36 
to the cutting off of the forest from localities where they could be replaced 
only with difficulty, if at all. 
Moreover forestry, at the best, is an industry of such peculiar char- 
acter that it is very doubtful iaaead whether, even under the most 
favorable conditions, it can ever attract the investment of private capi-_ 
tal to such an extent as to furnish forests of the necessary size and 
quality. It requires, in the first place, a large capital, which of course 
euts off most individuals from any hope of engaging init. It requires, 
moreover, the use of capital for a long time with no return aft all, and 
as most people prefer to risk their money where there is hope of large 
and quick profits rather than where there is certainty of no return for 
years to come (no matter how sure it may be in the long run), this still 
further limits the number of those who are willing to go into the busi- 
ness. It requires, moreover, a regular supply of highly trained labor 
for the efficient working of the forests, which it is difficult to get unless 
there are such schools as before need and a reasonably certain 
career for those who prepare themselves for such work. 
Another peculiarity of the business, viz, the great value of the stock 
on hand after the forest is fairly started, is a constant temptation to 
spendthrift owners to clear the ground at once, in order to realize im- 
mediately, and where land changes hands so rapidly as in this country 
there is of course great probability that it will sooner or later fall into 
the hands of such a man, who can do more damage in five years than 
a successor can make good in fifty. | 
All these considerations justify, on theoretical grounds, the éenelusiee 
to which our own experience points and which that of Europe absolutely 
demonstrates, viz, that we can not rely on private enterprise to conserve 
the interests of the public in this regard. On the other hand, there are 
comparatively few objections to Government ownership and manage- 
ment of forests on the ground of efficiency. The characteristics of the 
business coincide very closely with those which modern economists have 
enumerated as necessary to any business which Government should 
undertake. European experience, moreover, has fully demonstrated 
that Government management may be quite as efficient as the best pri- 
vate management. Indeed the state forests have become the models 
which private owners imitate, and they count themselves happy if they 
can equal them.* European Governments, after having to a very large 
* From recent reports in regard to the German forests it appears that in 1884 Baden, 
with a forest area of only 234,000 acres, had a net income of $578,000. Wurtemburg, 
with 476,000 acres, had a net income of $1,237,600. Saxony from her 403,000 acres of 
timber lands derived a net revenue of $1,588,325, while Prussia, with a large part of 
her forest area unproductive and undeveloped, shows a gross income from the State 
timber lands of more than $2 per acre. The net income from year to year of all the 
German forests—equal in area to the forests of New England, New York, and Penn- 
sylvania—is estimated at $57,000,000. This it must be understood is derived under the 
most conservative management, which harvests only what yearly grows and spends 
considerable sums for improvement of the crop and recuperation of waste areas. 

