Table 2. — Cut of hardwood lumber^ by States, 1899 — 1906. 



states and Territories. 



Alabama 



Arkansas 



California 



Colorado 



Connecticut 



Delaware 



Florida 



Georgia 



Idaho 



Illinois 



Indiana 



Indian Territory- 

 Iowa 



Kansas 



Kentucky 



Louisiana 



Maine , 



Maryland 



Massachusetts... 



Michigan 



Minnesota 



Mississippi 



Missouri 



Montana 



New Hampshire 



1899. 



Thousand 



hoard feet. 



105, 491 



444, 102 



539 



75 



77, 594 



6,319 



2,200 



42, 799 



250, 361 



975, 779 



9, 378 



61,028 



734, 386 

 72, 198 

 28, 730 

 77, 581 

 42, 147 



811, 649 

 61,956 



207,322 



442, 236 



1,300 



23, 468 



1906. 



Thousand 



board feet. 



66,409 



628, 970 



280 



2,035 



86, 949 



8,290 



2,299 



47,510 



3,383 



127, 269 



446,448 



20, 141 



19, 451 



170 



615,256 



102, 684 



73, 156 



109, 523 



62, 270 



783, 241 



29,071 



286, 168 



314,093 



5,084 



69, 709 



States and Territories. 



New Jersey 



New York 



North Carolina 



North Dakota 



Ohio 



Oklahoma 



Oregon 



Pennsylvania 



Rhode Island 



South Carolina 



South Dakota 



Tennessee 



Texas 



Utah 



Vermont 



Virginia 



Washington 



West Virginia 



Wisconsin 



Wyoming 



Arizona, Nevada, New 



Mexico 



Nebraska 



Total. 



Thousand 



hoard feet. 



31,871 



207, 226 



145, 657 



2,030 



918, 231 



6,065 



2, 529 



520, 162 



3,988 



17,483 



558 



861, 874 



38, 056 



50,423 



239, 860 



5,703 



570, 208 



519,031 



14,428 



8, 634, 021 



1906. 



Thousand 

 hoard feet. 

 18, 666 

 279, 601 

 227,568 



432, 802 



1,043 



6,971 



620, 162 



7,890 



18, 232 



100 



535,115 



20, 689 



71 



103, 373 



267, 196 



785 



661, 588 



513, 561 



220 



7, 315, 491 



This table is convincing as to tv^o things: First, the supply in 

 Indiana and Ohio, the original center of hardwood production, is 

 practically exhausted; second, the cut is nov^ widely distributed and 

 is heavy in every State where there are even small bodies of hard- 

 woods. 



Together with Illinois, Ohio and Indiana produced 25 per cent 

 of the hardwood in 1899. In 1906 they produced only 14 per cent. 

 They can never regain their lead, or even maintain the standing 

 they have. Their many wood -using establishments, which are now 

 hard pressed for supplies, will exhaust their remaining remnants 

 within a few years. The land which bore this timber, as fast as it was 

 cleared, was turned to agricultural use, for which most of it is well 

 suited. The improved farm lands of Indiana increased 10.4 per cent 

 between 1890 and 1900; those of Ohio, 4.9 per cent. In both States 

 there is some waste land which will continue in timber and turn out 

 local supplies, but not enough to have any considerable effect on the 

 country's hardwood supply. 



States not thought of in former years for their hardwoods are now 

 turning out considerable quantities. Maine, with a cut of 29 million 

 feet in 1899, went to 73 million in 1906 ; New Hampshire turned out 

 60 million in 1906 as against 23 million in 1899. Even Oregon, Mon- 

 tana, and other Western States came into the list with unexpected 

 amounts. In all of the States west of the Mississippi Valley the 

 supply is small and can never become much of a factor. 



[Cir. 116] 



