34 THE STATE IN RELATION TO FORESTRY. 



(2) That the State cannot manage forests as profitably as 



private persons. 



(3) That State domains act injuriously, because they interfere 



vdih the development of industries and reduce the 

 opportunity for paying enterprise on the part of private 

 persons. 

 These arguments possess, no doubt, some weight, but much can 

 be said on the other side. As regards the first argument, a great 

 change has taken place during recent years : the State is now- 

 called upon to interfere in so many directions with commercial 

 matters that the addition of forestry cannot make much difference, 

 if any. As regards the second point, there are many cases to 

 prove that the State has managed forests as profitably, and even 

 more so, as private proprietors. With reference to the third 

 objection, it must be pointed out that the objects of the two 

 parties differ. In economic forestry the object of the private 

 proprietor centres generally in the realisation of the greatest 

 profit ; the State, on the other hand, considers the interests of 

 the community as a whole. It has to take note of other require- 

 ments besides pure financial results, such as the production of a 

 special class of material or the reaUsation of indirect effects of 

 forests. Again, forest crops take a long time to mature, and 

 continuity of action is an essential matter in economic forestry. 

 This can, in the majority of cases, be secured only by the State ; 

 it must make sure that a sufficient quantity of produce of the 

 required kind is provided, and in many cases from the smallest 

 possible area, so as not to interfere with the production of food 

 or with the utiHsation of land for other important purposes. 

 Again, forestry can be profitable only if conducted on a fairly 

 large scale, which requires a large capital, such as is not always 

 at the disposal of private persons. It is essential for the produc- 

 tion of a steady, lasting supply, without which no regular market 

 can be secured. It may also happen that in the case of emergen- 

 cies, as happened during the late war, the necessary requirements 

 of timber for the conduct of the war, for construction and indus- 

 tries, especially for coal mines, are not forthcoming. In such 

 cases State forests represent a reserve which can be drawn upon. 

 In summing up, it may be said that, on the one hand, not all 

 forests need be State property, and, on the other hand, that, in 



