 roads, shipping, munition work, 

 mines, not to mention the food con- 

 trol and control of profits. 



Before the war it would have been 

 by most statesmen considered Uto- 

 pian to undertake to regulate, as we 

 do now, production, distribution, and 

 even consumption. Now, we at- 

 tempt all these things, cutting out 

 competition as a factor in regulating 

 prices and substituting a co-operative 

 system. Are we bound to return to 

 the wasteful system of competition? 

 Or shall we have learned that, at 

 least as far as the natural resources 

 that are exhaustible are concerned, 

 communal management is the only 

 rational method. 



There is no doubt that the war and 

 its incidental requirements have forc- 

 ed us into abandoning at least tem- 

 porarily long-cherished theories of in- 

 dividual rersLis communal functions: 

 and the opportunity for making the 

 change permanent, for making radi- 

 cal changes in industrial and economic 

 conditions after the war, will never 

 be better, provided the opportunity 

 is seized immediately and the pendu- 

 lum is not allowed to swing back too 

 far. 



\V7// Competition Lessen'l 



For many of the Government ac- 

 tivities which the war has developed 

 convincing arguments can be brought 

 forward in favor of abandoning them 

 to more or less, unrestricted private 

 enterprise after the exigencies of the 

 war, which called them into existence, 



have ceased: but we may assume that 

 the general attitude favorable to an 

 extension of Government functions 

 will remain and the piif)lic interest 

 will more than heretofore be consid- 

 ered in the new adjustments. 



Can we not make use of this al- 

 titude in furthering the public inter- 

 ests in our own special business — the 

 conservative use and management 

 of our forest resources? Is "it not 

 timely to point out that, if anywhere,, 

 in the handling of these resources 

 communal interest is paramount and 

 calls for Government control? 



The arguments for such State con- 

 trol are familiar to you. The>' may 

 be summed up in one sentence, name- 

 ly, that forestry — the management of 

 forests for continued production — is 

 not attractive business for private 

 enterprise for various reasons. 



At any rate, the idea of using our 

 forest resources so as to produce" con- 

 tinuous wood crops has so far gained 

 little acceptance in America — none at 

 all among the holders of the bulk of 

 our remaining standing timber. In- 

 deed, we may agree with Coolidge's 

 statement, that "individual ownership 

 has proved eminently uneconomical, 

 and even destructive of the permanent 

 productivity'' of their lands. He 

 does not, however, draw the proper 

 conclusion when declaring that ""there 

 is no economic necessity for State pro- 

 duction of timber." 



Xor do we agree with Professor 

 Toumey, who also pins his hope on 

 private ownership, although admit- 

 ting that "'it is far more important to 

 the nation that the second growth be 

 adequately safeguarded than it is to 

 the individual." 



Profits too Far Distant 



He proposes "'by liberal tax laws 

 and technical assistance to help the 

 private owner to attain a protected 

 reproduction, etc." 



\ye, on the other hand, do not 

 believe that there can be enough in- 

 centive created by these means for 

 private forestry. 



In vain have we striven for decades 

 to interest the lumberman and tim- 

 berland owner in a more conservative 



