286 FORESTS, RESERVOIRS, AND STREAM FLOW 
but does it not find its way into common use just the same? Not as 
completely, perhaps, but still substantially the same. Take the com- 
bination of the Weyerhauser Timber Company, considered entirely 
apart from its economic and ethical aspects as a great trust or cor- 
poration, and solely as a preserver of our forests. With its system of 
fire control, its policy of holding its timber for high prices, is it not 
really conserving the timber for future use? To speak of such timber 
as being “lost” to the people, “wasted,” and its acquisition as a 
“looting of our heritage,” is as disingenuous as it is untrue. Will its 
lumber cost the consumer a cent more per thousand than if it were 
‘from a Government reserve? It is a wholly gratuitous assumption 
that our timber is going to be “wasted” unless it is placed under 
Government control. The thing of prime importance is to get new 
forests started. In the 30 to 50 years that our present supply will 
last, new forests should be brought into existence all over the country. 
This is far more important than to buy the virgin timber of the 
Appalachians, 
Moreover, it seems now to be considered that the virgin lands 
have already risen too high in price to be purchased by the Govern- 
ment, and that it is only the second-growth lands that can be economic- 
ally acquired.* Be that as it may, it is certain that the acquisition of 
such of these lands as are desirable for the strict purposes of timber 
production will be greatly facilitated by disabusing the minds of the 
owners of the impression so diligently fostered of late that the very 
salvation of the country depends upon their selling out to the Gov- 
ernment. Can anyone doubt that the present course will add vastly 
to the purchase price? 
Still another argument that may be urged is that only by linking 
the forests with the rivers in a way to establish their utility in main- 
taining navigation can the constitutional objection to the acquisition 
of these lands be overcome. But does this apply to mountain forests 
more than to any others? It is incontestably true that whatever 
restraining effect forests have upon run-off is greater upon the low- 
lands than upon steep mountain sides. This legal feature of the 
question will be referred to farther on. 
*Report of Secretary of Agriculture on Southern Appalachi - 
tain water-shed, December, 1907, pp. 8, 30, 35. eee ee ane 
