102 FOREST VALUATION 



the land has been occupied and used for 28 years, and the question 

 arises : should the trespasser pay for a stand 20 years old or one 28 

 years old? Evidently the latter, at least in all cases of clear cutting. 

 In the shelter-woods where an old stand shares in the growth dur- 

 ing the 16 years in which the new stand is established, it may suffice 

 to charge for 20 years' growth. 



It is evident that this method of computing the value of the 

 stand lacks analysis and must always be defective especially with 

 young stands, where the computation of the regular cost value of 

 stand is much more satisfactory. 



f. The lumberman's case. 



Two years after the fire, claimedly caused by the locomotive 

 of a railway company, the lumber company sues the railway com- 

 pany and claims : Lumber company bought, merely as "permit" or 

 "license," from the Canadian province, 460 million feet stumpage, 

 it had cut three years and still owned 400 million feet, it has the right 

 to continue lumbering on the "timber limit" as long as there is any 

 timber; it pays 50 cents per M. feet "royalty," or stumpage ; it in- 

 vested $200,000 in mill, railway and equipment, and aimed to cut 

 the timber in next 20 years ; was making a profit of $2 per M. feet 

 in the business. The fire destroyed 200 million and so reduced the 

 cut by nearly 10 years, since most of the timber destroyed is not 

 yet accessible. 



The particular claim set forth: 



1. Lump sum to cover loss in manufacture of lumber and for 

 increased cost of logging due to reduction of total stand available 

 for the plant. 



2. Value of stumpage actually destroyed. 



3. Value of equipment, camps, railway bridges, etc., de- 

 stroyed. 



4. Logs and ties burned up. 



5. Value of young timber., not yet merchantable, destroyed. 



Among the questions which came up were the following: 



1. Is all dead timber on the area killed by the particular fire? 



2. Is all dead timber actually a loss, and if not how much has 

 been saved, how much could be saved, and at what gain ? 



3. What is the company's basis for claiming that it can make 

 $2 per M. feet, and how is this affected by future logging from more 

 remote portions of the tract? 



4. What effort did the company make to protect its logs and 

 equipment ? 



