FOREST DESTRUCTION. 5 
destruction. In our own country I doubt if a like sys- 
tem would work well. The government of the United 
States has never yet protected its forests, and I doubt if 
it ever will. Perhaps the better plan would be to turn 
over the whole question of forestry to the several states 
and territories of the Union. Timber growing on pub- 
lic lands is everywhere so generally considered as fair 
game that possibly the government cannot protect it. 
It did not, or could not, protect the live-oak woods of 
Florida intended for the use of the navy ; it did not pro- 
tect its forests in Michigan, Wisconsin, or Minnesota, and 
it is not to-day protecting its woods in Montana or Wash- 
ington Territories. The Congress either does not wish 
to be bothered with the subject of forestry or does not 
care about it. If it does not then desire to undertake 
it, will it not give it up and let the states and territories 
try their hand at forest-saving? We have one great 
belt of timber (the last in the United States) still unde- 
stroyed. This magnificent body lies in the Territories 
of Montana and Washington, and the State of Oregon. 
It would be a pity to wantonly destroy it, and I believe 
the people of the West and their legislatures would pro- 
tect it if it was transferred to them. At all events, is 
not the experiment worth trying in Washington Terri- 
tory, at least, where the great red-fir forests exist. I 
make the suggestion for what it is worth, not knowing 
if it would work well or not. Certain it is, the old sys- 
tem will not do, and, if continued, the destruction of tim- 
ber will go on increasing with the lapse of years, until 
the whole country is depleted of its woodlands, and vast 
sections rendered hopelessly barren and sterile. 
