126 ANNUAL REPORT OF 



of the soil. Pasture is not advisable where tree growth will furnish 

 a higher and safer revenue.- Has it never occurred to the men 

 framing this country's destiny, that on millions of acres embraced 

 in this country, tree growing might possibly be the most remuner- 

 ative industry? Is it not a function of government to see that 

 every acre of national soil be devoted to the most remunerative 

 production ? Have our governments, or rather we, the people ruling 

 this country, done our duty? Look at the millions of acres lying 

 absolutely unproductive' in almost every state of the Union. A few 

 decades of years ago they bore a growth, a growth of trees. Now 

 the barren appearance of the soil bears testimony of our economic 

 thoughtlessness. Private enterprise, after having m^e a clean 

 sweep of the primeval trees, did hot find it practicable to use the 

 soil for forestry or sylviculture, the only use to which it is adapted. 

 The bare land was neglected and cast aside. The govern\nental 

 land policy, when turning absolute forest land over to private en- 

 terprise, ought to have foreseen the consequences. It was wrong — 

 and it is wrong — as far as sections unfit for agriculture and for stock- 

 raising are concerned. It is deaf to the rhain demand of political 

 economy: " Do not allow a square foot of national soil to lie idle." 

 The small farm holdings occupying the 'better ground in such 

 artificial deserts, denuded from tree growth, look gloomy; the soil 

 is worn out; miserable roads and inadequate schools characterize 

 the region. Such unpleasant conditions are not the fnlit of poor 

 soil. They are the fruit of a preposterous use of poor soil. 



In European countries, poor soil is used for forestry. The in- 

 habitants of forest districts occupy small villages along the bottoms 

 of creeks and rivers; the little patch of farm land does not feed 

 the family. It is work in the fbrest on which the backwoodsman 

 chiefly makes his living. Abroad we find a strong, energetic popu- 

 lation in the forests, in spite of the poorness of the soil. In this 

 ^ountry we find in sections productive of forest, though ■•♦■destitute 

 of it, a population thriftless and discontented. 



There is nothing new in these observations. Every educated 

 American is aware of the facts. Our legislatures, however, have 

 not had time to consider the forestry question, which is perhaps 

 not as iitgent, but in my opinion more important, than the problems 

 of trusts and expansion. 



Minnesota's interest in forestry.^ 



For merely agricultural states, like Iowa and Ohio, where all 

 land is fit for farming, forestry is, of course, only a national matter. 



