PRIVATE FORESTS. 37 



Forests belonging to endowment funds, universities, &c., are 

 in some countries treated as communal and in others as private 

 forests. 



4. Private Forests. 



The question whether private forests should be subject to State 

 supervision, and if so, to what extent, has been much discussed. 

 It is said that amongst the general duties of the State is included 

 the obhgation of seeing that articles necessary for the welfare of 

 the people are forthcoming, and that the forests are suitably 

 distributed over the country. Wood, it is said, is an important 

 article of consumption which is absolutely necessary. Private 

 persons, it is argued, cannot estimate the total requirements of 

 the country, nor arrange the management of the forests accord- 

 ingly. It is further said that the economic means of private 

 persons are not sufficient to meet the case, and that such persons 

 frequently have not the necessary knowledge for conducting a 

 systematic management. Moreover, the returns of forestry occur 

 so late that he who sows rarely reaps ; hence, private owners are 

 incHned to favour their own momentary interests to the disad- 

 vantage of future generations by over-cutting their forests. The 

 consequence might be overstocking of the market at one time 

 and a deficiency at others. All this tends towards the conclusion 

 that State supervision may be necessary. 



The argument on the other side is somewhat on the following 

 Hnes : " There is no reason to consider the forest industry as differ- 

 ing from other industries ; the best guarantee for a reasonable 

 management is the prospect of an adequate profit. Should an 

 owner not be able to reaUse that, the forests would be sure to pass 

 into more capable hands. The supply of forest produce would be 

 regulated by the demand, and prices established accordingly. 

 The fear of a wood famine is unnecessary, because it would not 

 come suddenly, so that it could be met in time. [The fallacy of 

 this argument has been proved by the late war, and similar 

 emergencies may occur again.] State supervision is mischievous, 

 because even the State is not always able to determine future 

 requirements. As a consequence, State interference in this 

 direction is liable to be harsh and unjust ; it destroys the desire 

 of private owners to take up forestry. Instead of obstructing 

 private forestry in this manner, the State should stimulate it by 



