36 



to tl)e cutting off of the forest from localities where they could be replaced 

 only with difficulty, if at all. 



Moreover forestry, at the best, is au industry of such i^eculiar char- 

 acter that it is very doubtful indeed 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 i)lace, a large capital, which of course 

 cuts off most individuals from any hope of engaging in it. It requires, 

 moreover, the use of capital for a long time with no return at 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 mentioned 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 conclusion 

 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, 

 Avith 476,000 acres, had a net income of 237,600. Saxony from her 408,000 acres of 

 limber 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 X)e understood is derived under the 

 most conservative management, which harvests only what yearly grows and spends 

 considerable suras fax improvement of the crop and recuperation of waste areas, 



