HOSTILITY TO NATIONAL FORESTS 289 



THE TIMBER SALE POLICY OF THE FOREST SERVICE 

 The receipts from timber sales could perhaps be augmented, but in 

 considering this possibility, it is necessary to go briefly into the ques- 

 tion of the timber sale policy of the government, for this has long been 

 the object of severe criticism and, perhaps strangely, on diametrically 

 opposite grounds. Some critics have asserted that the price charged 

 by the government was too high, while others, although not so many, 

 have charged that the price was too low. 



With the increase in lumber prices since 1897, it was inevitable that 

 many people should suspect the working of a lumber trust and that 

 they should wonder why the government did not at least try to keep 

 prices down, by selling its own timber at a price somewhat below those 

 established by the so-called "lumber trust." The charge has often been 

 made that the government not only did not undersell the "trust," but 

 actually established a price somewhat higher than that of private own- 

 ers in the same vicinity. E. M. Ammons, later governor of Colorado, 

 criticised the Forest Service for its method of selling timber to the 

 highest bidder, and charged that the "lumber trust" bid just high 

 enough to get it, and then added correspondingly to the consumer's 

 price. Senator Heyburn called attention to a conference between the 

 forestry officials and the lumber operators to fix a scale of prices, and 

 asserted that the Forest Service had increased prices 100 per cent. 

 Representative Humphrey of Washington charged the Forest Ser- 

 vice with being largely responsible for the timber "monopoly" in the 

 West, and alleged that the big "interests" — Frederick Weyerhaeuser, 

 J. J. Hill, and others — were among the most prominent influences in 

 the conservation movement. He asserted that the "so-called forest- 

 conservation movement" had "operated solely to bull the lumber and 

 timber market."^^ 



Much of the complaint regarding the high price set by the govern- 

 ment on its timber was not made in any spirit of sincerity. Men who 

 disliked the system anyhow found here a good line of attack — one 

 which would make a strong bid for popular support. This is clearly 

 indicated by the following extract from a confidential letter which the 



i^Conff. Rec, May 19, 1910, 6527; May 16, 1912, 6545; Mar. 10, 1914, 4621, 

 4628; Mar. 12, 1914, 4759, 4760; June 2, 1913, 1865; Apr. 18, 1916, 6388: H, Res. 

 114; 63 Cong. 1 sess. 



