CHAPTER XI 



RESULTS OF OUR FOREST POLICY: CONCENTRATION IN 

 THE OWNERSHIP OF STANDING TIMBER 



The unfortunate results flowing from our unwise forest policy have 

 been pointed out in various connections throughout the preceding 

 chapters ; but it will be appropriate at this point to consider these 

 results in somewhat greater detail. They may be briefly summarized 

 as follows: In the first place, almost all the standing timber of the 

 country has gravitated into the hands of a relatively few holders ; in 

 the second place, on the basis of this concentration of ownership of 

 timber, a certain unity of control has developed in the lumber indus- 

 try, which, though of no very serious importance in the past, may 

 hold a threat of future difficulty ; in the third place, private owner- 

 ship of standing timber has proved unfortunate, even for the lumber- 

 men themselves. Carrying charges on standing timber have been so 

 heavy in some instances as to force cutting regardless of price, and 

 the consequent demoralization of the market has meant that many 

 producers must sell below actual cost of production. In the fourth 

 place, lumbering in the United States has always been characterized 

 by extravagant wastes ; and in the fifth place, few lumbermen have 

 made any effort to reforest cut-over lands. 



During the past forty years or more, various government officials 

 and others have pointed out repeatedly that the timber lands were 

 going rapidly into the hands of a few timbermen and speculators. 

 Most thoughtful students of the question have realized that such a 

 process was going on ; but the full extent to which the concentration 

 of ownership had proceeded was not clearly understood until recently. 

 In 1913, the Bureau of Corporations, after several years of investi- 

 gation of the most important timber regions in the country, published 

 the first part of its "Report on the Lumber Industry" ; and this report 

 brought the situation clearly before the public.^ 



iH. Res. 652, S. Res. 189; Cong. Rec, Dec. 13, 1906, 352; Jan. 18, 1907, 1330- 



