not withdrawn that it makes but little difference at this 

 late day. 



The timber land should not have been sold or title passed 

 fi-om the Government to any one. The timber should have 

 gone direct in suitably large tracts, to those who intended to 

 hold and use it in supplying the public demand for lumber. 

 This would have been more appropriate and served better 

 purpose for the public. It was the intention that this method 

 of disposing of the timber should be only an indirect way 

 of furnishing the lumberman with timber from which to 

 supply the public with the necessary commodity of lumber. 

 This roundabout method made higher costs of stumpage and 

 heavier carrying charges of interest and taxes, and also 

 prohibited' securing consolidated holdings and cheaper log- 

 ging and driving. It originated more from a prejudice 

 against a presumed monopoly which was anticipated if the 

 timber was placed directly in the ownership of lumber manu- 

 facturers at a minimum price and in large consolidated hold- 

 ings. These facts have also been emphasized by the re- 

 fusal to give to lumber a tariff approximating that given to 

 other products, although, in this case, the foreign com- 

 IDetitors had greater advantages in supplying our market 

 at much lower prices than other manufacturers had to con- 

 tend with. 



Over-supply and ovei--consumption have had a chronic 

 existence excepting only in short periods. Upper grades 

 have always been in demand at good prices. The greater 

 the amount of upper grades cut the more the prices would 

 be advanced, and the smaller the aggregate amount pro- 

 duced the easier it would be to maintain prices. 



These facts and conditions, more fully stated in the brief 

 presented to the Ways and Means Committee, are the essen- 

 tial factors that have been and are still more or less responsi- 

 ble for the continued waste of our forests. 



