because the yield of lumber would still depend on xiho sawed the logs and 

 howo It would not eliminate the perennial disputes on overrun except by 

 substituting disputes on under run* It would not be fair to log haulers 

 who are concerned with the cubical contents (weight) they carry a It 

 would not be applicable to the use of industries such as pulp mills itfhieh 

 are concerned with the amount of wood in a log and not the volume of inch 

 boards a sai-mill might obtain s It would not be as fair as a cubic-foot 

 rule to employees who are paid on a "per thousand piecework basis,, It 

 would not be equally accurate for all species because some are utilized 

 more closely than others 5 even in the same sawmill It would not eliminate 

 the pressure brought upon scalers^ in iniquitous ways or otherwise^, to scale 

 toward a certain overrun It would not be suitable for scientific purposes „ 

 In addition s it probably would not be consistent for all sizes of logs but^ 

 like the present-day rules*, show different overruns or underruns for 

 different log sizes e Also 5 it j^rjobabl^ would not be of permanent value 

 but become obsolete just as other log rules have become so c Such obsol- 

 escence is caused mainly by (1) changes in machinery or manufacturing 

 practice and' (2) changes in utilization which are brought about as business 

 conditions change from good to bad,, from bad to worse s or vice versa c 



RMSONS FQR_GUBIC-FOOT LOG S CALING 



Many difficulties which attend the use of log rules in log scaling are 

 susceptible of elimination by the adoption of a unit of measure such as 

 the cubic foot The logic of measuring a commodity such as wood in terms 

 of its actual volume by the use of a unit which has the same size today as 

 tomorrow^, for a small log as a large s and the same size in Montana as in 

 Maine or California., can scarcely be disputed c Logs would be sold on the 

 basis of the wood contained therein^ and whether they are made into inch 

 boards ^ mine timbers a ties,, shingles*, excelsior P pulp chips*, or cord wood 

 is the prerogative of the purchaser No assumptions as to certain products 

 nor as to the intensity of manufacture need be made in cubic-foot sealing© 



Because the cubic foot is a simple , 5 clearly defined unit of measure which 

 everyone understands and which has the same size at all times and at all 

 placesp it is universally applicable to measuring logs of all sizes and 

 species,, logs in transit 5 logs in the markets or logs in any stage of 

 handling^ as well as standing trees© Converting cubic feet of logs to 

 other classes of products (board feet of lumber 5 units of pulp chips etc 8 ) 

 usually involves less conjecture than is the case in converting board feet 

 log scale to these products © That the cubic foot measures the amount of 

 wood in a log is 5 of course, indisputable e This makes it peculiarly adapted 

 to industries which use wood in one form or another but do not produce lumber© 



In using the cubic foot there need be no assumptions as to products to be 

 manufactured nor as to the intensity of utilizations, What can be fairer? 

 Why should it be assumed*, as is done by board-foot log rulesj, that 1-inch 

 boards are the final product and that they will be manufactured in accord- 

 ance with, practices which were often obsolete at the time of the Spanish- 

 American l '*ar? It is probably true that over three-fourths of the lumber 

 sold in the United States is thicker or thinner than 1-inch There probably 



